The New Kingdom of Egypt
The New Kingdom is known with an intimacy that is missing from much of the rest of Egyptian history. The fact that we have the mummies of most of the kings is extraordinary enough. Moderns cannot gaze upon the dead face of Alexander or Caesar, historians wonder whether people like Moses (or Jesus) even existed, but Thutmose III, Ramesses II, and the others lie under glass in their room of the Cairo Museum. The ritual decoration of their tombs, to be sure, tells us little either about their personal lives or about the history of their reigns, but we are favored with some vivid accounts on contemporary temple decoration and in private tombs. For some of the most intriguing events of the period, like the reigns of Hatshepsut or Akhenaton, we have incomplete accounts with tantalizing uncertainties.
For long, no positively identified mummies of Hatshepsut, the female "king," or of the Great Heretic, or knowledge of their fate, was in our possession. Recently, however, a mummy from KV 60 has been positively identified as Hatshepsut. This was effected with the use of a canopic box, marked with Hatshepsut's name, that originally had been found in one of the great caches of royal mummies. This contained the liver and intestines of the Queen, along with a tooth, a molar, from which one root had been broken off. As it happened, the detached root was still in the jaw of the mummy in KV 60. This now answers the question of Hatshepsut's fate. The KV 60 mummy had both a pelvic tumor and a serious dental abscess. Death occurred from toxic shock when Egyptian doctors pulled a tooth (the broken molar) to drain the abscess, and the infection got into Hatshepsut's bloodstream.
 Chronology of the New Kingdom | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sedge & Bee Son of Rê' | Gardiner, 1966 | Penguin, 1983 | Reeves & Wilkinson, 1996 |
| XVIII Dynasty | |||
| Nebpeh.tirê' 'Ahmose I | 1575-1550 | 1570-1546 | 1550-1525 |
| Djeserkarê' Amenh.otep I | 1550-1528 | 1551-1524 | 1525-1504 |
| 'Akheperkarê' Thutmose I | 1528-1510 | 1524-1518 | 1504-1492 |
| 'Akheperenrê' Thutmose II | 1510-1490 | 1518-1504 | 1492-1479 |
| Menkheperrê' Thutmose III | 1490-1436 | 1504-1450 | 1479-1425 |
| Battle of Megiddo, c.1478 | |||
 Ma'atkarê'H.atshepsut | 1490-1468 | 1498-1483 | 1473-1458 |
 | |||
| 'Akheperurê' Amenh.otep II | 1436-1413 | 1453-1419 | 1427-1401 |
| Menkheperurê' Thutmose IV | 1413-1405 | 1419-1386 | 1401-1391 |
| Nebma'atrê' Amenh.otep III | 1405-1367 | 1386-1349 | 1391-1353 |
| Neferkheperurê'- wa'enrê' Amenh,otep IV/ Akhenaton | 1367-1350 | 1350-1334 | 1353-1333 |
| 'Ankhkherprurê' Smenkhkare/ Queen Nefertiti? | 1350-1347 | 1336-1334 | 1335-1333 |
| Nebkheperurê' Tutankhamon | 1347-1339 | 1334-1325 | 1333-1323 |
| Kheperkheperurê' Itnûte-Aye | 1339-1335 | 1325-1321 | 1323-1319 |
| Djeserkheperurê' Haremhab | 1335-1308 | 1321-1293 | 1319-1307 |
The nature of Hatshepsut's position can be seen in the genealogical chart included in the table. Originally, the impression was that it was through her that the bloodline of Ahmose I and the XVII Dynasty continued. However, recent opinion seems to be that it was the mother of Thutmose II, not that of Hatshepsut, who was the daughter of Amenhotep I (cf. The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt, by Aidan Dodson & Dyan Hilton, Thames & Hudson, 2004, p.126). If Hatshepsut had been the heiress of the legitimate dynasty, her frustration with the succession and dignity of her half-brother, Thutmose II, would be understandable. The frustration then would only have been compounded as, with his death, the succession went to a mere boy, her nephew/stepson, Thutmose III, the son of a concubine. This might have been too much. However, if Thutmose II was himself actually the bloodline heir, then Hatshepsut's actions were purely from personal ambition; and in pushing the young Thutmose III aside, and preparing for her daughter's future by marrying her to him, Hatshepsut consistently honored her father, the extra-dynastic Thutmose I, rather than the maternal ancestors of the old Theban Dynasty. Now this may appear as a strategy to marginalize the direct heirs of the old Dynasty.
Just who had the proper claim on Thutmose I seems to have touched a nerve with Thutmose III. It has long been believed that Hatshepsut was buried in the extraordinary, strange, winding, burrowing KV 20 and that Thutmose I was buried in KV 38, the first Tomb in the Valley, according to Thutmose's own architect. However, John Romer (Valley of the Kings, William Morrow and Company, 1981) thinks that KV 20 was actually the original tomb of Thutmose I, with its peculiarities due to its pioneering nature. Hatshepsut, as part of her identification with her father, enlarged the Tomb and added her own burial to it. Thutmose III then built a new tomb for his grandfather, like his own (KV 34) and near it, specifically to dissociate him from Hatshepsut, her additions to the tomb, and her own burial. KV 38 is a smaller version of the style of tomb that Thutmose III, according to Romer, inaugurated himself. Thutmose III may have left Hatshepsut's burial alone, or he may have been the one to remove her to KV 60, with her names struck out, to be left with the mummy of her own nurse (identified as such on her coffin). This would have been unkind treatment, but not as unkind as destroying the body.
The New Kingdom is often called the "Empire" of Egyptian history. It was not, to be sure, the first period of foreign conquest. But previously this had always been undertaken by advancing up the Nile. Now, after the trauma of foreign invasion from Asia, Ahmose I and Thutmose I began raiding into Palestine and Syria, with the latter even reaching the Euphrates. After disposing of his aunt, who projected Egyptian influence more through trading expeditions (like that of the lovingly chronicled fleet sent to "Punt"), Thutmose III returned to Syria, and to the Euphrates, with every intention of establishing a more permanent presence. 
This seems to have been accomplished, however, more through the device of client states than of actual Egyptian garrisons. My impression is that the Egyptians just did not have their heart in foreign occupation. After all, if you like Egypt, there is not going to be anyplace else quite like it, especially off among hairy foreigners who wear woolen clothes and don't bathe. With Egypt ready to punish the disobedience of vassals with force, in the reigns of Amenhotep II through Amenhotep III, the system worked well enough. By the time of Amenhotep III, indeed, Egypt had gained such respect that punitive expeditions were no long even necessary. The principal organized opposition during this period had been from the Mitanni, with whom amicable relations were eventually established.
When the young Amenhotep IV found his One God and became Akhenaton, 
(the "Spirit of the Aton"), a more pacific, or inattentive, policy unfortunately coincided with the revival and new aggressiveness of the Hittites. Mitanni was crushed by the great Suppiluliumus, and Egyptian clients in Syria began falling like dominoes, their pathetic pleas ignored but carefully preserved in the archive of Akhenaton's new capital at Amarna. Egypt thus retreats for some years into internal concerns, and the Hittites are unopposed.
The most intimate evidence of an Egyptian king is found in the largely intact tomb of Tutankhamon. Yet here frustration with the record reaches unique heights. To have the tomb, the man, and all his stuff and yet not be really certain who his father even was (now thought to be no less than Akhenaton), or how he died (the body has skull damage, either from murder, an accident, or the mummification process), is exasperation indeed! Just as tantalizing is the Hittite record of a young widowed queen asking for a Hittite prince to become her husband. This seem to fit Ankhesnamon, the wife and probably whole or half-sister of Tutankhamon, but Egyptian records are silent, and Ankhesnamon herself vanishes without a trace. Dynastic in-laws, Aye and Haremhab, finish the dynasty.
| XIX Dynasty | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Menpeh.tirê' Ra'messes I | 1308 | 1293-1291 | 1307-1306 |
| Menma'atrê' Seti I-merenptah. | 1309-1291 | 1291-1278 | 1306-1290 |
| Usima'atrê'-setpenrê' Ra'messes II-miamûn | 1290-1224 | 1279-1212 | 1290-1224 |
| Battle of Qadesh, 1275; Egyptian-Hittite Treaty, 1259 | |||
| Binerê'-meramûn Merenptah.- h.otph.imâ'e | 1224-1214 | 1212-1202 | 1224-1214 |
| Menmirê'-setpenrê' Amenmesse(s)- h.eqawîse | ? | 1202-1199 | 1214-1210 |
| Usikheperurê'-setpenrê' Seti II-merenptah. | 1214-1208 | 1199-1193 | 1210-1204 |
| Sekha'enrê-setpenrê' Ra'messes-Siptah. or Akhenrê'-setpenrê' Merenptah.-Siptah. | 1208-1202 | 1193-1187 | 1204-1198 |
| Sitrê'-meryamûn Twosret- seteptenmût | 1202-1194 | 1187-1185 | 1198-1196 |
It used to be that one of the principal questions about the XIX Dynasty was the identity of the Pharaoh of Exodus. Ramesses II or Merenptah are still the best candidates, with Merenptah distinguished by a mention of "Israel" in his records. If Ramesses lost his firstborn son to the Passover Plague, however, it did not in the end make much difference, since he outlived his eldest 12 sons.
