    
|
 Helping San Diego, California and beyond since 1997 |
|
|
Helping San Diego, California and beyond since 1997 |
Click here and add this page to your favorites!
|
Encyclopedia Britannica - Main :: WIL-YAK |
|
|
XXX . 387 378 38o Orhus 350 342 342 taken place at particular seasons of the year so that they can be roughly calculated on the Sothic basis, others on Manetho's figures, average lengths of reigns, evidence of the Turin Papyrus, &c. Table I. page 79 shows the chronology of the first nineteen dynasties, according to recent authorities, before and after the discovery of the Kahun Sothic date. The dates of the earlier dynasties in this table are always intended to be only approximate; for instance, Meyer in 1904 allowed an error of loo years either of excess or deficiency in the dates he assigned to the dynasties from the Xth upwards. The other dynasties are dated as in Table II. by different authorities. See Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, Bd. i. (Stuttgart, 1884), Geschichte des alien Agyptens (1887), Agyptische Chronologie (Abhandl. of Prussian Academy) (Berlin, 1904, with the supplement Nachtrdge zur agypt. Chronologie, ib. 19o7); K. Sethe, " Beitrage zur altesten Geschichte Agyptens " (in his Untersuchungen, Bd. iii.) (Leipzig, 1905) ; J. H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, " Historical Documents," vol. i. (Chicago, 1906); W. M. F. Petrie, A History of Egypt, vol. i. (London, 1884), vol. iii. (1905), Researches in Sinai (London, 1906); G. Maspero, Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'orient (Paris, 19o4); A. Wiedemann, Agyptische Geschichte (Gotha, 1884) ; articles by Mahler and others in the Zeitschrift fur agyptische Sprache and Orientalistische Literaturzeitung (recent years). (F. LI.. G.) r. From the Earliest Times to the Moslem Conquest. In the absence of a strict chronology, the epochs of Pharaonic history are conveniently reckoned in dynasties according to Manetho's scheme , and these dynasties are grouped into longer periods: the Old Kingdom (Dynasties I. to VIII.), including the Earliest Dynasties (I. to III.) and the Pyramid Period (Dynasties IV. to VI.); the Middle Kingdom (Dynasties IX. to XVII.), including the Heracleopolite Dynasties (IX. to X.) and the Hyksos Period (Dynasties XV. to XVII.); the New Empire (Dynasties XVIII. to XX.); the Deltaic Dynasties (Dynasties XXI. to XXXI.), including the Saite and Persian Periods (Dynasties XXVI. to XXXI.). The conquest by Alexander ushers in the Hellenistic age, comprising the periods of Ptolemaic and Roman rule.The Prehistoric Age.One of the most striking features of recent Egyptology is the way in which the earliest ages of the civilization, before the conventional Egyptian style was formed, have been illustrated by the results of excavation. Until 1895 there seemed little hope of reaching the records of those remote times, although it was plain that the civilization had developed in the Nile valley for many centuries before the IVth Dynasty, beyond which the earliest known monuments scarcely reached. Since that year, however, there has been a steady flow of discoveries in prehistoric and early historic cemeteries, and, partly in consequence of this, monuments already known, such as the annals of the Palermo stone, have been made articulate for the beginnings of history in Egypt. It is probable that certain rudely chipped flints, so-called eoliths, in the alluvial gravels (formed generally at the mouth of wadis opening on to the Nile) at Thebes and elsewhere, are the work of primitive man; but it has been shown that such are produced also by natural forces in the rush of torrents. On the surface of the desert, at the borders of the valley, palaeolithic implements of well-defined form are not uncommon, and bear the marks of a remote antiquity. In some cases they appear to lie where they were chipped on the sites of flint factories. Geologists and anthropologists are not yet agreed on the question whether the climate and condition of the country have under-gone large changes since these implements were deposited. As yet none have been found in such association with animal remains as would help in deciding their age, nor have any implements been discovered in rock-shelters or in caves. Of neolithic remains, arrowheads and other implements are found in some numbers in the deserts. In the Fayum region, about the borders of the ancient Lake of Moeris and beyond, theyare particularly abundant and interesting in their forms. But their age is uncertain; some may be contemporary with the advanced culture of the XIIth Dynasty in the Nile valley. Definite history on the other hand has been gained from the wonderful series of " prehistoric " cemeteries excavated by J. de Morgan, Petrie, Reisner and others on the desert edgings of the cultivated alluvium. The succession of archaeological types revealed in them has been tabulated by Petrie in his Diospolis Parva; and the detailed publication of Reisner's unusually careful researches is bringing much new light on the questions involved, amongst other things showing the exact point at which the " prehistoric " series merges into the Ist Dynasty, for, as might be surmised, in many cases the prehistoric cemeteries continued in use under the earliest dynasties. The finest pottery, often painted but all hand-made without the wheel, belongs to the prehistoric period; so also do the finest flint implements, which, in the delicacy and exactitude of their form and flaking, surpass all that is known from other countries. Metal seems to be entirely absent from the earliest type of graves, but immediately thereafter copper begins to appear (bronze is hardly to be found before the Xllth Dynasty). The paintings on the vases show boats driven by oars and sails rudely figured, and the boats bear emblematic standards or ensigns. The cemeteries are found throughout Upper and Middle Egypt, but as yet have not been met with in the Delta or on its borders. This might be accounted for by the inhabitants of Lower Egypt having practised a different mode of disposing of the dead, or by their cemeteries being differently placed. Tradition, mythology and later customs make it possible to recover a scrap of the political history of that far-off time. Menes, the founder of the Ist Dynasty, united the two kingdoms of Upper and Lower Egypt. In the prehistoric period, therefore, these two realms were separate. The capital of Upper Egypt was Nekheb, now represented by the ruins of El Kab, with the royal residence across the river at Nekhen (Hieraconpolis) ; that of Lower Egypt was at Buto (PutO or Dep) in the marshes, with the royal residence in the quarter called Pe. Nekhebi, goddess of El Kab, represented the Upper or' Southern Kingdom, which was also under the tutelage of the god Seth, the goddess Buto and the god Horus similarly presiding over the Lower Kingdom. The royal god in the palace of each was a hawk or Horus. The spirits of the deceased kings were honoured respectively as the jackal-headed spirits of Nekhen and the hawk-headed spirits of Pe. As we hear also of the " spirits of On " it is probable that Heliopolis was at one time capital of a kingdom. ,In after days the prehistoric kings were known as " Worshippers of Horus " and in Manetho's list they are the vfxves " Dead," and ijpwes " Heroes," being looked upon as intermediate between the divine dynasties and those of human kings. It is impossible to estimate the duration of the period represented by the pre-historic cemeteries; that the two kingdoms existed throughout unchanged is hardly probable. According to the somatologist Elliott Smith, the most important change in the physical character of the people of Upper Egypt, in the entire range of Egyptian archaeology, took place at the beginning of the dynastic period; and he accounts for this by the mingling of the Lower with the Upper Egyptian population, consequent on the uniting of the two countries under one rule. From remains of the age of the IVth Dynasty he is able to define to some extent the type of the population of Lower Egypt as having a better cranial and muscular development than that of Upper Egypt, probably through immigration from Syria. The advent of the dynasties, however, produced a quickening rather than a dislocation in the development of civilization. It is doubtful whether we possess any writing of the prehistoric age. A few names of the kings of Lower Egypt are preserved in the first line of the Palermo stone, but no annals are attached to them. Petrie considers that one of the kings buried at Abydos, provisionally called Nar-mer and whose real name may be Mer or Beza, preceded Menes; of him there are several inscribed records, notably a magnificent carved and inscribed slate palette found at Hieraconpolis, with figures of the king and his vizier, war-standards and prisoners. To identify him with Bezau (Boethos) of the IInd Dynasty runs counter to much archaeological evidence. Sethe places him next after Menes and some would identify him with that king. Another inscribed palette may be pre-dynastic; it perhaps mentions a king named " Scorpion." The Old Kingdom.The names of a number of kings attribut- able to the Ist Dynasty are known from their tombs at Abydos. Unfortunately, they are almost exclusively Horus The earliest titles ER B in place of the personal names by dynasties. which they were recorded in the lists of Abydos and Manetho; some, however, of the latter are found, and prove that the scribes of the New Kingdom were unable to read them correctly. Important changes and improvements took place in the writing even during the Ist Dynasty. The personal name of Menes Et= is given by one only of many relics of a king whose Horus-name was Aha, " the Fighter." Doubts have been expressed about the identification with Menes, but it is strongly corroborated by the very archaic