Egypt's Third Intermediate and Late Period: A Time of Transition and Transformation
Moving back down to Egypt in this study of Social Time during the Iron Age, a move from the Twentieth Dynasty, the last half of the Ramesside Period, to the Third Intermediate Period is witnessed. During the Ramesside Period of the New Kingdom, Egypt repelled a Libyan invasion (Gilbert 2008: 52), yet Libyans still found their way into Egypt and ultimately became the kings of the Twenty-Second, Twenty-Third, and Twenty-Fourth Dynasties (Bard 2015: 286). By the end of the New Kingdom, Egyptian kings lost their desire for expansion (Xekalaki 2021: 3946).
Even with this desire to seclude themselves, the ideal of peace through victory included essential elements of loyal foreigners (Kemp 2006: 43) and Egypt became much more pluralistic at this time than at any point previously (Xekalaki 2021: 3945). The three great periods of Egyptian history, the Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, and New Kingdom, had ended, and all that remained was a time of greater instability with periodical stability.
Third Intermediate.
The Third Intermediate Period represents the final of the three “intermediate” or lesser periods of Egyptian history, extending from Dynasty 21 through Dynasty 25 (Szafrański 2015: 183). As with the previous two intermediate periods, the region was marred by division and unrest (Morenz and Popko 2010: 119), as evidenced by the general lack of archaeological material, though to be fair later rulers did appropriate many of the period’s monuments (Bard 2015: 286).
It should be noted that although approximate dates are given in this study, the historical framework of the Third Intermediate Period is more difficult to establish than any other period in Egyptian history (Bennett 2019: 4). Still, this chapter of Egyptian history began a phase of observable changes in both art and culture that lasted throughout the remainder of the final millennium before Christ (Allen and Hill 2000).
Stage 1: The Twenty-First Dynasty (1079-944)
The Third Intermediate Period is understood in multiple ways, including three distinct cultural phases (Aston 2005: 65), the Egyptian, Libyan, and Nubian, but perhaps a better dissection comes in four stages, the first stage being represented by the Twenty-First Dynasty (Allen and Hill 2000) when power split between the kings and the priests of Amun. After rebellion at Thebes whereby the High Priest of Amun was replaced (Yurco 2005: 295), the Ramesside Period ended and two Theban High Priests laid the foundation of the Twenty-First Dynasty, Piankh and Herihor, before Smendes I became the first king of that dynasty (Bennett 2019: 5), officially succeeding Ramesses XI (Dodson 2012: 21), the last king of the New Kingdom whose reign ended only a few years before at ca. 1079 B.C. (Bennett 2019: xvii).
The Twenty-First Dynasty is actually understood as two separate lists of rulers (Bennett 2019: xvii-xviii), one in the north and the other in the south, yet comprising a theoretically unified state (Aston 2005: 65). These are known as the dynasty of kings from Tanis in the Delta region, sometimes called Tanite Pharaohs, and a dynasty of the High Priests of Amun who were types of warrior priests from Thebes (Bennett 2019: xviii). The Theban priests recognized the Twenty-First Dynasty kings in the north, but they established a border and even built fortresses to protect Theban independence, which had been sanctioned by the Theban gods (Bard 2015: 287) through the use of oracles.
The growth of priestly power began as early as the New Kingdom when Egyptian kings used the priesthood as a political crutch, as in the case of Hatshepsut who held the religious position of “God’s Wife of Amun,” a title linked with Amun and his city of Thebes (Robins 1983: 66), utilizing her knowledge of temple politics for the sanctioning of her and her nephew’s reigns before advancing to the throne (Stevens 2018: 9). After Ramesses III, Egypt went through a period of a rapid succession of kings which destabilized the state; from Ramesses III to Ramesses IX, only three high priests of Amun held office, allowing for a growing stability in the region where the High Priests held more and more power in a world where kings came and went (Bayoumy 2021: 36). By the collapse of the New Kingdom, the High Priest of Amun, likely worried of further instability, retained power over the southern portion of the kingdom.
In the north, Tanite kings physically moved the capital to Tanis, specifically, monuments from the Nineteen Dynasty capital of Pi-Ramessess were moved block by block to the new capital (Bard 2005: 3) rather than creating new monuments, which may speak to the economic instability in the northern region. Further evidence comes from the fictional Tale of Wenamen, an agent of the temple of Amun at Karnak who, on his way to Byblos, was robbed and denied the political respect of a foreign dignitary upon reaching the city, the fear of Egypt no longer holding the power that it once held (Bard 2015: 287).