Of greatest interest to Ramesses II himself, besides the building projects with which he eventually forested Egypt, was the great military adventure of his youth. After the long Amarnan hiatus and its aftermath, Ramesses returned to Syria with an Egyptian army. This incursion provocated a vigorous response from Muwatillis, who caught Ramesses in some disarray at Qadesh on the Orontes River, near the modern Lebanese-Syrian border. Reading between the lines of his boastful accounts, it looks like the king faced a humiliating and possibly crushing defeat, until the tardy arrival of a lagging division saved the day. We may credit Ramesses, however, with bravely standing his ground and rallying the troops until help arrived -- though, to be sure, Egyptian kings are always portrayed as braver in battle than any of their subordinates. 
While Ramesses always fondly remembered his moment of martial danger and triumph, the cost of the battle seems to have sobered both sides, and the inconclusive war eventually was in fact concluded with a treaty, roughly dividing Syria between the two kingdoms.
Merenptah, Ramesses middle-aged 13th son, had long lost his own youthful vigor, and after him the events of the dynasty are obscure and confused. It is not clear who some of the people even are, or just what the real chronology is. The dozens of children of Ramasses II may have worked against stability.
The most charming royal tomb of the period may be that of Nefertari, Ramesses's favorite queen who, of course, long predeceased him. The detail and perfection of the art of her tomb is clearly the best that the times and love of Ramesses could offer, though, like all royal tombs (except at Amarna), we do not get any details of their personal relationship.
Private tombs, where the mummies, unlike New Kingdom royalty, are usually long gone, give us the most vivid details of daily life, but this is a kind of information also available for the Middle and even the Old Kingdom. Unique to the New Kingdom is an entire village, the lives of many of whose inhabitants are rather well documented over a period of more than 200 years. This was Deir el-Medina ("Monastery of the City" in Arabic), in the foothills of Western Thebes, which was the home of the scribes and artisans who worked on the Royal Tombs. Their own high level of literacy, and their preferred writing material, ostraca, have given them a voice after three thousand years that few people anywhere have had until modern times. An ostracon (a Greek word) in principle is a piece of broken pottery, but in this case it was often actually a flake of limestone from the tomb construction -- papyrus was used for documents, not for everyday scribbling. The great virtue of the ostraca is that they do not decay like papyrus. John Romer tells the story of Deir el-Medina in his Ancient Lives, Daily Life in Egypt of the Pharoahs [Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984], which he also did as a very fine four hour television series.
| XX Dynasty | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Usikha'urê'- meramûn- setpenrê' Setnakht-mererrê'- meramûn | 1184-1182 | 1185-1182 | 1196-1194 |
| Usima'atrê'- meramûn Ra'messes III- h.eqaôn | 1182-1151 | 1182-1151 | 1194-1163 |
| H.eqama'atrê'- setpenamûn Ra'messes IV- h.eqama'atrê'- meramûn | 1151-1145 | 1151-1145 | 1163-1156 |
| Usima'atrê'- sekheperenrê' Ra'messes V- Amenh.ikhopshef- meramûn | 1145-1141 | 1145-1141 | 1156-1151 |
| Nebma'atrê'- meramûn Ra'messes VI- Amenh.ikhopshef- nûteh.eqaôn | 1141-1134 | 1141-1133 | 1151-1143 |
| Usima'arê'- meramûn- setpenrê' Ra'messes VII- itamûn- nûteh.eqaôn | 1134 | ? | 1143-1136 |
| Usima'atrê'- akhenamûn Ra'messes VIII- Seth.ikhopshef- meramûn | 1134 | ? | 1136-1131 |
| Neferkarê'- setpenrê' Ra'messes IX- kha'emwîse- mereramûn | 1134-1117 | 1126-1108 | 1131-1112 |
| Kheperma'atrê'- setpenrê' Ra'messes X- Amenh.ikhopshef- meramûn | 1117-1114 | ? | 1112-1100 |
| Menma'atrê'- setpenptah. Ra'messes XI- kha'emwîse- mereramûn- nûteh.eqaôn | 1114-1087 | 1098-1070 | 1100-1070 |
noticeably changing, with old powers like the Hittites simply swept away and new ranks of nations emerging, soon to dominate the events of the 1st millennium BC. Ramesses did not have to go to Syria to fight, as the new enemies came to him, by land and by sea. His victories were then, fortunately for Egypt, much more decisive than Qadesh.
The enemies this time were the intriguing "Peoples of the Sea." Since the Egyptian records name and illustrate these "Peoples," this provides fodder for considerable investigation and speculation about what was going on. The "Peoples" are identified by the Egyptians as the Peleset, the Tjekker, the Shardana, and the Denyen or Danu. It is hard not identity the "Peleset" with the Philistines. The Shardana seem to be Sardinians, who had already been used as Egyptian mercenaries. The most tantalizing prospect, however, comes with the Denyen or Danu. The name can be compared with the Danaoí, which is one of the names for the Greeks in the Iliad, and the Israelite tribe of Dan, which seems unusually involved with the sea for a people that is supposed to have come out of the desert. If the Denyen are (Mycenaean) Greeks, how about the Philistines also? A tantalizing question. But not nearly as tantalizing as the possibility that the tribe of Dan was Greeks. The possibility for this opens up when we see that, according to the archaeology, the Israelites were not invaders of Palestine but mostly already in it. For scholars who doubt the Exodus altogether, this will be obvious; but it could still be true if there was an Exodus, just of a much smaller group of people than the Bible says. In those terms, the Exodites did not conquer Palestine but formed a federation of peoples who were mostly already there. The Canaanites were simply those groups who did not join, while the tribe of Dan could be an early arrival of the Peoples of the Sea who later, in larger numbers, were resisted as enemies. All this provides delightful license for everyone's imagination.
The mortuary temple and palace that Ramesses III built in Western Thebes, Medinet Habu, is the best preserved from the whole series. Only the foundations of the mudbrick palace survive, though this is enough to identify even the bathrooms, but the temple itself largely retains what no other temple at Thebes does, a roof. It is striking how the 3100-year-old structure is so well preserved, when of some XVIII Dynasty temples, like the only 200 year older temple of Amenhotep III, little or nothing remains.
Despite his own substantial successes, Ramesses III modeled himself after his ideal, Ramesses II. The prestige of the latter then continued through the Dynasty, all the rest of whose members used the name. It was a clinging to a fading glory, but as the power of the Kingdom declined, the names of the Kings multiplied.
The decline of the later Ramessids is palpable. Ramesses III seems to have been assassinated, though Egyptian references to such a shocking event are disguised and euphemistic. We do have the remarkable court record from the trial of the conspirators. Nowhere is the decline of the Dynasty more clear than in the similar record that has survived of the trial of tomb robbers. The rigors of Egyptian judicial procedure are evident, and the corruption of local officials exposed. The nature of the punishment of the criminals is unfortunately concealed by euphemism. By the next dynasty the royal rombs of the whole period had been stripped of their treasures, and all the priests could do was fix up and rebury the bodies in two caches, one of which was actually the tomb of Amenhotep II. This was a job done so well that the caches were only discovered in the 19th century. The bodies of most of the Kings of the New Kingdom thus now lie on display at the Cairo Museum. The tomb of Ramesses XI, modified from the traditional plan but apparently unused, became the last cut in the Valley of the Kings.
Return to Egyptian Royal Tombs of the New Kingdom
Egyptian Royal Tombs of the New Kingdom, List
Some of the comments here are from Baedeker's Egypt [Prentice Hall Press, no date], which gives a numerical list of all the tombs.