style of the remains. The name of Aha (Menes) was found in two tombs, one at Nagada north of Thebes and nearly opposite the road to the Red Sea, the other at Abydos. Manetho makes the Ist Dynasty Thinite, this being the capital of the nome in which Abydos lay. Upper Egypt always had precedence over Lower Egypt, and it seems clear that Menes came from the former and conquered the latter. According to tradition he founded Memphis which lay on the frontier of his conquest; probably he resided there as well as at Abydos; at any rate relics of one of the later kings of the Ist Dynasty have already been recognized in its vast necropolis. Of the eight kings of the Ist Dynasty, threethe fifth, sixth and seventh in the Ramesside list of Abydos are positively identified by tomb-remains from Abydos, and others are scarcely less certain. Two of the kings have also left tablets at the copper and turquoise mines of Wadi Maghara in Sinai. The royal tombs are built of brick, but one of them, that of Usaphais, had its floor of granite from Elephantine. They must have been filled with magnificent furniture and provisions of every kind, including annual record-tablets of the reigns, carved in ivory and ebony. From a fragment on the Palermo stone it is clear that material-existed as late as the Vth Dynasty for a brief note of the height of the Nile and other particulars in each year of the reign of these kings. The IInd Dynasty of Manetho appears to have been separated from the Ist even on the Palermo stone; it also was Thinite, and the tombs of several of its nine (?) kings were found at Abydos. The IIIrd Dynasty is given as Memphite by Manetho. Two of the kings built huge mastaba-tombs at Bet Khallaf near Abydos, but the architect and learned scribe Imhotp designed for one of these two kings, named Zoser, a second and mightier monument at Memphis, the great step-pyramid of Sakkara. In Ptolemaic times Imhotp was deified, and the traditional importance of Zoser is shown by a forged grant of the Dodecaschoenus to the cataract god Khncim, purporting to be from his reign, but in reality dating from the Ptolemaic age. With Snefru, at the end of this dynasty, we reach the beginning of Egyptian history as it was known before the recent discoveries. Monuments and written records are henceforth more numerous and important, and the Palermo annals show a fuller scale of record. The events in the three years that are preserved include a successful raid upon the negroes, and the construction of ships and gates of cedar-wood which must have been brought from the forests of the Lebanon. Snefru also set up a tablet at Wadi Maghara in Sinai. He built two pyramids, one of them at Medum in steps, the other, probably in the perfected form, at Dahshur, both lying between Memphis and the Fayum. Pyramids did not cease to be built in Egypt till the New Kingdom; but from the end of the IIIrd to the Vlth Dynasty is pre-eminently the time when the royal pyramid in stone was the chief monument left by each successive king. Zoser and Snefru have been already noticed. The personal name enclosedin a cartouche CSI is henceforth the commonest title of the king. We now reach the IVth Dynasty containing the famous names of Cheops (q.v.), Chephren (Khafre) and Mycerinus (Menkeure), builders respectively of the Great, the Second and the Third Pyramids of Giza. In the best art of this time there was a grandeur which was never again attained: Perhaps the noblest example of Egyptian sculpture in the round is a diorite statue of Chephren, one of several found by Mariette in the so-called Temple of the Sphinx. This " temple " proves to be a monumental gate at the lower end of the great causeway leading to the plateau on which the pyramids were built. A king Dedefre, between Cheops and Chephren, built a pyramid at Abu-Roash. Shepseskaf is one of the last in the dynasty. Tablets of most of these kings have been found at the mines of Wadi Maghara. In the neighbourhood of the pyramids there are numerous mastabas of the court officials with fine sculpture in the chapels, and a few decorated tombs from the end of this centralized dynasty of absolute monarchs are known in Upper Egypt. A tablet which describes Cheops as the builder of various shrines about the Great Sphinx has been shown to be a priestly forgery, but the Sphinx itself may have been carved out of the rock under the splendid rule of the IVth Dynasty. The Vth Dynasty is said to be of Elephantine, but this must be a mistake. Its kings worshipped Re, the sun, rather than Horus, as their ancestor, and the title 0 " son of the Sun " began to be written by them before the cartouche containing the personal name, while another " solar " cartouche, containing a name compounded with Re, followed the title. " king 0 0 of Upper and Lower Egypt." Sahure and the other kings of the dynasty built magnificent temples with obelisks dedicated to Re, one of which, that of Neuserre at Abusir, has been thoroughly explored. The marvellous tales of the Westcar Papyrus, dating from the Middle Kingdom, narrate how three of the kings were born of a priestess of Re. The pyramids of several of the kings are known. The early ones are at Abusir, and the best preserved of the pyramid temples, that of Sahure, excavated by the German Orient-Gesellschaft, in its architecture and sculptured scenes has revealed an astonishingly complete development of art and architecture as well as of warlike enterprise by sea and land at this remote period; the latest pyramid belonging to the Vth Dynasty, that of Unas at Sakkara, is inscribed with long ritual and magical texts. Exquisitely sculptured tombs of this time are very numerous at Memphis and are found throughout Upper Egypt. Of work in the traditional temples of the country no trace remains, probably because, being in limestone, it has all perished. The annals of the Palermo stone were engraved and added to during this dynasty; the chief events recorded for the time are gifts and endowments for the temples: Evidently priestly influence was strong at the court. Expeditions to Sinai and Puoni (Punt) are commemorated on tablets. The Vlth Dynasty if not more vigorous was more articulate; inscribed tombs are spread throughout the country. The most active of its kings was the third, named Pepi or Phiops, from whose pyramid at Sakkara the capital, hitherto known as " White Walls," derived its later name of Memphis (MN-NFR, Mempi); a tombstone from Abydos celebrates the activity of a certain Una during the reigns of Pepi and his successor in organizing expeditions to the Sinai peninsula and south Palestine, and in transporting granite from Elephantine and other quarries. Herkhuf, prince of Elephantine and an enterprising leader of caravans to the south countries both in Nubia and the Libyan oases, flourished under Merenre and Pepi II. called Neferkere. On one occasion he brought home a dwarf dancer from the Sudan, described as being like one brought from Puoni in the time of the fifth-dynasty king Assa; this drew from the youthful Pepi II. an enthusiastic letter which was engraved in full upon the facade of Herkhuf's tomb. The reign of the last-named king, begun early, lasted over ninety years, a fact so long The pyramid period. remembered that even Manetho attributes to him ninety-four years; its length probably caused the ruin of the dynasty. The local princelings and monarchs had been growing in culture, wealth and power, and after Pepi II. an ominous gap in the monuments, pointing to civil war, marks the end of the Old Kingdom. The VIIth and VIIIth Dynasties are said to have been Memphite, but of them no record survives beyond some names of kings in the lists. The Middle Kingdom.The long Memphite rule was broken by the IXth and Xth Dynasties, of Heracleopolis Magna (Hnes) in Middle Egypt. Kheti or Achthoes was apparently Heracieo- a favourite name with the kings, but they are very polite period. obscure. They may have spread their rule by conquest over Upper Egypt and then overthrown the Memphite dynasty. The chief monuments of the period -are certain inscribed tombs at Assiut; it appears that one of the kings, whose praenomen was Mikere, supported by a fleet and army from Upper Egypt, and especially by the prince of Assiut, was restored to his paternal city of Heracleopolis, from which he had probably been driven out; his pyramid, however, was built in the old royal necropolis at Memphis. Later the princes of Thebes asserted their independence and founded the Xlth Dynasty, which pushed its frontiers northwards until finally it occupied the whole country. Its kings were named Menthotp, from Mont, one of the gods of Thebes; others, perhaps sub-kings, were named Enyotf (Antef). They were buried at Thebes, whence the coffins of several were obtained by the early collectors of the 19th century. Nibadtp Menthotp I. probably established his rule over all Egypt. The funerary temple of Nebhepre Menthotp III., the last but one of these kings, has been excavated by the Egypt Exploration Fund at Deir el Bahri, and must have been a magnificent monument. His successor Sankhkere Menthotp IV. is known to have sent an expedition by the Red Sea to Puoni. The XIIth Dynasty is the central point of the Middle Kingdom, to which the decline of the Memphite and the rise of the Heracleopolite dynasty mark the transition, while the growth of Thebes under the Xlth Dynasty is its true starting-point. Monuments of the XIIth Dynasty are abundant and often of splendid design and workmanship, whereas previously there had been little produced since the Vlth Dynasty that was not half barbarous. Although not much of the history of the Xllth Dynasty is ascertained, the Turin Papyrus and many dated inscriptions fix the succession and length of reign of the eight kings very accurately; The troubled times that the kingdom had passed through taught the long-lived monarchs the pre-caution