Mummy of a Gazelle.
[CHAPTER XIII.]
Shishak i. and the Twenty-second (Bubastite) Dynasty—The Ethiopian Kings—The Assyrians in Egypt—Sack of Thebes. (Circa 970-666 b.c.)
It might seem as though the name of Rameses had power sufficient to hold together the fabric of the state so long as the twentieth dynasty was on the throne. With the dethronement and exile of the Ramessid kings, all unity was at an end. Her-hor had claimed the sovereignty of all Egypt, but his successors ruled over a diminishing territory, and the dominion of the last of the priest-kings did not probably extend much, if at all, beyond the Thebaid. Whilst they had been reigning at Thebes, an independent dynasty (regarded indeed by Manetho as the twenty-first), ruled in the Delta, having its seat at Tanis, i.e. Zoan. But the Delta had long been the home of naturalised foreigners of different nationalities, and amongst them were settlers bearing Assyrian names—warlike and ambitious men, apparently of distinguished birth, who intermarried with princesses of the Ramessid family, and succeeded in founding the twenty-second dynasty. The names of the family who thus came to the front are clearly not Egyptian,—Nimruth, Usarkon, Takelath are the Assyrian Nimrod, Sargon, and Tiglath; but whilst their names point to an Assyrian origin, their religion and customs had become purely Egyptian, even before they set up their throne at Bubastis.[79] The first sovereign of this dynasty was Sheshenk (the Shishak of the Old Testament), who gained the ascendency over the whole land, and drove the last of the priest-kings to take refuge in Nubia. The city of Napata, standing on the bank of the Nile, and near a lofty hill known as the Holy Mountain, became the seat of the sacerdotal kings. It was a fertile, prosperous, and peaceful region, and its people, long ago completely Egyptianised, were devoted to the worship of Amen-Ra. Here the priest-kings disappeared from sight, but not for ever.
It has been conjectured that the founders of the twenty-second or Bubastite dynasty may have been fugitives of high birth from Assyria, who had been hospitably received and honourably entertained in Egypt. The fortunes of Assyria were indeed at this time at a very low ebb, after having risen very high. The long-continued struggle between Assyria and Babylon already alluded to ([p. 215]) had ended in the complete ascendency of the former state. About the middle of the twelfth century, the first Assyrian empire rose, and lasted for about seventy years. It was an empire based on mere military ascendency, was maintained by force and cruelty, and rested on no enduring foundation. The Kings of Assyria subdued Babylon, and conquered the Hittites (the Kheta of Rameses II.) and other neighbouring nations. But in process of time the Hittites rose in arms, and were joined by the Babylonians (ever restless under the Assyrian supremacy), and the Assyrian empire fell before their combined attack. For some time, it would seem, there was not even an independent sovereign reigning at Nineveh.
The time was propitious for the growth and development of new states. Assyria was prostrate, Babylon unaggressive, Egypt inert, the Hittites content with their newly recovered independence.
The cities of Phœnicia, on the coast of Palestine, were engaged, as of old, in busy commerce throughout the known world, coming even so far as to the British Isles in quest of tin. They colonised, but did not conquer other lands. Their religion, with its cruel and licentious rites, was the same as that of the neighbouring Canaanitish tribes, but the latter were probably greatly inferior in civilisation; they still maintained their ground in certain parts of Palestine.