Tomb KV 1 Ramesses VII Tomb KV 2 Ramesses IV, surviving papyrus plan Tomb KV 3 a son of Ramesses III Tomb KV 4 Ramesses XI Tomb KV 5 sons of Ramesses II (reëxamined, 1989) Tomb KV 6 Ramesses IX Tomb KV 7 Ramesses II Tomb KV 8 Merenptah Tomb KV 9 Ramesses V & VI; tomb of "Memnon" to Greek travelers Tomb KV 10 Amenmesse(s) Tomb KV 11 Ramesses III, begun by Setnakht Tomb KV 12 anonymous royal family tomb crossing over Ramesses VI Tomb KV 13 Bay (chancellor to Siptah & Twosret) Tomb KV 14 Twosret (& Seti II?), taken over by Setnakht Tomb KV 15 Seti II The previous tombs were open in antiquity or before formal archaeology. Most of the following have their dates of discovery. Tomb KV 16 Ramesses I, 1817 Tomb KV 17 Seti I, 1817 Tomb KV 18 Ramesses X Tomb KV 19 Ramesses Montuhirkopeshef (Ramesses VIII?), 1817 Tomb KV 20 Thutmose I and Hatshepsut, the first tomb in the Valley, 1799 Tomb KV 21 two XVIII Dynasty queens, 1817 Tomb WV 22 Amenhotep III in Western Valley, 1799 Tomb WV 23 Aye (originally Tutankhamon) in Western Valley, 1816 Tomb WV 24 anonymous in Western Valley Tomb WV 25 possibly Akhenaton's original tomb in Western Valley, 1817 Tomb KV 26 1898 Tomb KV 27 XVIII Dynasty family tomb, 1898 Tomb KV 28 1898 Tomb KV 29 1899 Tomb KV 30 XVIII Dynasty family tomb, 1817 Tomb KV 31 1817 Tomb KV 32 1898 Tomb KV 33 1898 Tomb KV 34 Thutmose III, 1898 Tomb KV 35 Amenhotep II, 1898 Tomb KV 36 Mahirpra, 1899 Tomb KV 37 anonymous, 1899 Tomb KV 38 Thutmose I (relocated by Thutmose III from KV 20), 1899 Tomb KV 39 possibly tomb of Amenhotep I, 1899 Tomb KV 40 anonymous, 1899 Tomb KV 41 anonymous, 1899 Tomb KV 42 Hatshepsut-Merytre (wife of Thutmose III), 1900 Tomb KV 43 Thutmose IV, 1903 Tomb KV 44 XVIII Dynasty, but containing Tentkaru of XXII Dynasty, 1901 Tomb KV 45 Userhet (XVIII Dynasty), 1902 Tomb KV 46 Yuya & Tuya, parents of Queen Tiye, 1905 Tomb KV 47 Siptah, 1905 Tomb KV 48 Vizir Amenemopet (XVIII Dynasty), 1906 Tomb KV 49 XVIII Dynasty, 1906 Tomb KV 50-52 anmial burials, 1906 Tomb KV 53 1905/06 Tomb KV 54 Tutankhamen cache, 1907 Tomb KV 55 Amarna cache (Akhenaton?/Tiye?), 1907 Tomb KV 56 "Gold Tomb," jewelry cache from reign of Seti II & Twosret, 1908 Tomb KV 57 Haremhab, 1908 Tomb KV 58 1909 Tomb KV 59 "tomb commencement" pit Tomb KV 60 Sitre-in & Hatshepsut (confirmed), 1903 Tomb KV 61 1910 Tomb KV 62 Tutankhamon (originally Aye), 1922 Tomb KV 63 XVIII Dynasty, five coffins, 2006
Return to Royal Tombs of the New Kingdom
Return to New Kingdom Chronology
With the canopic chest, the theme of fours in Egyptian thought and ritual is the most conspicuously manifest. While the embalmed heart was returned to the chest of the deceased, the liver, lungs, stomach, and intestines were separately packaged, coffined, and stored. Each of these was then under the protection of one of the Sons of Horus, Imset (or Amset) for the liver, Hapi for the lungs, Duamutef for the stomach, and Kebekhsenuf for the intestines. Stone canopic chests typically have four chambers for the four coffins, closed with four stoppers, which themselves are either in the form of four human or of one human and three animal heads. With Tutankhamon we are fortunate to have the further equipment of the gilt shrine and sledge for the canopic chest, and the four guardian goddesses who watch over the whole, each identified by a symbolic device on her head: Isis watching over the liver from the southwest, her sister Nephthys watching over the lungs from the northwest, Neith, the ancient goddess of Sais, watching over the stomach from the southeast, and finally Serket, a scorpion goddess, watching over the intestines from the northeast. The figures of these goddesses are masterpieces of art, now available in endless reproductions.
Note on Sons of Horus in "Gender Stereotypes and Sexual Archetypes"
| Kassites | |
|---|---|
| Gandash | c.1730 |
| Agum I | |
| Kashtiliash I | |
| Ushshi | |
| Abirattash | |
| Kashtiliash II | |
| Urzigurumash | |
| Harbashihu | |
| Tiptakzi | |
| Kassite Dynasty or Dynasty III of Babylon | |
| Agum II | c.1570 |
| Burnaburiash I | |
| Kashtiliash III | |
| Ulamburiash | |
| Agum III | |
| Kadashman-harbe I | |
| Karaindash | |
| Kurigalzu I | |
| Kadashman-Enlil I | |
| Burnaburiash II | 1375-1347 |
| Karahardash | 1347-1345 |
| Kurigalzu II | 1345-1324 |
| Nazimaruttash | 1323-1298 |
| Kadashman-Turgu | 1297-1280 |
| Kadashman-Enlil II | 1279-1265 |
| Kudur-Enlil | 1265-1255 |
| Shagarakti-Shuriash | 1255-1243 |
| Kashtiliash IV | 1243-1235 |
| Assyrian governors, 1235-1227 | |
| Enlil-nadin-shumi | |
| Adad-shuma-iddina | |
| Adad-shuma-us.ur | 1218-1189 |
| Melishipak | 1188-1174 |
| Marduk-apal-iddina I | 1173-1161 |
| Zababa-shuma-iddina | 1161-1159 |
| Enlil-nadin-shhê | 1159-1157 |
| Dynasty IV of Babylon or Dynasty II of Isin | |
| Marduk-kabit-ahhêshu | 1156-1139 |
| Itti-Marduk-balat.u | |
| Ninurta-nadin-shumi | |
| Nebuchadrezzar I | 1124-1103 |
| Enlil-nadin-apli | |
| Marduk-nadin-ahhê | |
| Marduk-shapik-zêri | |
| Adad-apla-iddina | 1067-1046 |
| Marduk-zêr-X | 1046-1032 |
| Nabû-shum-libur | 1032-1025 |
| Dynasty V of Babylon | |
| Simbar-shipak | 1024-1007 |
| [2 kings] | 1007-1004 |
| Dynasty VI of Babylon | |
| Eulma shakin-shumi | 1003-987 |
| [2 kings] | 986-984 |
| Dynasty VII of Babylon | |
| Mâr-bîti-apla-us.ur | 984-977 |
| Dynasty VIII of Babylon | |
| Nabû-mukin-apli | 977-942 |
| festivals suspended because of Aramaean invasions, 971-970 | |
| Ninurta-kudurri-us.ur | 942-941 |
| Mâr-bîti-ahhê-iddina | 941-? |
| Shamash-mudammiq | ?-c.900 |
| Nabû-shuma-ukin | 899-888? |
| Nabû-apla-iddina | 887-855? |
| Marduk-zakir-shumi I | 854-819 |
| Assyrian influence, 853 | |
| Marduk-balassu-iqbi | |
| Baba-aha-iddina | |
| [5 kings] | |
| Ninurta-apla-X | |
| Marduk-bêl-zêri | |
| Marduk-apla-us.ur | |
| Eriba-Marduk | 769-761 |
| Nabû-shuma-ishkun | 760-748 |
| Dynasty IX (& X) of Babylon | |
| Nabû-nas.ir (Nabonassar) | 747-734 |
| Chaldeans occupy Babylon, 734 | |
| [2 kings] | 734-732 |
| Nabû-mukin-zêri | 732-721 |
| Marduk-apal-iddina II, Merodach-Baladan | 721-710 |
| Sargon II, 710-705 | |
| Mardukzakirshum | 705-702 |
| Mardukapalidinna III | |
| Bêl-bini | 702-700 |
| Ashur-nadin-shumi | 699-694 |
| [king] | 694-693 |
| Mushezib-Marduk | 693-689 |
| Assyrian sack of Babylon, 689 | |
| Shamash-shuma-ukin | 668-648 |
| Kandalanu | 647-627 |
| Babylonian Kings Continued | |
| Sealand Dynasty or Dynasty II of Babylon | |
|---|---|
| Iluma-ilum | c.1732 |
| Itti-ili-nibi | |
| Damiq-ilishu | |
| Ishkibal | |
| Shushushi | |
| Gulkishar | |
| [5 kings] | |
| Ea-gâmil | c.1460 |
The list and dates here are from Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq [Penguin, 1966, 1992], pp. 507-512. There are some curious differences between the 1966 and the 1992 editions, which Roux does not discuss. The chronology is poorly known.
It was long thought that the Kassites, a people of neither Semitic nor Indo-European linguistic affinity, had an Indo-European/Iranian warrior nobility. The evidence for this was thin, and the tendency now seems to be to discount the possibility [cf. Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, c.3000-330 BC, Routledge, 1995, 2000, volume I, pp.333-334]. Theirs was the longest lasting Babylonian dynasty. Because of the relative dearth of information, it was long thought to be a period without much in the way of cultural development. However, it now appears that the Kingdom stretched all the way to Bahrain and accomplished much in the way of the cultural unification of Lower Mesopotamia -- which now simply and truly becomes "Babylonia," more than just the imperial possession of a city-state. Babylonian diplomatic correspondence with Egypt is found in the Amarna archive, telling us rather more about the Babylonian Kings than we know from the records in Babylonia.