of associating a competent successor on the throne. The nomarchs and the other feudal chiefs were inclined to strengthen themselves at the expense of their neighbours; a firm hand was required to hold them in check and distribute the honours as they were earned by faithful service.. The tombs of the most favoured and wealthy princes are magnificent, particularly those of certain families in Middle Egypt at Beni Hasan, El Bersha, Assiut and Deir Rifa, and it is probable that each had a court and organization within his nome like that of the royal palace in miniature. Eventually, in the reigns of Senwosri III. and Amenemhe III., the succession of strong kings appears to have centralized all authority very completely. The names in the dynasty are Amenemhe (Ammenemes) and Senwosri (formerly read Usertesen or Senusert). The latter seems to be the origin of the Sesostris (q.v.) and Sesoosis of the legends. Amenemhe I., the first king, whose connexion with the previous dynasty is not known, reigned for thirty years, ten of them being in partnership with his son Senwosri I. He had to fight for his throne and then reorganize the country, removing his capital or residence from Thebes to a central situation near Lisht about 25 M. south of Memphis. His monuments are widespread in Egypt, the quarries and mines in the desert as far as Sinai bear witness to his great activity, and we know of an expedition which he made against the Nubians. The " Instructions of Amenemhe to his son Senwosri," whether really his own or a later composition, refer to these things, to his care for his subjects, and to theingratitude with which he was rewarded, an attempt on his life having been made by the trusted servants in his own palace. The story of Sinai is the true or realistic history of a soldier who. having overheard the secret intelligence of Amenemhe's death, fled in fear to Palestine or Syria and there became rich in the favour of the prince of the land; growing old, however, he successfully sued for pardon from Senwosri and permission to return and die in Egypt. Senwosri I. was already the executive partner in the time of the co-regency, warring with the Libyans and probably in the Sudan. After Amenemhe's death he fully upheld the greatness of the dynasty in his long reign of forty-five years. The obelisk of Heliopolis is amongst his best-known monuments, and the damming of the Lake of Moeris (q.v.) must have been in progress in his reign. He built a temple far up the Nile at Wadi Haifa and there set up a stela commemorating his victories over the tribes of Nubia. The fine tombs of Ameni at Beni Hasan and of Hepzefa at Assiut belong to his reign. The pyramids of both father and son are at Lisht. Amenemhe II. was buried at Dahshur; he was followed by Senwosri II., whose pyramid is at Illahun at the mouth of the. Fayum. In his reign were executed the fine paintings in the tomb of Khnemhotp at Beni Hasan, which include a remarkable scene of Semitic Bedouins bringing eye-paint to Egypt from the eastern deserts. In Manetho he is identified with Sesostris (see. above), but Senwosri I., and still more Senwosri III., have a better claim to this distinction. The latter warred in Palestine and in Nubia, and marked the south frontier of his kingdom by a statue and stelae at Semna beyond the Second Cataract. Near his pyramid was discovered the splendid jewelry of some princesses of his family (see JEWELRY ad init.). The tomb of, Thethotp at El Bersha, celebrated for the scene of the transport of a colossus amongst its paintings, was finished in this reign. Amenemhe III. completed the work of Lake Moeris and began a series of observations of the height of the inundation at Semna which was continued by his successors. In his long reign of forty-six years he built a pyramid at Dahshur, and at Hawara near the Lake of Moeris another pyramid together with the Labyrinth which seems to have been an enormous funerary temple attached to the pyramid. His name was remembered in the Fayum during the Graeco-Roman period and his effigy worshipped there as Pera-marres, i.e. Pharaoh Marres (Marres being his praenomen graecized). Amenemhe IV.'s reign was short, and the dynasty ended with a queen Sebeknefru (Scemiophris), whose name is found in the scanty remains of the Labyrinth. The XIIth Dynasty numbered eight rulers and lasted for 213 years. Great as it was, it created no empire outside the Nile valley, and its most imposing monument, which according to the testimony of the ancients rivalled the pyramids, is now represented by a vast stratum of chips. The history of the following period down to the rise of the New Empire is very obscure. Manetho gives us the XIIIth (Dios-polite) Dynasty, the XIVth (Xoite from Xois in Lower Egypt), the XVth and XVIth (Hyksos) and the XVIIth (Diospolite), but his names are lost except for the Hyksos kings. The Abydos tablet ignores all between the XIIth and XVIIIth Dynasties. The Turin Papyrus preserves many names on its shattered fragments, and the monuments are for ever adding to the list, but it is difficult to assign them accurately to their places. The Hyksos names can in some cases be recognized by their foreign aspect, the peculiar style of the scarabs on which they are en-graved or by resemblances to those recorded in Manetho. The kings of the XVIIth Dynasty too are generally recognizable by the form of their name and other circumstances. Manetho indicates marvellous crowding for the XIIIth and XIVth Dynasties, but it seems better to suggest a total duration of 300 or 400 years for the whole period than to adopt Meyer's estimate of about 210 years (see above, Chronology). Amongst the kings of the XIIIth Dynasty (including perhaps the XIVth), not a few are represented by granite statues of colossal size and fine workmanship, especially at Thebes and Tanis, some by architectural fragments, some by graffiti on the rocks about the First Cataract. Some few certainly reigned over all Egypt. Sebkhotp (Sekhotp, Eoxwmis) is a favourite name, no doubt to be connected with the god of the Fayum. Several of the Theban kings named Antef (Enyotf) must be placed here rather than in the Xlth Dynasty. A decree of one of them degrading a monarch who had sided with his enemies was found at Coptos engraved on a doorway of Senwosri I. In its divided state Egypt would fall an easy prey to the foreigner. Manetho says that the Hyksos (q.v.) gained Egypt without a blow. Their domination must have lasted The a considerable time, the Rhind mathematical papyrus periods period. having been cin the thirty-third year of a king copied Apophis. The monuments and scarabs of the Hyksos kings are found throughout Upper and Lower Egypt; those of Khian somehow spread as far as Crete and Bagdad. The Hyksos, in whom Josephus recognized the children of Israel , worshipped their own Syrian deity, identifying him with the Egyptian god Seth, and endeavoured to establish his cult throughout Egypt to the detriment of the native gods. It is to be hoped that definite light may one day be forthcoming on the whole of this critical episode which had such a profound effect on the character and history of the Egyptian people. The spirited overthrow of the Hyksos ushered in the glories in arms and arts which marked the New Empire. The XVIIth Dynasty probably began the struggle, at first as semi-independent kinglets at Thebes. Segenenre is here a leading name; the mummy of the third Segenenre, the earliest in the great find of royal mummies at Deir el Bahri, shows the head frightfully hacked and split, perhaps in a battle with the Hyksos.The New Empire.The epithet " new " is generally attached to this period, and " empire " instead of " kingdom " marks its XVIIIth wider power. The glorious XVIIIth Dynasty seems Dynasty, to have been closely related to the XVIIth. Its first task was to crush the Hyksos power in the north-east of the Delta; this was fully accomplished by its founder Ahmosi (dialectically Ahmasi, Amosis or Amasis I.) capturing their great stronghold of Avaris. Amasis next attacked them in S.W. Palestine, where he captured Sharuhen after a siege of three years. He fought also in Syria and in Nubia, besides overcoming factious opposition in his own land. The principal source for the history of this time is the biographical inscription at El Kab of a namesake of the king, Ahmosi son of Abana, a sailor and warrior whose exploits extend to the reign of Tethmosis I. Amenophis I. (Amenhotp), succeeding Amasis, fought in Libya and Ethiopia. Tethmosis I. (c. 1540 B.c.) was perhaps of another family, but obtained his title to the throne through his wife Ahmosi. After some thirty years of settled rule uninterrupted by revolt, Egypt was now strong and rich enough to indulge to the full its new taste for war and lust of conquest. It had become essentially a military state. The whole of the administration was in the hands of the king with his vizier and other court officials; no trace of the feudalism of the Middle Kingdom survived. Tethmosis thoroughly subdued Cush, which had already been placed under the government of a viceroy. This province of Cush extended from Napata just below the Fourth Cataract on the south to El Kab in the north, so that it included the first three nomes of Upper Egypt, which agriculturally were not greatly superior to Nubia. Turning next to Syria, Tethmosis carried his arms as far as the Euphrates. It is possible that his predecessor had also reached this point, but no record survives to prove it. These successful campaigns were probably not very costly, and prisoners, plunder and tribute poured in from them to enrich Egypt. Tethmosis I. made the first of those great additions to the temple of the Theban Ammon at Karnak by which the Pharaohs of the Empire rendered it by far the greatest of the existing temples in the world. The temple of Deir el Bahri also was designed by him. Towards