Stage 2: The Twenty-Second Dynasty (943-733 B.C.)
From around the thirteenth century onward, Libyan migrants had been slowly infiltrating the western Delta region, and not always in a peaceful manner; no doubt, these peoples were driven to Egypt for much the same reasons as others, namely famine, drought, and a desire for more (Aston 2005: 65). The rather large number of Libyans in the Delta caused political and social changes as Libyan cultural and social influences were introduced (Bennett 2019: xiii). Libyans became such a part of the Egyptian community that some of the kings of the Twenty-First Dynasty were of Libyan descent (Bard 2015: 39), but it is the Twenty-Second and Twenty-Third Dynasties that is known as the Libyan Period (Aston 2005: 65). The collapse of the Twenty-First Dynasty and the rise of Libyan rulership may have been due, at least partially, to a cataclysmic earthquake in the region (Szafrański 2015: 183), but this is unsure.
Much of the Twenty-Second through the Twenty-Fourth Dynasties overlap with one another, causing the chronology to become quite unclear (Bard 2015: 287), but the first king of the Twenty-Second Dynasty is well understood to be Shoshenq I (Bennett 2019: 7), a nephew of Osorkon the Elder who was a Twenty-First Dynasty king (Dodson 2012: 27). Of note, Shoshenq I is said to have been a High Priest of Amun (Stevens 2018: 351), possibly correcting the division of the previous dynasty, and is known from his stela fragment in the Southern Levant (Weinstein 2005: 534) and from his multiple mentions in the Biblical text, where he is referred to as Shishak (cf. I Kings 14:25, 26; 2 Chronicles 12:7).
During the previous dynasty, as is seen in other eras of scarcity, monuments were often recommodified and reused so that the king could perpetuate elaborate funerary rites (Stevens and Cooney 2015: 42) or build palaces (Bard 2005: 3). In fact, the Twenty-First Dynasty overwhelmingly reused coffins from earlier periods (Stevens 2018: 359). Conversely, Shoshenq I resumed monumental construction work (Dodson 2012: 27), reinstating the New Kingdom grand tradition of temple expansion (Sullivan 2010: 17). Shoshenq I would go on to construct the large Bubastite Portal (Sullivan 2010: 17), a rather grandiose forecourt and pylon interposed between two older constructions (Dodson 2012: 26) and where the successful campaign against the Israelite nations are recorded (Bard 2015: 289), though this was left unfinished (Sullivan 2010: 17).
Stage 3: Twenty-Third, Twenty-Fourth Dyns. (747-664 B.C.)
Shoshenq I was able to impose a unity in Egypt through the manipulation of appointed officials throughout the kingdom (Aston 2005: 65), but the strong central authority that Shoshenq I had created during his reign splintered under his successors (Adams 2011: 21). When the kings of the Twenty-Second Dynasty attempted to assert control over the entirety of Egypt, local rulers asserted their own authority in the Delta (Bard 2015: 39), causing continued unrest. By the time of Shoshenq II, the Twenty-Third Dynasty had formed as an independent polity in the Nile Delta (Bard 2015: 289).
Understanding the history of the Twenty-Third Dynasty is difficult as the period is not well understood (Adams 2011: 21), and the king’s list written by Manetho, the later Hellenistic historian and priest, is almost completely useless as some of his kings do not appear to exist, others cannot be identified, and at least one of the events noted appears to have been invented much later in history (Jansen-Winkeln 2006: 247). Ultimately, Thebes began to recognize their own pharaoh, forming the “Theban” Twenty-Third Dynasty, and later, the cities of Sais and Leontopolis formed their own monarchies, Sais representing the Twenty-Fourth Dynasty and the latter forming the Leontopolis Twenty-Third Dynasty (Aston 2005: 65). In fact, it may be better to understand both the Twenty-Third and Twenty-Fourth Dynasties as rival factions rather than ruling dynasties, especially as the latter consists of simply two rulers spanning a mere thirteen years (Bennett 2019: xix).
Stage 4: The Twenty-Fifth Dynasty (747-656 B.C.)