| THE CANON OF KINGS | ||
|---|---|---|
| THE ERA OF NABONASSAR, 747 BC; 1999 AD + 747 = 2746 Annô Nabonassari | ||
| BABYLONIANS | ||
| Nabû-Nâs.ir, Nabonassáros | 747-733 | 1 AN |
| Nabunadinzri, Nadíos | 733-731 | 15 AN |
| Ukîn-zêr & Pulu, Khinzêr & Póros | 731-726 | 17 AN |
| Ululas, Iloulaíos | 726-721 | 22 AN |
| Mardukapaliddina, Mardokempádos | 721-709 | 27 AN |
| Arkeanós= Sargon II | 709-704 | 39 AN |
| no kings | 704-702 | 44 AN |
| Bêlibni, Bilíbos | 702-699 | 46 AN |
| Ashur-nadinshum, Aparanadíos | 699-693 | 49 AN |
| Nergalushezib, Rhegebélos | 693-692 | 55 AN |
| Mushezib-Marduk, Mesêsimordákos | 692-688 | 56 AN |
| Assyrian sack and destruction of Babylon, no kings | 688-680 | 60 AN |
| Esarhaddon, Asaradínos | 680-667 | 68 AN |
| Shamash-shumukîn, Saosdoukhínos | 667-647 | 81 AN |
| Kandalanu, Kinêladános | 647-625 | 101 AN |
| NEO-BABYLONIANS | ||
| Nabopolossar, Nabopolassáros | 625-604 | 123 AN |
| Nebuchadrezzar, Nabokolassáros | 604-561 | 144 AN |
| Awêl Marduk, Illoaroudámos | 561-559 | 187 AN |
| Neriglissar, Nêrigasolassáros | 669-555 | 189 AN |
| Nabonidus, Nabonadíos | 555-538 | 193 AN |
| PERSIANS | ||
| Cyrus the Great | 538-529 | 210 AN |
| Cambyses | 529-522 | 219 AN |
| Darius I | 521-486 | 227 AN |
| Xerxes I | 486-465 | 263 AN |
| Artaxerxes I Longimanus | 465-424 | 284 AN |
| Darius II | 424-405 | 325 AN |
| Artaxerxes II Mnemon | 405-359 | 344 AN |
| Artaxerxes III Ochus | 359-338 | 390 AN |
| Arses | 338-336 | 411 AN |
| Darius III Codomannus | 336-332 | 413 AN |
| MACEDONIANS | ||
| Alexander (III) the Great | 332-324 | 417 AN |
| Philip (III) | 324-317 | 425 AN |
| Alexander (IV) | 317-305 | 432 AN |
| PTOLEMIES | ||
| Ptolemy I Soter I | 305-285 | 444 AN |
| Ptolemy II Philadelphus | 285-247 | 464 AN |
| Ptolemy III Euergetes | 247-222 | 502 AN |
| Ptolemy IV Philopator | 222-205 | 527 AN |
| Ptolemy V Epiphanes | 205-180 | 544 AN |
| Ptolemy VI Philometor | 180-146 | 568 AN |
| Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II | 146-117 | 603 AN |
| Ptolemy IX Soter II | 117-81 | 632 AN |
| Ptolemy XII Neo Dionysus | 81-52 | 668 AN |
| Cleopatra Thea Philopator | 52-30 BC | 697 AN |
| ROMAN EMPERORS | ||
| Augustus | 30 BC- 14 AD | 719 AN |
| Tiberius I | 14-36 | 762 AN |
| Caligula | 36-40 | 784 AN |
| Claudius I | 40-54 | 788 AN |
| Nero | 54-68 | 802 AN |
| Vespasian | 68-78 | 816 AN |
| Titus | 78-81 | 826 AN |
| Domitian | 81-96 | 829 AN |
| Nerva | 96-97 | 844 AN |
| Trajan | 97-116 | 845 AN |
| Hadrian | 116-137 | 864 AN |
| Antoninus Pius | 137-160 | 885 AN |
| Kings of Assyria | |
|---|---|
| Bêlu-bâni | 1700-1691 |
| Libaia | 1690-1674 |
| Hurrian occupation, c.1680 | |
| Sharma-Adad I | 1673-1662 |
| IPtar-Sîn | 1661-1650 |
| Bazaira | 1649-1662 |
| Lullaia | 1621-1618 |
| Kidin-Ninua | 1615-1602 |
| Sharma-Adad II | 1601 |
| Erishum III | 1598-1586 |
| Shamshi-Adad II | 1585-1580 |
| Erishum III | |
| Shamshi-Adad II | |
| Ishme-Dagan II | |
| Shamshi-Adad III | |
| Ashur-nirâri I | 1547-1522 |
| Puzur-Ashur III | 1521-1498 |
| Enlil-nas.ir I | |
| Nûr-ili | |
| Control by Mitanni | |
| Ashur-râbi I | |
| Ashur-nadin-ahhê I | |
| Enlil-nas.ir II | |
| Ashur-Nirâri II | |
| Ashur-bêl-nishêshu | |
| Ashur-nadin-ahhê II | |
| Independent of Mitanni, c.1400; Middle Assyrian Empire | |
| Eriba-Adad I | 1392-1336 |
| Ashur-uballit. I | 1365-1330 |
| overthrow of Mitanni, c.1330; conquest of upper Mesopotamia, c.1300 | |
| Enlil-nirâri | 1330-1319 |
| Arik-den-ili | 1319-1308 |
| Adad-nirâri I | 1307-1275 |
| Salmanasar I | 1274-1245 |
| Tukulti-Ninurta I | 1244-1208 |
| holds Babylon 1220-1213 | |
| Ashur-nadin-apli | |
| Ashur-nirâri III | |
| Enlil-kudurri-us.ur | |
| Ninurta-apal-Ekur | 1192-1180 |
| Ashur-dân I | 1179-1134 |
| Ashur-rêsh-ishi I | 1133-1116 |
| Tiglathpileser I | 1115-1077 |
| Aramaeans appear, c.1080 | |
| Asharid-apal-Ekur | 1077-1074 |
| Ashur-bêl-kala | 1074-1057 |
| Shamshi-Adad IV | 1057-1050 |
| Ashur-nas.ir-pal I | 1050-1032 |
| Shalmaneser II | 1031-1020 |
| Ashur-nirâri IV | 1020-1016 |
| Ashur-râbi II | 1016-973 |
| Ashur-rêsh-ishi II | 973-967 |
| Tiglathpileser II | 967-935 |
| Ashur-dân II | 934-912 |
The list and dates here are from Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq [Penguin, 1966, 1992, pp.507-510], with some details added from the Historical Atlas of the Ancient World, 4,000,000-500 BC, by John Haywood [Barnes & Noble, 1998, 2000]. The chronology for the period before the Canon of Kings, 1400 down to 700, is secured by the "Assyrian Kinglist" and a reported eclipse of the sun that can be dated to 15 June 763 BC.
This period begins with the domination of the Hurrians, already or soon to be led by a nobility of Indo-European horsemen, the Mitanni. Assyria was at first kept in check and then in vassalage to this power, one of the more obscure but more important of the Second Millennium BC.
Mitanni, however, set back by Egypt, weakened after 1400 and was soon crushed between the resurgent Hittites to the west and the Assyrians to the east. The plains east of the Euphrates occuied by the Hurrians, the Naharim (or Nahrin, "Rivers") or Jazirah ("Island"), then come under the control of the Assyrians, as they had briefly in the Old Assyrian Period. The Middle Empire reaches its height under Tukulti-Ninurta I, from 1243-1207, who holds Babylon 1220-1213 (or 1235-1227) and is the first King to use the title "King of Kings," which becomes familiar in subsequent states, down to the Persians. This time, migrations again reduce the state.
The Aramaeans are the ones who this time overwhelm the Jazirah and reduce Assyria to its heartland along and east of the Tigris. This is particularly fateful, since the language of the Aramaeans will eventually replace that of the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and the other Semitic speakers in the Levant and Mesopotamia. The Amorites had been absorbed without a trace by the older civilizations, but the Aramaeans would leave the mark of their language and alphabet on the region until the Arab conquest.
| Old Kingdom | ||
|---|---|---|
| Tudhaliya(s)? | 1740-1710 | |
| Pusarruma(s)? | 1710-1680 | |
| Labarna(s) I? | 1680-1650 | c.1680-1650? |
| Labarna(s) II?/ Hattusilis I | 1650-1620 | 1650-1620 |
| Mursili(s) I | 1620-1590 | 1620-1590 |
| Sack of Babylon, c.1595 | ||
| Hantili(s) I | 1590-1560 | 1590-1560 |
| Zidanta(s) I | 1560-1550 | 1560-1550 |
| Ammuna(s) | 1550-1530 | 1550-1530 |
| Huzziya(s) I | 1530-1525 | 1530-1525 |
| Telipinu(s) | 1525-1500 | 1525-1500 |
| Alluwamna(s) | 1500-1490 | 1500- 1430/1420 |
| Hantili(s) II | 1490-1480 | |
| Zidanta(s) II | 1480-1470 | |
| Huzziya(s) II | 1470-1460 | |
Hittite is the oldest attested Indo-European language. It is so early that it apparenty left the language community before the full classic system of Indo-European grammar had developed. 
It also preserved some archaic features that were lost in other Indo-European languages, most significantly the laryngeals whose existed was predicted by Ferdinand de Saussure. It once seemed likely that Hittite sits in the actual homeland of Indo-European languages, but now that homeland looks more like Eastern Europe or the Ukraine. Indeed, there was someone in Anatolia before the Hittites. There was an older language there, Hattic, which, like many other languages in the ancient Middle East, and the modern languages of the Caucasus, was unrelated to other modern languages.
The first column of dates at left is from O.R. Gurney, The Hittites [Penguin Books, 1952, 1962, p.216]. The second column of dates is from Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq [Penguin Books, 1964, 1992, pp.507-9] and/or Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, c.3000-330 BC [Routledge, 1995, 2000, p.230]. In the table for the "Empire" period below, Gurney, Roux, and Kuhrt have been separated into three columns, with Kuhrt's column giving alternative dates in itself. The uncertainties of Hittite dating are still so great that Kuhrt also gives the Kings in a different sequence, as can be seen from the dates.
In the earlier chronologies, there is the inconvenience that the events of the reign of Ramesses II do not match up with the corresponding Hittite dates for these events. Thus, Roux gives 1300 as the date for the battle of Qadesh, while none of the Egyptian references has Ramesses coming to the throne before 1290. Kuhrt's latest dates allow a match for the Battle of Qadesh given with Egyptian chronology, 1275.