the end of his reign, his elder sons being dead, Tethmosis associated Queen Hatshepsut, his daughter by Ahmosi, with himself Hatshep- ~' out, upon the throne. Tethmosis I. was the first of the long line of kings to be buried in the Valley of the Tombs of the Kings of Thebes. At his death another son Teth- mosis II. succeeded as the husband of his half-sister, but reigned only two or three years, during which he warred in Nubia and placed Tethmosis III., his son by a concubine Esi, upon the throne beside him (c. r 50o B.C.). After her husband's death the ambitious Hatshepsut assumed the full regal power; upon her monuments she wears the masculine garb and aspect of a king though the feminine gender is retained for her in the inscriptions. On some monuments of this period her name appears alone, on others in conjunction with that of Tethmosis III., while the latter again may appear without the queen's; but this extraordinary woman must have had a great influence over her stepson and was the acknowledged ruler of Egypt. Tethmosis, to judge by the evidence of his mummy and the chronology of his reign, was already a grown man, yet no sign of the immense powers which he displayed later has come down to us from the joint reign. Hatshepsut cultivated the arts of peace. She restored the worship in those temples of Upper and Lower Egypt which had not yet recovered from the religious oppression and neglect of the Hyksos. She completed and decorated the temple of Deir el Bahri, embellishing its walls with scenes calculated to establish her claims, representing her divine origin and upbringing under the protection of Ammon, and her association on the throne by her human father. The famous sculptures of the great expedition by water to Puoni, the land of incense on the Somali coast, are also here, with many others. At Karnak Hatshepsut laboured chiefly to complete the works projected in the reigns of Tethmosis I. and II., and set up two obelisks in front of the entrance as it then was. One of these, still standing, is the most brilliant ornament of that wonderful temple. A date of the twenty-second year of her reign has been found at Sinai, no doubt counted from the beginning of the co-regency with Tethmosis I. Not much later, in his twenty-second year, Tethmosis III. is reigning alone in full vigour. While she lived, the personality of the queen secured the devotion of her servants and held all ambitions in check. Not long after her death there was a violent reaction. Prejudice against the rule of a woman, particularly one who had made her name and figure so conspicuous, was probably the cause of this outbreak, and perhaps sought justification in the fact that, however complete was her right, she had in some degree usurped a place to which her stepson (who was also her nephew) had been appointed. Her cartouches began to be defaced or her monuments hidden up by other buildings, and the same rage pursued some of her most faithful servants in their tombs. But the beauty of the work seems to have restrained the hand of the destroyer. Then came the religious fanaticism of Akhenaton, mutilating all figures of Ammon and all inscriptions containing his name; this made havoc of the exquisite monuments of Hatshepsut; and the restorers of the XIXth Dynasty, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the queen, had no scruples in replacing her names by those of the associate kings Tethmosis I., II. or III. These acts of vandalism took place throughout Egypt, but in the distant mines of Sinai the cartouches of Hatshepsut are untouched. In the royal lists of Seti I. and Rameses II. Hatshepsut has no place, nor is her reign referred to on any later monument).The immense energy of Tethmosis III. now found its outlet in war. Syria had revolted, perhaps on Hatshepsut's death, but by his twenty-second year the monarch was ready to lead his army against the rebels. The revolt, headed Te=hmoosis by the city of Kadesh on the Orontes, embraced the whole of western Syria. The movements of Tethmosis in this first campaign, including a battle with the Syrian chariots and infantry at Megiddo and the capture of that city, were chronicled from day to day, and an extract from this chronicle is engraved on the walls of the sanctuary of Karnak, together with a brief record of the subsequent expeditions. In a series i The history of Hatshepsut has been very obscure, and the mutilations of her cartouches have been variously accounted for. Recent discoveries by M. Legrain at Karnak and Prof. Petrie at Sinai have limited the field of conjecture. The writer has followed M. Naville's guidance in his biography of the queen (in T. M. Davis, The Tomb of Hatshopsitzl, London, 1906, pp. i et seq.), made with very full knowledge of the complicated data. of five carefully planned campaigns he consolidated his conquests in southern Syria and secured the ports of Phoenicia (q.v.). Kadesh fell in the sixth campaign. In the next year Tethmosis revisited the Phoenician ports, chastised the rebellious and received the tribute of Syria, all the while preparing for further advance, which did not take place until another year had gone by. Then, in the thirty-third year of his reign, he marched through Kadesh, fought his way to Carchemish, defeated the forces that opposed him there and crossed over the Euphrates into the territory of the king of Mitanni. He set up a tablet by the side of that of Tethmosis I. and turned southward, following the river as far as Niy. Here he stayed to hunt a herd of 120 elephants, and then, marching westwards, received the tribute of Naharina and gifts from the Hittites in Asia Minor and from the king of Babylon. In all he fought seventeen campaigns in Syria until the spirit of revolt was entirely crushed in a second capture of Kadesh. The wars in Libya and Ethiopia were of less moment. In the intervals of war Tethmosis III. proved to be a wonderfully efficient administrator, with his eye on every corner of his dominions. The Syrian expeditions occupied six months in most of his best years, but the remaining time was spent in activity at home, repressing robbery and injustice, rebuilding and adorning temples with the labour of . his captives and the plunder and tribute of conquered cities, or designing with his own hand the gorgeous sacred vessels of the sanctuary of Ammon. In his later years some expeditions took place into Nubia. Tethmosis died in the fifty-fourth year of his reign. His mummy, found in the cachette at Deir el Bahri, is said to be that of a very old man. He was the greatest Pharaoh in the New Empire, if not in all Egyptian history. Tethmosis III. was succeeded by his son Amenophis II., whom he had associated on the throne at the end of his reign. One of the first acts of the new king was to lead an army into Syria, where revolt was again rife; he reached and perhaps crossed the Euphrates and returned home to Thebes with seven captive kings of Tikhsi and much spoil. The kings he sacrificed to Ammon and hanged six bodies on the walls, while the seventh was carried south to Napata and there exposed as a terror to the Ethiopians. Amenophis reigned twenty-six years and left his throne to his son Tethmosis IV., who is best remembered by a granite tablet recording his clearance of the Great Sphinx. He also warred in northern Syria and in Cush. His son Amenophis III., c. r400 B.C., was a mighty builder, especially at Thebes, where his reign marks a new epoch in the history of the great temples, Luxor being his creation, while avenues of rams, pylons, &c., were added on a vast scale to Karnak. He married a certain Taia, who, though apparently of humble parentage, was held in great honour by her husband as afterwards by her son. Amenophis Amenophis III. warred in Ethiopia, but his sway was long unquestioned from Napata to the Euphrates. Small objects with his name and that of Taia are found on the mainland and in the islands of Greece. Through the fortunate discovery of cuneiform tablets deposited by his successor in the archives at Tell el-Amarna, we can see how the rulers of the great kingdoms beyond the river, Mitanni, Assyria and even Babylonia, corresponded with Amenophis, gave their daughters to him in marriage, and congratulated themselves on having his friendship. The king of Cyprus too courted him; while within the empire the descendants of the Syrian dynasts conquered by his father, having been educated in Egypt, ruled their paternal possessions as the abject slaves of Pharaoh. A constant stream of tribute poured into Egypt, sufficient to defray the cost of all the splendid works that were executed. Amenophis caused a series of large scarabs unique in their kind to be engraved with the name and parentage of his queen Taia, followed by varying texts commemorating like medals the boundaries of his kingdom, his secondary marriage with Gilukhipa, daughter of the king of Mitanni, the formation of a sacred lake at Thebes, a great hunt of wild cattle, and the number of lions the king sl in the first ten years of his reign. The colossi known to the Greeks by the name of the Homeric hero Memnon, which look over the western plain of Thebes, represent this king and were placed before the entrance of his funerary temple, the rest of which has disappeared. His palace lay farther south on the west bank, built of crude brick covered with painted stucco. Towards the end of his reign of thirty-six years, Syria was invaded by the Hittites from the north and the people called the Khabiri from the eastern desert; some of the kinglets conspired with the invaders to overthrow the Egyptian power, while those who remained loyal sent alarming reports to their sovereign. Amenophis IV., son of Amenophis III. and Taia, was perhaps the most remarkable character in the long line of the Pharaohs. He was a religious fanatic, who had probably been high of the sun-god at Heliopolis, and had