The final dynasty of the Egyptian Third Intermediate Period represented a major shift in leadership away from Libyan rulers to Kushite, perhaps better known as Nubian (Larson 2006: viii), rule, a period that would eventually bring the plurality of Intermediate Period monarchs to an end (Aston 2005: 65). Of course, this Nubian kingdom has as its roots in its own kingdom of Nubia, a region historically located between the First and Sixth Cataracts along the Nile River, a cataract being a shallow, rocky, and sometimes whitewater areas of the river (Larson 2006: vii).
During the New Kingdom, northern Nubia was occupied Egyptian territory, up to the Fourth Cataract, and again later by a Theban king during the Twenty-Third Theban Dynasty, resulting in a thoroughly Egyptianized Nubian people (Bennett 2019: 8). Nubian rule lasted from ca. 772-656 B.C. (Larson 2006: vii), and although the appearance of stability may lead one to place the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty outside of the Third Intermediate Period, this was a rather thinly veiled and superficial unity (Bennett 2019: 4).
Of note, the ideology of the acculturated Egyptian Nubians at the time was centered on Egyptian imperial beliefs about Amun (Adams 2011: 29), beliefs that appeared to have died out in Egypt with the end of the New Kingdom (Redford 2005: 64). Believing these old beliefs to be of utmost importance, within the first ten years of his reign, Piye, the first king of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, claimed to be the protector and king of Thebes (Bennett 2019: 8), the city of Amun (Robins 1983: 66), and therefore the ideological heir to the Egyptian throne.
Tefnakhte, a warrior chief at Sais who formed a coalition of war chiefs in the Delta (Leahy 2005: 537) and may had been the “king of Egypt” referred to in 2 Kings 17:4 (Dever 2005: 460), began rapidly to push southward in opposition to what was perceived as the Nubian threat (Leahy 2005: 537), Piye expeded northward to confront the coalition (Dodson 2012: 23), defeating the Libyan kings and chieftains (Leahy 2005: 537). After the victory, the Nubian king submitted himself as a worshipper of the Egyptian pantheon, demanding that his troops both respect and watch over the temples and festive celebrations (Leclant 2005: 512).
Under the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, Egypt was superficially united under Nubian rule (Bard 2015: 286), but the kingdom was still fragmented, and the Kushite kings were contented to leave the political fragmentation (Leahy 2005: 537). Of interest, an army of Nubians and Egyptians was sent to the Southern Levant at this time in support of Hezekiah, king of Judah, saving the Jewish kingdom (Bard 2015: 289). Some years later, the Assyrians would retaliate, ultimately forcing the Kushite king back into Nubia (Sabban, Abd el-Motaal, and Moustafa 2020: 82) and bringing an end to the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty.
Late Period.
The Late Period of Egypt covers the final dynasties of ancient Egyptian history, Dynasties Twenty-Six through Thirty, ending Egyptian dominance in the region for good. For the purpose of this study, only the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty is of importance, the Twenty-Seventh Dynasty representing an introduction to Persian dominance in the Levant and Egypt (Bard 2015: 291).
Sais, the city of the lonely Twenty-Fourth Dynasty of which Tefnakhte, the war chief noted above, was the first ruler (Bennett 2019: xix), would become the center of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, beginning with Psammetik I (Bennett 2019: 11). The Saites controlled the western Delta, after receiving the support of the Assyrians who had driven the Kushite Twenty-Fifth dynast back into Nubia (Johnson 2005: 70).
The Twenty-Sixth Dynasty begins the time in which Egypt becomes fixed to the Persian, Greek, and Roman chronologies (Bierbrier 2006: 44), and the Twenty-Sixth through Twenty-Seventh Dynasties are sometimes referred to as the Saite-Persian Period (Leblanc 2005: 1021). Perhaps due to cultural contact, at this time, a demotic language and script came into use (Bard 2015: 30), a language simply called Demotic and existing as a type of common, spoken language turned into a written language, as opposed to the more classical and archaic Egyptian (Johnson 2000: 1). This linguistic change acts as just one more evidence of the changing society that from that point on would never again hold the same power and influence as it once did. Interestingly, Ezekiel 29:15 also notes that Egypt would never again rule over other nations.
Check out the Bible Land Explorer!
[This is a lecture written for the course 'HIST 262: History of the Ancient Near East,' taught Fall 2023 at God's Bible School and College, a regionally accredited College in Cincinnati, Ohio. Bibliographical material will be posted under Research on this site.]
Comments