The earlier histories usually give the names of the Hittite Kings with a final "s." Kuhrt drops this, without discussion. Presumably the "s" is not actually in the texts. I would imagine that when it was discovered that Hittite was an Indo-European language, it may have become customary to assume the same nominative ending that is found from Latin to Greek to Sanskrit, i.e. "s." Apparently, the custom has lapsed.
| Empire | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gurney | Roux | Kuhrt | |
| Tudhaliya(s) I | 1460-1440 | 1450-1420 | 1430/1420- 1410/1400 |
| Arnuwanda(s) I | 1440-1420 | 1420-1400 | 1390/1370- 1380/1355 |
| Tudhaliya(s) II | 1400/1390- 1390/1370 | ||
| Hattusili(s) II | 1420-1400 | 1410/1400- 1400/1390 | |
| Tudhaliya(s) III | 1400-1380 | 1395-1380 | 1380/1355- 1370/1344 |
| Suppiluliuma(s) I | 1380-1340 | c.1380-1336 | 1370/1344- 1330/1322 |
| Defeat of Mitanni, c.1370; reduction of Syria, supplication from widowed Egyptian Queen to marry a Hittite Prince, c.1340 | |||
| Mattiwaza ? | |||
| Arnuwanda(s) II | 1340-1339 | 1330/1322- 1330/1321 | |
| Mursili(s) II | 1339-1306 | 1335-1310 | 1330/1321- 1295 |
| Muwatilli(s) | 1306-1282 | 1309-1287 | 1295- 1282/1271 |
| Battle of Qadesh, 1300 or 1286/1275 | |||
| Urhi-Teshub/ Mursilis III | 1282-1275 | 1282/1271- 1275/1264 | |
| Hattusili(s) III | 1275-1250 | 1286-1265 | 1275/1264- 1245/1239 |
| Egyptian-Hittite Treaty, 1286 or 1269/1258 | |||
| Tudhaliya(s) IV | 1250-1220 | 1265-1235 | 1245/1239- 1215/1209 |
| Arnuwanda(s) III | 1220-1190 | 1235-1215 | 1215/1209- 1210/1205 |
| Suppiluliuma(s) II | 1190-? | 1215-? | 1210/1205-? |
| Phrygians & Gasgas destroy Hittites, c.1200 | |||
Although the Kingdom of the Hittites in central Anatolia was wiped out by the obscure migrations of the 12th century, small Hittite (or "Neo-Hittite") states continued in Northern Syria, to which references to the Hittites in the Bible refer. These small states are still commemorated in the name "Hatay" given to the province of Turkey containing Antioch. Although any Hittites are long gone, the Turkish name is a political claim to tie the province to Anatolia, while the population was actually overwhelmingly Arab when France ceded the area from Syria to Turkey in 1939 -- a perhaps a vindictive act to punish the Syrians for not appreciating French rule.
The discovery of the Hittite Kingdom and its language was an archaeological sensation at a time when the only Hittites anyone was aware of were those of the small states in the Bible. The decipherment of the Hittite language created another sensation, when it turned out to be an Indo-European language. Even better, it was an evidently archaic dialect which contained sounds in positions that comparative theory had predicted should have been "pharyngeal" sounds (perhaps like Arabic 'ayn) in Proto-Indo-European, but which had not hitherto been found in attested languages.
Ironically, it was the Hittites who then brought to an end the Kingdom of the Mitanni, which may have been ruled by a noble elite with Indo-Aryan affinities, speaking or influenced by another Indo-European language from the same family as Persian and Sanskrit, and who worshiped gods obviously identical to those of the Vedas. The Indo-Aryan influence on Mitanni had clearly come in across Iran, but where the Hittites originally came from, if not autochthonous, is as mysterious as ever.
| Parattarna (I) | c.1530/1480? |
| Kirta | |
| Shuttarna I | c.1560? |
| Parsatatar | |
| Saushtatar | c.1500/c.1430 |
| Control over Assyria; Egyptians in Syria, c.1478 | |
|---|---|
| Parrattarna II? | |
| Artatama I | c.1430 |
| Shuttarna II | c.1400 |
| Artashumara | |
| Tushratta | c.1385-c.1350 |
| marries daughter to Amenhotep III; Defeat by Hittites, 1370 | |
| Artatama II | rival |
| Shuttarna III, Shattiwaza, Shattuara I, Wasashatta, Shattuara II | confused |
| Hittites reduce Syria, c.1340; Assyrians overthrow Mitanni, c.1330 | |
This is one of the more obscure, intriguing, and important kingdoms of the 2nd millennium BC. One of the ancient non-Semitic and non-Indo-European peoples of the Middle East, like the Sumerians, Elamites, Kassites, and Urartuans, the Hurrians briefly come into their own. Just where they came from is obscure. It was previously thought that some time after 2000 they moved out of the mountains and occupied the great bend of the Euphrates River (the Jazirah or Nahrin) and the upper Tigris Valley. Now (cf. Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, c.3000-330 BC, Routledge, 1995, 2000, volume I, pp.284-289), it appears possible that they occupied these areas originally, all the way down to the environs of Nineveh.
Previously, it was thought that, around 1600, an Iranian people, the Mitanni, had established themselves among the Hurrians as a warrior aristocracy, founding the Kingdom known by that name. The evidence for this was Indo-Aryan names of the Kings and the invocation of Vedic gods: A treaty preserved by the Hittites with the Mitanni King Shattiwaza has them listing gods named "Mitrasil," "Arunasil," and "Indar," which are clearly the Vedic gods Mitra, Varuna, and Indra, the first two simply with "-il," a Semitic element for "god," added. This would have been the farthest west that an Indo-Ayran people penetrated. Now, however, this evidence apparently seems more ambiguous than previously thought (cf. Kuhrt, pp.296-297). Hurrian names, or Hurrianized names, and Hurrian gods (e.g. the storm god Teshub and Shaushga, the Hurrian equivalent of the Assyro-Babylonian Ishtar) actually dominate the record that we have. If there had been a foreign warrior aristocracy, it looks like it was assimilated rapidly and left few traces by the time of Shattiwaza. This does not require a very radical rethinking of the situation, however. The Indo-Aryan influence is unmistakeable. The proximity of durable Indo-Aryan speakers in Iran is obvious. The only question is the extent of the influence, or of the physical presence of Iranians among the Hurrians. Such questions are probably now unanswerable.
Characteristic of the obscurity of the history of this kingdom, the capital, Washukkanni, has never been positively located (now thought to be Tell al-Fakhariyeh in Syria), leaving us without direct documentary evidence of Mitannian history from archives or inscriptions -- so we don't even know what language (Hurrian or Indo-Aryan) the Court was using. The dating is thus, even for the period, especially problematic. And, as the Hurrians themselves were subsequently assimilated into later linguistic communities, ultimately that of Aramaic speakers, any evidence of Iranians who might be been assimilated among them is lost even more absolutely.
The short history of the kingdom was an important period in the history of the Middle East. The first kings had to contend with Egypt at the height of its military power in the XVIII Dynasty. Both Thutmose I and Thutmose III reached the Euphrates; but the Mitanni eventually fought the Egyptians to at least a draw, and cordial relations ensued, including marriages between the courts. About a century as a Great Power follows. The Hittites, emerging from a period of confusion, then upset the status quo with a devastating defeat of Tushratta, setting off a precipitous decline in the kingdom. Rival claimants for the throne soon enabled Assyria, a Mitanni vassal for more than a century, to regain her independence, the Hittites returned to reduce a rump Mitanni state to Hittite vassalage, and finally the Assyrians swept the kingdom into history, soon with nothing whatever left to mark the existence of either the Mitanni or the Hurrians. The Hittites subsequently fought to their own draw with the Egyptians, and another modus vivendi (now with the XIX Dynasty), until being swept away themselves, leaving the field to, of course, the Assyrians.
The list of Kings is gleaned from Amélie Kuhrt [op.cit., p.290], Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq [Penguin Books, 1964, 1992], and the Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East, by Michael Roaf [Facts on File, 1966, 2000, p.133]. The Penguin Atlas of Ancient History, by Colon McEvedy [Penguin Books, 1967], skips from 1600 to 1300, missing the entire history of Mitanni as a Great Power, but then shows a small Mitanni Kingdom in 1300, 1200, and 1000, when we can say with some certainty that it had already been erased by the Assyrians. The New Penguin Atlas of Ancient History [2002], using the dates 1575 and 1275, still skips the period of the height of Mitanni power, but then it does correct the misrepresentation of the later surival of the Kingdom. The result, unfortunately, is that now no map shows the existence of the Mitanni Kingdom at all. Such a hiatus in history should not have been allowed. As it happens, this also means that the Penguin Atlas also skips having a page that shows the XVIII Dynasty in Egypt, something that should strike anyone as an even more grave oversight from the larger historical perspective.
Mitanni lost down a memory hole is something I've also seen on The History Channel, where a recent series, "Battles BC," featured an episode on the Battle of Kadesh (in the XIX Dynasty). The show positively asserted that the Egyptians had been fighting the Hittites "for centures," and completely ignores the history of the Mitanni, except to mention that the Hittites had ended up with a Mitanni manual on horse training. It's nice the Mitanni get mentioned, but it is quite false that the Egyptians had been fighting the Hittites "for centuries." This ignores the period in the XVIII Dynasty when Mitanni was the principal enemy of Egypt. And previous to that, there does not seem to have been any contact between Egypt and the Hittites (of the Hittite Old Kingdom) at all.