come to Amenophis priest iv. view the sun as the visible source of life, creation, growth and activity, whose power was demonstrated in foreign lands almost as clearly as in Egypt. Thrusting aside all the multitudinous deities of Egypt and all the mythology even of Heliopolis, he devoted himself to the cult of the visible sun-disk, applying to it as its chief name the hitherto rare word Aton, meaning " sun "; the traditional divine name Harakht (Horns of the horizon), given to the hawk-headed sun-god of Heliopolis, was however allowed to subsist and a temple was built at Karnak to this god. The worship of the other gods was officially recognized until his fifth year, but then a sweeping reform was initiated by which apparently the new cult alone was permitted. Of the old deities Ammon represented by far the wealthiest and most powerful interests, and against this long favoured deity the Pharaoh hurled himself with fury. He changed his own name from Amenhotp, " Ammon is satisfied," to Akhenaton, " pious to Aton," erased the name and figure of Ammon from the monuments, even where it occurred as part of his own father's name, abandoned Thebes, the magnificent city of Ammon, and built a new capital at El Amarna in the plain of Hermopolis, on a virgin site upon the edge of the desert. This with a large area around he dedicated to Aton in the sixth year, while splendid temples, palaces, houses and tombs for his god, for himself and for his courtiers were rising around him; apparently also this " son of Aton " swore an oath never to pass beyond the boundaries of Aton's special domain. There are signs also that the polytheistic word " gods " was obliterated on many of the monuments, but other divine names, though almost entirely excluded from Akhenaton's work, were left untouched where they already existed. In all local temples the worship of Aton was instituted. The confiscated revenues of Ammon and the tribute from Syria and Cush provided ample means for adorning Ekhaton (Akhetaton), " the horizon of Aton," the new capital, and for richly rewarding those who adopted the Aton teaching fervently. But meanwhile the political needs of the empire were neglected; the dangers which threatened it at the end of the reign of Amenophis III. were never properly met; the dynasts in Syria were at war amongst themselves, intriguing with the great Hittite advance and with the Khabiri invaders. Those who relied on Pharaoh and remained loyal as their fathers had done sent letter after letter appealing for aid against their foes. But though a general was despatched with some troops, he seems to have done more harm than good in misjudging the quarrels. At length the tone of the letters becomes one of despair, in which flight to Egypt appears the only resource left for the adherents of the Egyptian cause. Before the end of the reign Egyptian rule in Syria had probably ceased altogether. Akhenaton died in or about the seventeenth year of his reign, c. 1350 B.C. He had a family of daughters, who appeared constantly with him in all ceremonies, but no son. Two sons-in-law followed him with brief reigns; but the second, Tutenkhaton, soon changed his name to Tutenkhamfin, and, without abandoning Ekhaton entirely, began to restore to Karnak its ancient splendour, with new monuments dedicated to Ammon. Akhenaton's reform had not reached deep amongst the masses of the population; they probably retained all their old religious customs and superstitions, while the priesthoods throughout the country must have been fiercely opposed to the heretic's work, even if silenced during his lifetime by force and bribes. One more adherent of his named Ay, a priest, ruled for a short time, but now Aton was only one of manygods. At length a general named Harmahib, who had served under Akhenaton,came to the throne as a whole-hearted supporter of the old religion; soon Aton and his royal following suffered the fate that they had imposed upon Ammon; their monuments were destroyed and their names and figures erased, while those of Ammon were restored. From the time of Rameses II. onwards the years of the reigns of the heretics were counted to Harmahib, and Akhenaton was described as " that criminal of Akhetaton." Harmahib had to bring order as a practical man into the long-neglected administration of the country and to suppress the extortions of the official classes by severe measures. His laws to this end were engraved on a great stela in the temple of Karnak, of which sufficient remains to bear witness to his high aims, while the prosperity of the succeeding reigns shows how well he realized the necessities of the state. He probably began also to re-establish the prestige of Egypt by military expeditions in the surrounding countries. Harmahib appears to have legitimated his rule by marriage to a royal princess, but it is probable that Rameses I., who suc- ceeded as founder of the XIXth Dynasty, was not closely related to him. Rameses in his brief reign of two years planned and began the great colonnaded hall
probably too old to carry them out; this task he left to his son Seti I., who reigned one year with his father and on the latter's death was ready at once to subdue the Bedouin Shasu, who had invaded Palestine and withheld all tribute. This task was quickly accomplished and Seti pushed onward to the Lebanon. Here cedars were felled for him by the Syrian princes, and the Phoe- nicians paid homage before he returned home in triumph. The Libyans had also to be dealt with, and afterwards Seti advanced again through Palestine, ravaged the land of the Amorites and came into conflict with the Hittites. The latter, however, were now firmly established in the Orontes valley, and a treaty with Mutallu, the king of Kheta, reigning far away in Cappadocia, probably ended the wars of Seti. In his ninth year he turned his attention to the gold mines in the eastern desert of Nubia and improved the road thither. Meanwhile the great work at Karnak projected by his father was going forward, and throughout Egypt the injuries done to the monuments by Akhenaton were thoroughly repaired; the erased inscriptions and figures were restored, not without many blunders. Seti's temple at Abydos and his galleried tomb in the Valley of the Tombs of the Kings stand out as the most splendid examples of their kind in design and in decoration. Rameses II. succeeded at an early age Rameses and reigned sixty-seven years, during which he finished much that was begun by Seti and filled all Egypt and Nubia with his own monuments, some of them beauti- ful, but most, necessarily entrusted to inferior workmen, of coarse execution. The excavation of the rock temple of Abu Simbel and the completion of the great hall
greatest achievements in architecture. His wars began in his second year, their field comprising the Nubians, the Libyans, the Syrians and the Hittites. In his fifth year, near Kadesh on the Orontes, his army was caught unprepared and divided by a strong force of chariots of the Hittites and their allies, and Rameses himself was placed in the most imminent danger; but through his personal courage the enemy was kept at bay till reinforcements came up and turned the disaster into a victory. The incidents of this episode were a favourite subject in the sculp- tures of his temples, where their representation was accompanied by a poetical version of the affair and other explanatory inscrip- tions. Kadesh, however, was not captured, and after further contests, in his twenty-first year Rameses and the Hittite king Khattusil (Kheta-sar) made peace, with a defensive alliance against foreign aggression and internal revolt (see HITTITES). Thanks to Winckler's discoveries, the cuneiform text of this treaty from Boghaz Keui can now be compared with the hiero
glyphic text at Karnak. In the thirty-fourth year, c. 1250 B.C., Khattusil with his friend or subject the king of Kode came from his distant capital to see the wonders of Egypt in person, bringing one of his daughters to be wife of the splendid Pharaoh. Rameses II. paid much attention to the Delta, which had been neglected until the days of Seti I., and resided there constantly; the temple of Tanis must have been greatly enlarged and adorned by him; a colossus of the king placed here was over 90 ft. in height, exceeding in scale even the greatest of the Theban colossi which he had erected in his mortuary temple of the Ramesseum. Towards the end of the long reign the vigilance and energy of the old king diminished. The military spirit awakened in the struggle with the Hyksos had again departed from the Egyptian nation; mercenaries from the Sudan, from Libya and from the northern nations supplied the armies, while foreigners settled in the rich lands of the Delta and harried the coasts. It was a time too when the movements of the nations that so frequently occurred in the ancient world were about to be particularly active. Mineptah, c. 1225 B.C., succeeding his father Rameses II., had to fight many battles for the preservation of. his kingdom and empire. Apparently most of the fighting was finished by the fifth year of his reign; in his mortuary temple at Thebes he set up a stela of that date recording a great victory over the Libyan immigrants and invaders, which rendered the much harried land of Egypt safe. The last lines picture this condition with the crushing of the surrounding tribes. Libya was wasted, the Hittites pacified, Canaan, Ashkelon (Ascalon), Gezer, Yenoam sacked and plundered: " Israel is desolated, his seed is not, Khor (Palestine) has become a widow (without protector) for Egypt." The Libyans are accompanied by allies whose names, Sherden, Shekelesh, Ekwesh, Lukku, Teresh, suggest identifications with Sardinians, Sicels, Achaeans, Lycians and Tyrseni or Etruscans. The Sherden had been in the armies of Ramesess II., and are distinguished by their remarkable helmets and apparently