The arrival of the Libyan peoples in Egypt was a relatively subtle process of migration and settlement. The elements that infiltrated the Egyptian ruling class retained elements of their ethnicity but became, to an extent, Egyptian themselves.
The coming of Kushite rule was, by contrast, utterly momentous. Although their arrival was swift, and their people seem not to have settled in Egypt in such large numbers as the Libyans had before them, their society was already highly Egyptian-ized; it was quite natural that on arrival in Egypt they would continue to embrace the traditional signifiers of Egyptian culture - language, script, and religious beliefs and practices - and to devote resources to monumental construction at traditional sites of worship. Furthermore, the phenomenon of archaism, which is much in evidence during the period of their rule in Egypt, is evidence of their desire to associate with a classical Egypt.
In Egypt, both the Libyans and Nubians could be regarded as culturally, if not ethnically, Egyptian. This calls into question the use of the terms ‘‘Libyan’’ and ‘‘Kushite’’ to describe the periods in question. The first is highly apposite in that the distinctive features of the ‘‘Libyan Period’’ such as political fragmentation, the reduction in the status of the king, and the change to burial practices, can be attributed to the influx of non-Egyptian migrants who settled in great numbers across large areas of the country. The effects were felt throughout Egyptian society. Cultural, as opposed to top-level, political changes are often very subtle: they are not always clearly manifest in the available evidence, often do not occur uniformly throughout the country, and are not usually marked by momentous events in the same way that political changes often are. It is not possible to speak of the ‘‘Libyan period’’ as having begun at any precise point; assessed on the basis of Manetho’s dynastic lists the Libyan Period might be thought to have begun with the accession of Shoshenq I, founder of a line of kings who were manifestly of Libyan origin. However, there is enough evidence of the features described above from the end of the New Kingdom onwards for it to applied to the Twenty-first Dynasty as well. That this is appropriate is confirmed by the presence of a king Osorkon (‘‘the Elder’’) in the main line of Delta kings from this period. On the other hand, the label ‘‘Kushite period’’ reflects a purely ‘‘top-down’’ approach to history, deriving simply from the ethnicity of the Pharaohs of the time. There is no reason to suggest that the Libyan element of the population had been removed - a Great Chief of the Meshwesh is known to have been active in the middle of the reign of Psamtik I (Ritner 1990b: 101-8), although presumably, in some aspects, they had become more and more acculturated with each generation. The political fragmentation which characterized the Libyan period remained in place under the Kushite Pharaohs: a text inscribed on the ‘‘Rassam Cylinder’’ records a list of towns throughout Egypt and the individuals who had been appointed or confirmed in authority after Esarhaddon’s invasion, several of whom can be identified with Egyptians known from archaeological sources. Two of them are well known Thebans: the Governor of Upper Egypt and Fourth Priest of Amun Montuemhet and the Vizier Nespamedu (Leahy 1979: 31, n.3). Despite the different Egyptian titles which hey held both men were accorded equal status in the annals of Ashurbanipal, as sharru in their respective regions, Montuemhet in Thebes and Nespamedu at Abydos. Both men came from prominent families whose members had held high-status titles going back several generations to a point perhaps coinciding with the arrival of the Kushites in Upper Egypt. Although they may not have been able to alter fundamentally the political structure of Egypt, this suggests that the Kushites were able to manipulate the Egyptian ruling classes so as to maintain a level of control. The theory is supported by evidence which suggests that the office of vizier was transferred from the family of Montuemhet to that of Nespamedu in the middle of the period, perhaps as an attempt to redistribute power among the ruling families (Leahy 1979: 35). Furthermore the promotion of the God’s Wife and establishment of a series of princesses to her harim provided the ruling house with a strong connection to the cult of Amun and gave Kushite investment and building activity at centers such as Karnak, Luxor, and Medinet Habu a focus. The harim was administered by a Chief Steward; the two known holders of this office during the Twenty-fifth Dynasty appear to have been of relatively humble origins, and their office was prevented from becoming hereditary, a policy which prevented the possibility for newly powerful individuals and families to develop. Whatever policies they pursued seem to have been successful: the Kushite Pharaohs remained the recognized authority in Thebes until some years after they had been ousted without ever having faced rebellion in this part of the country.
Although from the time of Shabaqa onwards the Kushite kings seem to have resided in Egypt, there is little evidence that the population of Kush migrated to Egypt in significant numbers, and, as inhabitants of a stable, sedentary society themselves, they would not have faced the same imperatives that drove the Libyans to settle in Egypt in any case. Kushite influence seems largely to have been confined to the top echelons of society. The harim of the God’s Wife became an institution of the Kushite royal family, and a few Kushites were appointed to other prominent positions, particularly at Karnak, but the vast majority of official positions in Thebes were controlled by Egyptians, and it seems very unlikely that any centers further north than this would have been treated differently, with the possible exception of Memphis. However, evidence for any city outside Thebes is scarce. The renewal in monumental construction at Thebes, the phenomenon of archaism, and the revival in other art forms, particularly sculpture, all seem to have begun under Kushite rule and would endure beyond its end. The development was also perhaps of significance only at the top levels of society. In terms of the political geography of the country and the enduring influence of Libyans among the ruling classes, the period following the conquest of Egypt by Piyi was arguably as Libyan in character as it was Nubian/ Kushite, but Egypt and its culture had been modified but not replaced; despite this mixing of ethnicities and traditions, Egypt remained Egyptian.
FURTHER READING
The most detailed and comprehensive survey of the period remains Kitchen 1986. This volume, originally published in 1973, was the first to synthesize the relevant primary material from both Egypt and the Near East, and has since provided the starting point for any research into the period. Naturally, however, it has now been superseded in certain regards. Kitchen’s reconciliation of Manetho’s Twenty-second and Twenty-third Dynasties with the archaeological data has, for example, been challenged; an excellent summary of the current thinking is presented by Karl Jansen-Winkeln 2006a. The question of Libyan influence on the period is masterfully dealt with in Leahy 1985, and this has been augmented by Jansen-Winkeln 2000. The best recent study of the rule of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty Pharaohs in Egypt is
Morkot 2000. For the Kushite state itself readers should consult Edwards 2004. An excellent recent overview of Egypt’s contact with the Assyrian empire, as recorded by both Egyptian and Assyrian sources, is provided by Kahn 2006. The Egyptian texts of the Twenty-first Dynasty have now been presented in hieroglyphic transcription by Jansen-Winkeln 2007, and volumes on the texts of the Twenty-second to Twenty-fifth Dynasties are to follow. The Twenty-fifth Dynasty texts are presented in translation in Eide et al.1994, but there is, as yet, no anthology of translations for the Libyan Period, although selected texts are included in Lichtheim 1980.
World History