The main map here is based on the Cultural Atlas and the Historical Atlas of the Ancient World, 4,000,000-500 BC, by John Haywood [Barnes & Noble, 1998, 2000, §1.12].
| Aramu/Arame | c.860-c.840 |
| Sarduri I | c.840-c.825 |
| Ishpuini | c.825-c.810 |
| Menua | c.810-c.785 |
| Argishti I | c.785-c.763 |
| Sarduri II | c.763-c.734 |
| Rusa I | c.734-c.714 |
| Argishti II | c.714-c.685 |
| Rusa II | c.685-c.645 |
| Sarduri III | c.645-c.635 |
| Erimena | c.635-c.629 |
| Sarduri IV | c.629-c.590/585 |
The existence of Urart.u was hardly even suspected until so much about it was found in the Assyrian annals. Even the name Urart.u is Assyrian. In Urartuan it was Biainili. This a good clue that Urartuan was an unrelated language. It was. The language was one of the non-Semitic and non-Indo-European languages of the ancient Middle East, like Sumerian, Elamite, Hurrian, and Kassite, and like three separate groups of surviving languages in the Caucasus (Georgian, Circassian, etc.). The language is known from Urartuan inscriptions; but there are no other texts or literature surviving in the language, so our knowledge of Urartuan history is relatively impoverished. When the Assyrian records cease to be informative, and Urartuan inscriptions thin out, events disappear from history.
Urart.u was regarded by the Assyrians as a major enemy. They were ultimately able to defeat and roll back the Urartuans, but never overrun or conquer them. More damaging for the survival of the Kingdom were nomadic inroads by the Scythians and Cimmerians. After Rusa II things get very obscure, and the only certain thing (more or less) is that the Medes end up in possession of the area, variously stated as by 590 or 585 -- part of the campaign that led to Lydia and the Battle of the Eclipse. What is curious is what emerges next: the Armenians. The Urartuan language disppears, like the closely related Hurrian. The classic Kingdom was already a mixture of various groups, as can easily happen in a mountainous region with isolated valleys, including speakers of an Indo-European language, Armenian, apparently closely related to Phrygian and Cappadocian further west. The Urartuan speakers ended up linguistically and/or demographically overwhelmed. Urart.u thus tends to be regarded as the institutional predecessor of the later Armenian kingdoms. The word "Urart.u" itself is evidently preserved in the name of Mt. Ararat (16,940 ft.), an active volcano now just within Turkey (and called Büyük Agri) but traditionally symbolic of the Armenian heartland and visible across the valley of the Aras river from the capital of the modern Republic of Armenia, Yerevan. It has gained the reputation of being the site of the resting place of Noah's Ark.
The list of Kings is from Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, c.3000-330 BC [Routledge, 1995, 2000, Volume II, p.552] and A.E. Redgate, The Armenians [Basil Blackwell, 1998, 2000, pp.29-30].
A noteworthy detail in Redgate is that a title of the Urartuan King was "Kings of Kings" [p.43]. This is familiar from the Assyrians, Medes, and Persians, but Redgate says that before Tukulti-Ninurta I (1244-1208) used it, it was previously just used for gods (apart from the name of the Sargonid Shar-kalli-sharri, "King of all Kings"). Redgate thinks this implies a claim to divine kingship, passed on to the Persians, not so much from Assyria as from Urart.u.
In a period of small states, before empires became the norm, Israel might have been of small account but for its revolution in religion. The jealous God of this small country ended up effecting the overthrown of every traditional deity in the Mediterranean world, Europe,
| Kings of Israel | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Saul | 1030-1010 | ||
| David | 1010-970 | ||
| Solomon | 970-931 | ||
| Kings of Judah | Kings of Israel | ||
| Rehoboham | 931-913 | Jeroboam I | 931-910 |
| Abijam | 913-911 | Nadab | 910-909 |
| Asa | 911-870 | Baasa | 909-886 |
| Ela | 886-885 | ||
| Zimri/Omri | 885-874 | ||
| Jeoshaphat | 870-848 | Ahab | 874-853 |
| Joram | 848-841 | Ahaziah Joram | 853-841 |
| Ahaziah | 841-835 | Jehu | 841-814 |
| Athalia | |||
| Joash | 835-796 | Jehahaz | 814-798 |
| Amaziah | 796-781 | Jehoash | 793-783 |
| Azariah | 781-740 | Jeroboam II | 783-743 |
| Jotham | 740-736 | Menahem | 743-738 |
| Achaz | 736-716 | Peka | 738-732 |
| Hoshea | 732-724 | ||
| Samaria falls to Assyrians, 722 | |||
| Kings of Judah | |||
| Ezechiah | 716-687 | ||
| Manasseh | 687-642 | ||
| Amon | 642-640 | ||
| Josiah | 640-609 | ||
| last reference to the Ark of the Covenant in a historical Book of the Bible, 2 Chronicles 35:3, 621 BC | |||
| Jeoahaz | 609-598 | ||
| Jeoiakim | |||
| Jeoiakin | |||
| Zedekiah | 598-587 | ||
| Jerusalem falls to Babylonians, 587 | |||
Why this happened as it did is still an excellent question. One can, of course, accept an explanation of true divine revelation and intervention. Naturalistic explanations must focus on what must have happened to the Israelites, the outlines of whose sojourn in Egypt are credible enough. The enduring provocative thesis in that area is Sigmund Freud's Moses and Monotheism (revisited in Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism, by Jan Assman, Harvard University Press, 1998). To Freud, the Jewish sense of being "chosen" is the result of having literally been chosen, by an Egyptian prince, Moses (which would be Môse, "born," in Coptic, a common element in Egyptian names), as the vehicle of preserving the persecuted monotheism of the heretic Egyptian king Akhenaton. This theory is sometimes said to be anti-Semitic, despite Freud's own identity, perhaps just because Moses is made an Egyptian.
The story of Moses, however, contains a most intriguing element. Cast on the river, found, and adopted by an Egyptian princess, Moses's identity as a Hebrew is only later revealed. Nearly identical stories, strikingly, are also given about Sargon of Akkad and about the tragic hero Karna in the Mahâbhârata. In those cases, on the other hand, someone who is apparently of obscure and common origin is revealed to actually be of royal descent. Sargon was the son of a "drawer of water," while Karna was raised by a chariot driver. Sargon's defensiveness about his origin is revealed in his name, Sharru-kîn, "the king is legitimate." Clearly, political upstarts like the idea of being "revealed" as more than they seem. Curiously, the effect of the Moses story is precisely the opposite. Someone who is apparently of noble or royal blood turns out to be, not just a commoner, but a foreigner, someone the Egyptians would have called a "miserable Asiatic." If we are to suspect that Sargon really was of humble origin, then the suspicion is just as reasonable that Moses really was the son of that princess.
Be that as it may, the other part of the thesis may be more of a problem, that Moses was a believer in the persecuted and dying Amarnan religion. There isn't a shred of Egyptian evidence about this, but then there is plenty of evidence of the vigor with which Haremhab sought to erase all memory of Akhenaton and anyone else associated with his cult. It may be hard for modern writers to consider that people may really have believed that stuff, but if they did, it is not much of a stretch to credit the possibility that some True Believers survived for several decades through the reigns of Haremhab, Aye, Ramesses I, and Seti I (between 30 to 50 years -- with the uncertainties of the period).
A hotly disputed bit of evidence for the survival of the cult concerns the name of Akhenaton's god, 
the Aton (Ytn). To Freud and others, this looks like the Hebrew word for "Lord," adôn, which traditionally is read in place of the sacred Name of God (the Tetragrammaton) in the Bible. Since the n seems to have been lost in the pronunciation found in the Amarna diplomatic archive, it is now commonly thought that the Hebrew word could not have been derived from the Egyptian. This is to suppose, however, that the Hebrew word need be derived from the Egyptian for the thesis to work. The origin of the Egyptian word itself is a good question. The Aton "Sun Disk" was not prior to this period the name of an Egyptian god. On the other hand, "Adon" was a divine name all over the Levant, and was imported from there into Greek mythology, as Adonis (with essentially the same story as that of Dumuzi/Tammuz in Sumerian/Babylonian mythology). If the name of the god was imported at an earlier period into Egyptian, then the Hebrew equivalent could still be recognized as the same name, even if the pronunciation had diverged.
Even "adon," of course, is not really a name of God in Hebrew. A Freudian thesis about Moses must account for the origin of the Tetragrammaton, which is innocent of any Egyptian parallels. This, however, seems to be provided for by Moses' sojourn in the Sinai, marrying a daughter of no less than a "priest of Midian" (Exodus 2:16). The fiery God of the Mountain, mixed with the God of Akhenaton, would get us a suitable combination, though the element of speculation in this theory begins to predominate. Would the historical Moses have effected the combination himself, or did the Yahwehistic element come in later and get retroactively attributed to Moses? Either is possible; but the motif of an Egyptian leaving the country and returning dressed as a foreigner is even something that occurs in Egyptian literature (e.g. the "Tale of Sinuhe," Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms, University of California Press, 1975, pp. 222-235).
We probably will never know just what happened. But whatever it was, the effects have been formidable. It also makes a damn good story, whether we prefer the straight Biblical version or the Freudian reworking. Indeed, while the historicity of Moses and his doings is open to question, it seems beyond coincidence that the extraordinary events of the Amarnan revolution, where the evidence is undoubted, should have occurred so near in time and place to the events of the Exodus. In the Egyptian record, Akhenaton's innovations seem to have come to nothing, except a period of recrimination and vengeance. Is this really credible? If Christianity survived, secretly and illegally, in Japan for 300 years, despite the prospect of ferocious persecution, could the followers of the Aton have survived a couple of reigns? It all depends, probably, on our estimation of the appeal of Akhenaton's teaching. It seems commonly assumed that it meant nothing to the Egyptians and vanished without regret. But there was, at least, an entire city of Atonites, intimately involved with the cult, to the exclusion of other religion (well, many of the workers kept images of the old gods), and the benevolent rays of the Aton still embrace the king and Ankhesnamon on the gilt throne from Tutankhamon's tomb. All we really need, after all, is just one real Atonite, with his plan to lead the Hebrews.