body armour of metal. The Lukku are certainly the same as the Lycians. Probably they were all sea-rovers from the shores and islands of the Mediterranean, who were willing to leave their ships and join the Libyans in raids on the rich lands of Egypt. Mineptah was one of the most unconscionable usurpers of the monuments of his predecessors, including those of his own father, who, it must be admitted, had set him the example. The coarse cutting of his cartouches contrasts with the splendid finish of the Middle Kingdom work which they disfigure. It may be questioned whether it was due to a wave of enthusiasm amongst the priests and people, leading them to rededicate the monuments in the name of their deliverer, or a somewhat insane desire of the king to perpetuate his own memory in a singularly unfortunate manner. Mineptah, the thirteenth son in the huge family of Rameses, must have been old when he ascended the throne; after his first years of reign his energies gave way, and he was followed by a quick succession of inglorious rulers, Seti II., the queen Tuosri, Amenmesse, Siptah; the names of the last two were erased from their monuments.A great papyrus written after the death of Rameses III. and recording his gifts to the temples briefly reviews the conditions of these troublous times. " The land of Egypt was in the hands of chiefs and rulers of towns, great and py hasty small slaying each other; afterwards a certain Syrian made himself chief; he made the whole land tributary before him; he united his companions and plundered their property (i.e. of the other chiefs). They made the gods like men, and no offerings were presented in the temples. But when the gods inclined themselves to peace . . . they established their son Setenkhot (Setnekht) to be ruler of every land." Of the Syrian occupation we know nothing further. Setenkhot, c. 1200 B.C., had a very short reign and was not counted as legitimate, but he established a lasting dynasty (probably by conciliating the priesthood). He was father of Rameses III., who revived the glories of the empire. The dangers that menaced Egypt now were similar to those which Mineptah had to meet at his accession. Again the Libyans and the " peoples of the sea " were acting in concert. The latter now comprised Peleset (the Cretans, ancestors of the Philistines), Thekel, Shekelesh, Denyen (Danaoi?) and Weshesh; they had invaded Syria from Asiz Minor, reaching the Euphrates, destroying the Hittite cities and progressing southwards, while their ships gathered plunder XIXth Dynasty. from the coasts of the Delta. This fleet joined the Libyan invaders, but was overthrown with heavy loss by the Egyptians, in whose ranks there actually served many Sherden and Kehaka, Sardinian and Libyan mercenaries. Egypt itself was thus clear of enemies; but the chariots and warriors of the Philistines and their associates were advancing through Syria, their families and goods following in ox-carts, and their ships accompanying them along the shore. Rameses led out his army and fleet against them and struck them so decisive a blow that the migrating swarm submitted to his rule and paid him tribute. In his eleventh year another Libyan invasion had to be met, and his suzerainty in Palestine forcibly asserted. His vigour was equal to all these emergencies and the later years of his reign were spent in peace. Rameses III., however, was not a great ruler. He was possessed by the spirit of decadence, imitative rather than originating. It is evident that Rameses II. was the model to which he endeavoured to conform, and he did not attempt to preserve himself from the weakening influences of priestcraft. To the temples he not only restored the property which had been given to them by former kings, but he also added greatly to their wealth; the Theban Ammon naturally received by far the greatest share, more than those of all the other gods together. The land held in the name of different deities is estimated at about 15% of the whole of Egypt; various temples of Ammon owned two-thirds of this, Re of Heliopolis and Ptah of Memphis being the next in wealth. His palace was at Medinet Habu on the west bank of Thebes in the south quarter; and here he built a great temple to Ammon, adorned with scenes from his victories and richly provided with divine offerings. Although Egypt probably was prosperous on the whole, there was undoubtedly great distress amongst certain portions of the population. We read in a papyrus of a strike of starving labourers in the Theban necropolis who would not work until corn was given to them, and apparently the government storehouse was empty at the time, perhaps in consequence of a bad Nile. Shortly before the death of the old king a plot in the harem to assassinate him, and apparently to place one of his sons on the throne, was discovered and its investigation ordered, leading after his death to the condemnation of many high-placed men and women. Nine kings of the name of Rameses now followed each other ingloriously in the space of about eighty years to the end of the XXth Dynasty, the power of the high priests of Ammon ever growing at their expense. At this time the Theban necropolis was being more systematically robbed than ever before. Under Rameses IX. an investigation took place which showed that one of the royal tombs before the western cliffs had been completely ransacked and the mummies burnt. Three years later the Valley of the Tombs of the Kings was attacked and the sepulchres of Seti I. and Rameses II. were robbed. The authority of the last king of the XXth Dynasty, Rameses XII., was shadowy. Hrihor, the high priest in his The reign, gradually gathered into his own hands all real Deltaic power, and succeeded him at Thebes, c. 'too B.e., Dynasties; while a prince at Tanis named Smendes (Esbenteti) Libyan founded a separate dynasty in the Delta (Dynasty period. XXI.). From this period dates a remarkable papyrus containing the report of an envoy named Unamfin, sent to Syria by Hrihor to obtain cedar timber from Byblus. He took with him an image of Ammon to bestow life and health on the prince of Byblus, but apparently no other provision for the journey or for the negotiations beyond a letter of recommendation to Smendes and a little gold and silver. Smendes had trading ships in the Phoenician ports, but even his influence was not greater than that of other commercial or pirate centres, while Hrihor was of no account except in so far as he might pay well for the cedar wood he required. Unamfin was robbed on the voyage, the prince of Byblus rebuffed him, and when at last the latter agreed to provide the timber it was only in exchange for substantial gifts hastily sent for from Egypt (including rolls of papyrus) and the promise of more to follow. The prince, however, seems to have acknowledged to some extent the divinity of Ammon and the debt owed by Phoenicia to Egyptian culture, and pitied the many misfortunes of Unamiln. The narrative shows the feebleness of Egypt abroad. The Tanite line of kings generally had the over-lordship of the high priests of Thebes; the descendants of Hrihor, however, sometimes by marriage with princesses of the other line, could assume cartouches and royal titles, and in some cases perhaps ruled the whole of Egypt. Ethiopia may have been ruled with the Thebais, but the records of the time are very scanty. Syria was wholly lost to Egypt. The mummies from the despoiled tombs of the kings were the object of much anxious care to the kings of this dynasty; after being removed from one tomb to another, they were finally deposited in a shaft near the temple of Deir el Bahri, where they remained for nearly three thousand years, until the demand for antiquities at last brought the plunderer once more to their hiding-place; eventually they were all secured for the Cairo museum, where they may now be seen. Libyan soldiers had long been employed in the army, and , their military chiefs settled in the large towns and acquired wealth and power, while the native rulers grew weaker and weaker. The Tanite dynasty may have risen from a Libyan stock, though there is nothing to prove it; the XXIInd Dynasty are clearly from their names of foreign extraction, and their genealogy indicates distinctly a Libyan military origin in a family of rulers of Heracleopolis Magna, in Middle Egypt. Sheshonk (Shishak) I., the founder of the dynasty, c. 950 B.C., seems to have fixed his residence at Bubastis in the Delta, and his son married the daughter of the last king of the Tanite dynasty.. Heracleopolis seems henceforth for several centuries to have been capital of Middle Egypt, which was considered as a more or less distinct province. Sheshonk secured Thebes, making one of his sons high priest of Ammon, and whereas Solomon appears to have dealt with a king of Egypt on something like an equal footing, Sheshonk re-established Egyptian rule in Palestine and Nubia, and his expedition in the fifth year of Rehoboam subdued Israel as well as Judah, to judge by the list of city names which he inscribed on the wall of the temple of Karnak. Osorkon I. inherited a prosperous kingdom from his father, but no further progress was made. It required a strong hand to curb the Libyan chieftains, and divisions soon began to show themselves in the kingdom. The XXIInd Dynasty lasted through many generations; but there were rival kings, and M. Legrain thinks that he has proof that the XXIIIrd Dynasty was contemporaneous with the end of the XXIInd. The kings of the XXIIIrd Dynasty had little hold upon the subject princes, who spent the resources of the country in feuds amongst themselves. A native kingdom had meanwhile been established in Ethiopia. Our first knowledge of it is at this moment, when the Ethiopian king Pankhi already held the Thebais. The energetic prince of Sais, Tefnakht, followed by most of the princes of the Delta, subdued