The story of Israel and Judah, of course, was then only beginning. The Judges and Prophets, David and Solomon, the Lost Tribes, and finally the Babylonian Captivity all added to the conceptual and historical complexity and drama that soon marked the Jewish nation as one of the most distinctive and original influences in the Middle East. When Judaea reemerged from the shadow of empires, it was as a venue of further religious conflict, innovation, and influence.
Judaea of the Maccabees and Herodians
The list and dates here are mainly from Peter A. Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs [Thames & Hudson, 1994], with some extra information from Sir Alan Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs [Oxford, 1966], Mark Lehner, The Complete Pyramids [Thames & Hudson, 1997], and William J. Murnane, The Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt [Penguin, 1983].
Very often historians include in the "Late Period" everything in Egyptian history from the XXI Dynasty to the Roman conquest. The use of the term "Third Intermediate Period" implies that the "Late Period" starts a little later. Clayton has the Late Period beginning with the Persian Conquest, which is not really fair to the XXVI Dynasty, which should not be considered part of an "Intermediate" period. It is not unreasonable to see Egyptian history as actually ending when the XXVI Dynasty falls in 525, since the country is subsequently dominated by Persians, Greeks, Romans, and Arabs. However, Manethô numbered his dynasties right down to the advent of Alexander the Great and the Ptolemies, who in many ways were still trying to act like Egyptian kings. The thirty dynasties of his system end with the last native Egyptian kings, of the XXX Dynasty. Sometimes the three kings of the subsequent Persian reconquest are called the "XXXI Dynasty" and the Ptolemies the "XXXII Dynasty,"
| The Third Intermediate Period | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| XXI Dynasty | |||
| Kings at Tanis | High Priests at Thebes | ||
| Hrihor | 1080-1074 | ||
| Piankh | 1074-1070 | ||
| Smendes I | 1069-1043 | Pinedjem I | 1070-1032 |
| Amenemnisu | 1043-1039 | ||
| Psusennes I | 1039-991 | Masaherta | 1054-1046 |
| Menkheperre | 1045-992 | ||
| Amenemope | 993-984 | Smendes II | 992-990 |
| Osorkon the Elder | 984-978 | Pinedjem II | 990-969 |
| Siamun | 978-959 | Psusennes III | 969-945 |
| Psusennes II | 959-945 | ||
The XXI Dynasty is a weaker version of the XX Dynasty, whose most conspicuous feature is the virtual independence of the High Priests of Amon at Thebes, a phenomenon that began with Hrihor during the reign of Ramesses XI. The tomb of Hrihor has not been found, and John Romer guesses that it may be well hidden and intact. Some intact burials of XXI kings at Tanis have actually been found, though the quality of the work is noticeably inferior to Tutankhamon's tomb. The most durable job done by the priests of Amon in the period was the reburial of all the earlier Egyptian New Kingdom kings, whose tombs had already been robbed. We have the mummies of Thutmose III and Ramesses II because of the work of this period. Some people think that this was done to strip any remaining treasures from the kings; but then there cannot have been much left, and if it became well know that the kings were reburied without treasures, then the chances would be better that they remained undisturbed, which they were.
| XXII Dynasty, Libyan of Bubastis or Tanis | |
|---|---|
| Sheshonq I (Shishak) | 945-924 |
| Despoilation of Jerusalem, 925 | |
| Osorkon I | 924-889 |
| Sheshonq II | c.890 |
| Takelot I | 889-874 |
| Osorkon II | 874-850 |
| Harsiese | Thebes, 870-860 |
| Takelot II | 850-825 |
| Sheshonq III | 825-773 |
| Pami | 773-767 |
| Sheshonq V | 767-730 |
| Osorkon IV | 730-715 |
| XXIII Dynasty, Libyan of Leontopolis | |
|---|---|
| Pedibastet | 818-793 |
| Iuput I | 804-803 |
| Sheshonq IV | 793-787 |
| Osorkon III | 787-759 |
| Takelot III | 764-757 |
| Rudamon | 757-754 |
| Iuput II | 754-720 |
| Sheshonq VI | 720-715 |
| Non-Dynastic Kings, of Hermopolis | |
|---|---|
| Nimlot | c.728 |
| of Herakleopolis | |
| Peftjauabastet | c.728 |
| XXIV Dynasty, Libyan of Sais | |
| Tefnakht | 727-720 |
| Bakenrenef (Bocchoris) | 720-715 |
Towards the end of the XXII Dynasty, the country began to break up. The XXIII and XXIV Dynasties, with other rulers of uncounted Dynasties, were rival Libyan lines, in addition to areas controlled by those who the Egyptians called "chieftans of Ma." The XXIV Dynasty at Sais, however, may actually represent the ancestors of the later XXVI Dynasty. In the end, all the Libyan dynasties combined were defeated by Piankhi of Napata, and his successors, who imposed Kushite rule on Egypt. A better, larger scale map of the period can be found in the Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt [Bill Manley, 1996. p.107].
The architectural remains of this period in Egypt are hard to miss. Sheshonq I may have begun the great First Pylon at Karnak, which is still the biggest of all, even though it was never finished (much of the brick construction ramp is still there). But the Pylon may also have been built by Nectanebos I of the XXX Dynasty, who at least usurped the inscriptions. But Sheshonq's name still survives on the "Bubastite Portal," a side entrance to the first courtyard of the temple, behind the First Pylon. In the middle of the courtyard is what remains of the stately "Kiosk" of Taharqa.
| Kushite, Nubian, or Ethiopian Dynasty of Napata & Meroë | Tomb | |
|---|---|---|
| [unknown] | 890-840 | el Kurru |
| [unknown] | 865-825 | el Kurru |
| [unknown] | 815-795 | el Kurru |
| [unknown] | 795-785 | el Kurru |
| Alara | 795-760 | el Kurru |
| Kashta | 760-747 | el Kurru |
| XXV Dynasty | ||
| Pi'ankhi, Piye | 747-716 | el Kurru |
| Shabaka, Shabaqo | 716-702 | el Kurru |
| Shebitku, Shebitqo | 702-690 | el Kurru |
| Taharqa, Tirakah, Taharqo | 690-664 | Nuri |
| Tanutamun, Tamwetamani | 664-653 | el Kurru |
| End of XXV Dynasty, but Kings continue at Napata until 308 BC | ||
| Atlanersa | 653-643 | Nuri |
| Senkamanisken | 643-623 | Nuri |
| Anlamani (Anlami) | 623-593 | Nuri |
| Aspelta | 593-568 | Nuri |
| Sack of Napata by Psamtik II, 593 | ||
| Aramatelqo, Amtalqa | 568-555 | Nuri |
| Malonaqen | 555-542 | Nuri |
| Amalmaaye | 542-538 | Nuri |
| Amani-natake-lebte | 538-519 | Nuri |
| Karkamani | 519-510 | Nuri |
| Amaniastabarqo | 510-487 | Nuri |
| Siaspiqa | 487-468 | Nuri |
| Nasakhma | 468-463 | Nuri |
| Malowiebamani | 463-535 | Nuri |
| Talakhamani | 435-431 | Nuri |
| Irke-Amanote, Amninete-yerike | 431-405 | Nuri |
| Baskakeren | 405-404 | Nuri |
| Harsiyotef | 404-369 | Nuri |
| [unknown] | 369-353 | el Kurru |
| Akhratan | 353-340 | Nuri |
| Amanibakhi | 340-335 | Nuri? |
| Nastasen | 335-315 | Nuri |
| Attempt to restore Nectanebos II in Egypt | ||
| Aktisanes | 315-270 | Barkal |
| Aryamani | Barkal | |
| Kash...merj Imen | Barkal | |
| Irike-Piye-qo | ? | |
| Sabrakamani | ? | |
| Kings at Meroë, 308 BC-355 AD | ||
| Arkamani-qo, Ergamenês (Gk.) | 270-260 | Meroë |
| Amanislo | 260-250 | Meroë |
| Aman...tekha | 250-235 | Meroë |
| Arnekhamani | 235-218 | Meroë |
| Arqamani | 218-200 | Meroë |
| Tabriqo (Adikhalmani?) | 200-190 | Meroë |
| [unknown king] | 190-185 | Meroë |
| [unknown king] | 185-170 | Meroë |
| Shanakdakhete | 170-150 | Meroë |
| [unknown king] | 150-130 | Meroë |
| Naqyrinsan | 130-110 | Meroë |
| Tanyidamani | 110-90 | Meroë |
| [unknown king] | 90-50 | Barkal |
| [unknown queen] | Barkal | |
| Nawidemak | Barkal | |
| Amanikhabale | 50-40 | Meroë |
| Teriteqas | 40-10 | Meroë |
| Amanirenas | Meroë | |
| Akinidad | ? | |
| Attack on Aswan and Roman counterattack, sack of Napata, after 24 BC | ||
| Amanishakheto | 10-1 BC | Meroë |
| Natakamani | 1 BC- 20 AD | Meroë |
| Amanitore | Meroë | |
| Arikhankharer | Meroë | |
| Arikakahtani | Meroë | |
| Shorkaror | 20 AD-30 | Meroë |
| Pisakar | 30-40 | Meroë |
| Amanitaraqide | 40-50 | Meroë |
| Amanitenmemide | 50-62 | Meroë |
| Amanikhatashan | 62-85 | Meroë |
| Roman expedition up Nile, 62 or 66/67 AD | ||
| Teritnide | 85-90 | Meroë |
| Teqerideamani I | 90-114 | Meroë |
| Tamelerdeamani | 114-134 | Meroë |
| Adeqetali | 134-140 | Meroë |
| Takideamani | 140-155 | Meroë |
| Tarekeniwal | 155-170 | Meroë |
| Amanikhalika | 170-175 | Meroë |
| Aritenyesbokhe | 175-190 | Meroë |
| Amanikhareqerem | 190-200 | Meroë |
| Teritedakhatey | 200-215 | Meroë |
| Aryesbokhe | 215-225 | Meroë |
| [unknown king] | 225-246 | Meroë |
| [unknown king] | 246 | Meroë |
| Teqerideamani II | 246-266 | ? |
| Maleqorobar | 266-283 | Meroë |
| Yesbokheamani | 283-300 | Meroë |
| Diocletian withdraws Roman forces to Aswan, 298 | ||
| [unknown queen] | 300-308 | Meroë |
| [unknown queen] | 308-320 | Meroë |
| [unknown] | 320-355? AD | ? |
| Kingdom overthrown (?) by Abyssinian Ethiopia, c.355 AD | ||
Nubians in modern Egypt and the Sudan (although not necessarily the same people as the Kushites) are still uniformly dark and clearly sub-Saharan looking compared to most modern Egyptians. Such people, of course, had been under Egyptian rule for centuries and thought of themselves as Egyptian, which culturally they were. Indeed, the Egyptian Viceroy in Nubia, the "King's Son of Kush," was for centuries one of the most powerful officials of the Kingdom, perhaps even the second most powerful. The term "Kush" itself is Egyptian and was used by the Kushites: the name of an early King, "Kashta," actually means "Kushite."
We have a very full and personally revealing account in Egyptian by Pi'ankhi of his invasion of Egypt in (about) 727, preserved on a stele at Napata (at the Jabal Barkal), including instructions to his generals on the ethical principles they are to observe when engaging the enemy. The Libyan dynasts were at first forgiven and allowed to continue as vassals of Napata. They were cleaned out by Shabaqo, who occupied Egypt and moved to Tanis.
Pi'ankhi is still a traditional devotee of the god Amun, upon whom he relies, with some justification, for victory -- the element Amani (which appears to have the proper Egyptian vowel -- "Amen," "Amon," and "Amun" are all wrong -- this was already known from Akkadian texts) will be noted in the names of many Napatan and Meroitic Kings. The Jabal Barkal near Napata was a cult center of Amun established as early as the XVIII Dynasty, restored and long maintained by the Kushites.
Taharqa was then the King who had to face the Assyrians. Esarhaddon successfully invaded Egypt in 671. This was followed by another invasion of Ashurbanipal in 669 which got as far as Thebes. Tanutamun regained the country all the way to Memphis but was then utterly defeated by Ashurbanipal, who in revenge stripped and looted the great temple of Amon at Karnak of its age old treasures.
Tanutamun retired to Napata, and just before his death it was Psamtik I of Sais who definitively expelled the Assyrians, who had become distracted with other problems. Nevertheless, Tanutamun's line continued at Napata, and up the Nile at Meroë, for many centuries, in fact a thousand years, not only ruling as good Egyptian kings, always calling themselves "King of Upper and Lower Egypt," but actually )
building pyramids, as at right, for their burial, turning Egypt's one black dynasty into a separate historic black African kingdom, whose rulers were often Queens as well as Kings.
The pyramids were not all that big by Egyptian standards, but they are all in stone, unlike the mudbrick pyramids of the XII Dynasty, and there are more of them than in Egypt itself, thanks to the longevity of the regime. They were built at four sites, El Kurru, Nuri, and Barkal near Napata, and then at Meroë, where the capital moved some time between 590 and 308. Tombs are known for nearly all of the Kings, and the locations are indicated in the list.
Meroë also became a great center of iron smelting, a resource of which Egypt itself was innocent. Slag heaps, which in the modern world would be regarded as toxic waste, constitute the most obvious evidence of the existence and duration of this industry.
Although many Kushite inscriptions are in Egyptian, we also find a different system increasingly written over the years, "Meroitic" hieroglyphics and script. The affinities of the language written in Meriotic have not been identified, and it is today still very imperfectly understood -- in fact the meaning of only 26 words have been identified, largely from Egyptian-Meroitic bilingual inscriptions. Consequently, the purport of many inscriptions and papyri remains concealed. This leaves us, despite the frustration of texts and documents in our possession, without much autochthonous testimony to Kushite history. Unlike Egyptian, the Meroitic system, which developed its own alphabetic characters, began to indicate vowels, which gives us the full vocalization of the royal names given. The hieroglyphic version of this alphabet is listed at right. Some characters can have a syllabic as well as alphabetic force. There are glyphs with identical sounds in Egyptian, like m and n; the l is the same as that used in Late Egyptian to write the l in Greek names; and the y is familiar from Egyptian. The word divider is something that the Egyptians, or the Greeks and Romans, never bothered with.
Kush is the kingdom that the Greeks and Romans meant when they talked about "Ethiopia." This was a Greek term, from Aithíops, "Ethiope" -- from aíthô, "burn," and óps, "face." "Burnt-face" gives us a very vivid image of the impression the Greeks had of the first black people they encountered. Since Kush was the only black kingdom known to the Greeks, the word easily became its name. The name, in our reckoning, if not the tradition, passed to Abyssinia when that already Christian kingdom succeeded Kush as the most noteworthy black state in the region. Even Abyssinia retained an Egyptian connection, since the Coptic Patriarch nominated the Primate of Ethiopia until late in the 20th century.
I was long under the impession that the Abyssinians (Axumites) overthrew Meroë around 355 AD. But now it looks like there is little evidence for this. The Abyssinians did press down to the Nile. Around 350, the Emperor Ezanas II erected a stela at the juncture of the Nile and Atbara rivers, not far north of Meroë, commemorating his expedition. Kush already seems to have been in decline, and there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason for it. We don't even have the names of the last three rulers. The most obvious record of Kushite history, the line of pyramids, simply ends. In part, the ideological basis of the regime may have been undermined by Christianity. By 355, all the surrounding states, Egypt, Abyssinia (with Ezanas), and Rome, were Christian. The last named Kushite ruler, Yesbokheamani (283-300), still bears the name of Amun. Pyramids are not going to qualify as Christian funerary monuments. There is no telling what happened, but the times were not going to allow the traditional regime to continue as it was.
The list of Kings of Napata down to Nastasen (335-315 BC) was originally from Bruce R. Gordon's Regnal Chronologies. I was not aware that so complete a list existed or that the chronology was so well known, since I had only seen this one list and was not familiar with all the archeology or epigraphic work. Gordon gave none of the subsequent Kings at Meroë. He also said that the Kings had already relocated to Meroë in 590, when Psamtik II sacked Napata (593, if it did happen), which is possible.
This issue of Napata and Meroë is of interest. If the capital moved to Meroë, pyramids were nevertheless still built at Napata. It may be more like both cities functioned as capitals until the later (308 BC) date. Indeed, now it is not clear that there was a fixed capital. A number of Royal residences are listed in the records, and it looks like the Court may have moved between them, without any particular preference for a national administrative center. It is simply unknown why pyramids started being built at Meroë when they did.
I was frustrated with the incomplete list in Gordon. Now, however, I have been referred to a very full account of Kush with the complete list of Kings as now given. This is The Kingdom of Kush, the Napatan and Merotic Empires by Derek A. Welsby [British Museum Press, 1996]. There seems to have been a great deal of archeological work recently in Nubia and the Sudan, and rather more in the past than I was aware of; and Welsby's book looks to be the present locus classicus for this subject.
Welsby presents the king list with many cautions. It has been reconstructed from the tombs with many problems persisting about the chronology. )
The existence of many round numbers in the list is a good indication of the speculative elements in the dating. Although Welsby mentions that there are several ruling Queens, and names four in the text, he does not give a systematic list, so not all the female () rulers may be indicated.
A Queen of the Ethiopians is mentioned in the New Testament:
Acts 8:27: And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace [Kandákê] queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship...
As it happens, this now common name, "Candace," was not a proper name, but the title of the Queen of Kush, whether a ruling Queen or the mother of the heir. That one of the Queen's eunuch's would be going to Jerusalem to worship testifies to a Jewish presence in Kush, which we know about from other Classical sources (including Jewish forces stationed at Aswan under the Persians and Jewish mercenaries under the XXVI Dynasty). It does not seem to have left any evidence in the archeology. Modern Ethiopians tend to assume that any Biblical reference to "Ethiopia" means them, i.e. Abyssinians. The reference to the Queen's eunuch going to Jerusalem is then tied to the legend that the Abyssinian Kingdom began with Menelik I, who was supposed to be the son of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, rending the Kingdom, in effect, Jewish. That there has been a surviving Jewish community in Ethiopia, the Falashas (most have now moved to Israel), has led to endless dispute and speculation about its origin. The origin, indeed, for all we know, could have been in Kush.
Welsby's book happens to be mentioned in a good source on the Meroitic script, Lost Lanugages, The Enigma of The World's Undeciphered Scripts, by Andrew Robinson [McGraw Hill, 2002], "Voices of the Black Pharaohs" [pp.140-155].
After the fall of Kush, small Christian kingdoms succeeded it in Nubia. These are also chronicled by Derek A. Welsby in The Medieval Kingdoms of Nubia [British Museum Press, 2002], which picks up more or less where The Kingdom of Kush leaves off, though without the chronological skeleton that the line of pyramids provided.
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}