most of Middle Egypt, and by uniting these forces threatened the Ethiopian border. Heracleopolis Magna, however, with its petty king Pefteuaubasti, held out against Tefnakht, and Pankhi coming to its aid not only drove Tefnakht out of Middle Egypt, but also captured Memphis and received the submission of the princes and chiefs; in all these included four " kings " and fourteen other chiefs. According to Diodorus the Ethiopian state was theocratic, ruled through the 1 ing by the priests of Ammon. The account is probably exaggerated; but even in Pankhi's record the piety of the king, especially towards Ammon, is very marked. The XXIVth Dynasty consisted of a single Saite king named Bocchoris (Bekerrinf), son of Tefnachthus, apparently the above Tefnakht. Another Ethiopian invader, Shabako (Sabacon), is said to have burnt Bocchoris alive. The p nas yn Ethiopian rule of the XXVth Dynasty was now firmly established, and the resources of the two countries together might have been employed in conquest in Syria and Phoenicia; but at this very time the Assyrian empire, risen to the highest pitch of military greatness, began to menace Egypt. The Ethiopian could do no more than encourage or support the Syrians in their fight for freedom against Sargon and Sennacherib. Shabako was followed by Shebitku and Shebitku by Tirhaka (Tahrak, Taracos). Tirhaka was energetic in opposing the Assyrian advance, but in 67o B.C. Esarhaddon defeated his army on the border of Egypt, captured Memphis with the royal* harem and took great spoil. The Egyptian resistance to the Assyrians was probably only half-hearted; in the north especially there must have been a strong party against the Ethiopian rule. Tirhaka laboured to propitiate the north country, and probably rendered the Ethiopian rule acceptable throughout Egypt. Notwithstanding, the Assyrian king entrusted the government and collection of tribute to the native chiefs; twenty princes in all are enumerated in the records, including one Assyrian to hold the key of Egypt at Pelusium. Scarcely had Esarhaddon withdrawn before Tirhaka returned from his refuge in the south and the Assyrian garrisons were massacred. Esarhaddon promptly prepared a second expedition, but died on the way to Egypt in 668 B.c.; his son Assur-bani-pal sent it forward, routed Tirhaka and reinstated the governors. At the head of these was Necho (Niku), king of Sais and Memphis, father of Psammetichus, the founder of the XXVIth Dynasty. We next hear that correspondence with Tirhaka was intercepted, and that Necho, together with Pekrur of Psapt (at the entrance to the Wadi Tumilat) and the Assyrian governor of Pelusium, was taken to Nineveh in chains to answer the charge of treason. Whatever may have occurred, it was deemed politic to send Necho back loaded with honours and surrounded by a retinue of Assyrian officials. Upper Egypt, however, was loyal to Tirhaka, and even at Memphis the burial of an Apis bull was dated by the priests as in his reign. Immediately afterwards he died. His nephew Tandamane, received by the Upper country with acclamations, besieged and captured Memphis, Necho being probably slain in the encounter. But in 661 (?) Assur-bani-pal drove the Ethiopian out of Lower Egypt, pursued him up the Nile and sacked Thebes. This was the last and most tremendous visitation of the Assyrian scourge. Psammetichus (Psammetk), 6646ro B.C., the son of Necho, succeeded his father as a vassal of Assyria in his possessions of xxvith Memphis and Sais, allied himself with Gyges, king of Dynasty. Lydia, and aided by Ionian and Carian mercenaries, extended and consolidated his power.' By the ninth year of his reign he was in full possession of Thebes. Assurbani-pal's energies throughout this crisis were entirely occupied with revolts nearer home, in Babylon, Elam and Arabia. The Assyrian arms again triumphed everywhere, but at the cost of complete exhaustion. Under the firm and wise rule of Psammetichus, Egypt recovered its prosperity after the terrible losses inflicted by internal wars and the decade of Assyrian invasions. The revenue went up by leaps and bounds. Psammetichus guarded the frontiers of Egypt with three strong garrisons, placing the Ionian and Carian mercenaries especially at the Pelusiac Daphnae in' the N.E., from which quarter the most formidable enemy was likely to appear. The Assyrians did not move against him, but a great Scythian horde, destroying all before it in its southward advance, is said by Herodotus to have been turned back by presents and entreaties. Diplomacy backed up by vigorous preparations may have deterred the Scythians from the dangerous enterprise of crossing the desert to Egypt. Before his death Psammetichus had advanced into southern Palestine and captured Azotus. When Psammetichus began to reign the situation of Egypt was very different from what it had been under the Empire. The development of trade in the Mediterranean and contact with new peoples and new civilizations in peace and war had given birth to new ideas among the Egyptians and at the same time to a loss of confidence in their own powers. The Theban supremacy was gone and the Delta was now the wealthy and progressive part of Egypt; piety increased amongst the masses, unenterprising and unwarlike, but proud of their illustrious antiquity. Thebes and Ammon and the traditions of the Empire savoured too much now of the Ethiopian; the priests oft the Memphite and Deltaic dynasty thereupon turned deliberately ' This, it may be remarked, is the time vaguely represented by the Dodecarchy of Herodotus.for their models to the times of the ancient supremacy of Memphis, and the sculptures and texts on tomb and temple had to conform as closely as possible to those of the Old Kingdom. In other than religious matters, however, the Egyptians were inventing and perhaps borrowing. To enumerate a few examples of this which are already definitely known: we find that the forms of legal and business documents became more precise; the mechanical arts of casting in bronze on a core and of moulding figures and pottery were brought to the highest pitch of excellence; and portraiture in the round on its highest plane was better than ever before and admirably lifelike, revealing careful study of the external anatomy of the individual. Psammetichus died in the fifty-fourth year of his reign and was succeeded by his son Necho, 610594 B.C. Taking advantage of the helpless state of the Assyrians, whose capital was assailed by the Medes and the Babylonians, the new Pharaoh prepared an expedition to recover the ancient possessions of the Empire in Syria. Josiah alone, faithful to the king of Assyria, opposed him with his feeble force at Megiddo and was easily overcome and slain. Necho went forward to the Euphrates, put the land to tribute, and, in the case of Judah at any rate, filled the throne with his own nominee (see JEHOIAKIM). The fall of Nineveh and the division of the spoil gave to Nabopolasser, king of Babylon, the inheritance of the Assyrians in the west, and he at once despatched his son Nebuchadrezzar to fight Necho. The Babylonian and Egyptian forces met at Carchemish (605), and the rout of the latter was so complete that Necho relinquished Syria and might have lost Egypt as well had not the death of Nabopolasser recalled the victor to Babylon. Herodotus relates that in Necho's reign a Phoenician ship despatched from Egypt actually circumnavigated Africa, and the attempt was made to complete a canal through the Wadi Tumilat, which connected the Mediterranean and Red Seas by way of the Lower Egyptian Nile. (See SuEZ.) The next king, Psammetichus II., 594589 B.C., according to one account made an expedition to Syria or Phoenicia, and apparently sent a mercenary force into Ethiopia as far as Abu Simbel. Pharaoh Hophra (Apries), 589570 B.C., fomented rebellion against the Babylonian suzerainty in Judah, but accomplished little there. Herodotus, however, describes his reign as exceedingly prosperous. The mercenary troops at Elephantine mutinied and attempted to desert to Ethiopia, but were brought back and punished. Later, however, a disastrous expedition sent to aid the Libyans against the Greek colony of Cyrene roused the suspicion and anger of the native soldiery at favours shown to the mercenaries, who of course had taken no part in it. Amasis (Ahmosi) II. was chosen king by the former (570525 B.C.), and his swarm of adherents overcame the Greek troops in Apries' pay (see AMASrs). None the less Amasis employed Greeks in numbers, and cultivated the friend-ship of their tyrants. His rule was confined to Egypt (and perhaps Cyprus), but Egypt itself was very prosperous. At the beginning of his long reign of forty-four years he was threatened by Nebuchadrezzar; later he joined the league against Cyrus and saw with alarm the fall of his old enemy. A few months after his death, 525 B.C., the invading host of the Persians led by Cambyses reached Egypt and dethroned his son Psammetichus III. Cambyses at first conciliated the Egyptians and respected their religion; but, perhaps after the failure of his expedition into Ethiopia, he entirely changed his policy, and his The memory was generally execrated. He left Egypt so Persian completely crushed that the subsequent usurpation period, of the Persian throne was marked by no revolt in that vynastyxxvnth quarter. Darius, 521486 B.C., proved himself a beneficent ruler, and in a visit to Egypt displayed his consideration for the religion of the country. In the Great Oasis he built a temple to Ammon. The annual tribute imposed on the satrapy of Egypt and Cyrene was heavy, but it was probably raised with ease. The canal from the Nile to the Red Sea was completed or repaired, and commerce flourished. Documents dated in the thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth years of Darius are not uncommon, but apparently at the very end of his reign, some years after the disaster of Marathon, Egypt was induced to rebel. Xerxes, 486467 B.C., who put down the revolt with severity, and his successor Artaxerxes, 466425 B.C., like Cambyses, were hateful to the Egyptians. The disorders which marked the accession of Artaxerxes gave Egypt another opportunity to rebel. Their leaders were Inaros the Libyan of Marea and the Egyptian Amyrtaeus. Aided by an Athenian force, Inaros slew the satrap Achaemenes at the battle of Papremis and destroyed his army; but the garrison of Memphis held out, and a fresh host from Persia raised the siege and in turn besieged the Greek and Egyptian forces on the island of Papremis. At last, after two years, having diverted the river from its channel, they captured and burnt the Athenian ships and quickly ended the rebellion. The reigns of Xerxes II. and Darius II. are marked by no recorded incident in Egypt until a successful revolt about 405 B.C. interrupted the Persian domination. Monuments of the Persian rule in Egypt are exceedingly scanty. The inscriptions of Pefteuauneit, priest of Neith at Sais, and from his position the native authority who was most likely to be consulted by, Cambyses and Darius, tells of his relations with these two kings. For the following reigns Egyptian documents hardly exist, but some papyri written in Aramaic have been found at Elephantine and at Memphis. Those from the former locality show that a colony of Jews with a temple dedicated to Yahweh (Jehovah) had established themselves at that garrison and trading post (see AssuAN). Herodotus visited Egypt in the reign of Artaxerxes, about 440 B.C. His description of Egypt, partly founded on Hecataeus, who had been there about fifty years earlier, is the chief source of information for the history of the Saite kings and for the manners of the times, but his statements prove to be far from correct when they can be checked by the scanty native evidence. (F. LL. G.) Amyrtaeus (Amnertais) of Sais, perhaps a son of Pausiris and grandson of the earlier Amyrtaeus, revolted from Darius II. C. 405 B.C., and Egypt regained its independence for Dynasties about sixty years. The next king Nefeuret xxvita- xxxi. (Nepherites I.) was a Mendesian and founded the XXIXth Dynasty. After Hakor and Nefeuret II. the sovereignty passed to Dynasty XXX., the last native Egyptian line. Monuments of all these kings are known, and art flourished particularly under the MendesiankingsNekhtharheb (Nectanebes or Nectanebus I.) and Nekhtnebf (Nectanebes II.). The former came to the throne when a Persian invasion was imminent, 378 B.C. Hakor had already formed a powerful army, largely composed of Greek mercenaries. This army Nekhtharheb entrusted to the Athenian Chabrias. The Persians, however, succeeded in causing his recall and in gaining the services of his fellow-countryman Iphicrates. The invading army consisted of 200,000 barbarians under Pharnabazus and 20,000 Greeks under Iphicrates. After the Egyptians had experienced a reverse, Iphicrates counselled an immediate advance on Memphis. His advice was not followed by Pharnabazus; the Egyptian king collected his forces and won a pitched battle near Mendes. Pharnabazus retreated and Egypt was free. Nekhtharheb was succeeded by Tachos or Teos, whose short reign was occupied by a war with Persia, in which the king of Egypt secured the services of a body of Greek mercenaries under the Spartan king Agesilaus and a fleet under the Athenian general Chabrias. He entered Phoenicia with every prospect of success, but having offended Agesilaus he was dethroned in a military revolt which gave the crown to Nekhtnebf or Nectanebes II., the last native king of Egypt. At this moment a revolt broke out. The prince of Mendes almost succeeded in overthrowing the new king. Agesilaus defeated the rival pretender and left Nekhtnebf established on the throne. But the opportunity of a decisive blow against Persia was lost. The new king, Artaxerxes III. Ochus, determined to reduce Egypt. A first expedition was defeated by the Greek mercenaries of Nekhtnebf, but a second, commanded by Ochus himself, subdued Egypt with no further resistance than that of the Greek garrison of Pelusium. Nekhtnebf, instead of endeavouring to relieve them, retreated to Memphis and fled thence to Ethiopia, 340 (?) B.C. Thus miserably fell the monarchy of the Pharaohs, after an unexampled duration of 3000 years, or as some think far longer. 6'1VIore than 2000 years have since passed, and though Egypt has from time to time been independent, not one native prince has sat on the throne of the Pharaohs. " There shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt " (Ezek. xxx. 13) was prophesied in the days of Apries as the final state of the land. Ochus treated his conquest barbarously. From this brief re-establishment of Persian dominion (counted by Manetho as Dynasty XXXI.) no document survives except one papyrus that appears to be dated in the reign of Darius III. See J. H. Breasted, A History of Egypt from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest (New York and London, 19o5) ; A History of the Ancient Egyptians (New York and London, 5908) ; Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest, collected, edited and translated (g vols., Chicago, 59065907) ; W. M. F. Petrie, A History of Egypt (from the earliest times to the XXXth Dynasty) (3 vols., London, 58995905); E. A. W. Budge, A History of Egypt, vols. i-vii. (London, 5902) ; G. Maspero, Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'orient (6th ed., 5904), The Dawn of Civilization, The Struggle of the Nations, The Passing of the Empires (London, 5904, &c.) ; P. E. Newberry and J. Garstang, A Short History of Ancient Egypt (London, 19o4); G. Steindorff, Die Bliitezeit des Pharaonenreiches (Dyn. X VIII.) (Bielefeld and Leipzig, 5900) ; H. Winckler, The Tell el Amarna Letters (Berlin, London and New York, 5896). The Conquest by Alexander.When, in 332 B.C., after the battle of Issus, Alexander entered Egypt, he was welcomed as a deliverer. The Persian governor had not forces enough to oppose him, and he nowhere experienced even the show of resistance. He visited Memphis, founded Alexandria, and went on pilgrimage to the oracle of Ammon (Oasis of Siwa). The god declared him to be his son, renewing thus an old Egyptian convention or belief; Olympias was supposed to have been in converse with Ammon, even as the mothers of Hatshepsut and Amenophis III. are represented in the inscriptions of the Theban temples to have received the divine essence. At this stage of his career the treasure and tribute of Egypt were of great importance to the Macedonian conqueror. He conciliated the inhabitants by the respect which he showed for their religion; he organized the government of the natives under two officers, who must have been already known to them (of these Petisis, an Egyptian, soon resigned his share into the charge of his colleague Doloaspis, who bears a Persian name.) But Alexander designed his Greek foundation of Alexandria to be the capital, and entrusted the taxation of Egypt and the control of its army and navy to Greeks. Early in 331 B.C. he was ready to depart, and led his forces away to Phoenicia. A granite gateway to the temple of Khnum at Elephantine bears his name in hieroglyphic, and demotic documents are found dated in his reign. The Ptolemaic Period.On the division of Alexander's dominions in 325 B.C., Egypt fell to Ptolemy the son of Lagus, the founder of the. Ptolemaic dynasty (see PTOLEMIES). Under these rulers the rich kingdom was heavily taxed to supply the sinews of war and to support every kind of lavish expenditure. Officials, and the higher ones were nearly all Greeks, were legion, but the whole system was so judiciously worked that there was little discontent amongst the patient peasantry. During the reign of Philadelphus the land gained from the bed of the lake of Moeris was assigned to veteran soldiers; the great armies of the Ptolemies were rewarded or supported by grants of farm lands, and men of Macedonian, Greek and Hellenistic extraction were planted in colonies and garrisons or settled themselves in the villages throughout the country. Upper Egypt, farthest from the centre of government, was probably least affected by the new influences, though the first Ptolemy established the Greek colony of Ptolemais to be its capital. Intermarriages, however, gradually had their effect; after the revolt of the natives in the reign of Ptolemy V., we find the Greek and Egyptian elements closely intermingled. Ptolemy I. had established the cult of the Memphite Serapis in a Graeco-Egyptian form, affording a common ground for native and Hellenistic worshippers. The greater number of the temples to the native deities in Upper Egypt and in Nubia (to 5o m. south of the Cataract, within the Dodecaschoenus) were built under the Ptolemies. No serious effort was made to extend the Ptolemaic rule into Ethiopia, and Ergamenes, the Hellenizing king of Ethiopia, was evidently in alliance with Philopator; in the next reign two native kings, probably supported by Ethiopia, reigned in succession at Thebes. That famous city lost all except its religious importance under the Ptolemies; after the " destruction " or dismantling by Lathyrus it formed only a series of villages. The population of Egypt in the time of Ptolemy I. is put at 7,000,000 by Diodorus, who also says that it was greater then than it ever was before; at the end of the dynasty, in his own day, it was not much less though somewhat diminished. Civil wars and revolts must have greatly injured both Upper and Lower Egypt. It is remarkable that, while the building and decoration of temples continued in the reigns of Ptolemy Auletes and the later Ptolemies and Cleopatra, papyri of those times whether Greek or Egyptian are scarcely to be found. The Roman Period.In 30 B.C. Augustus took Egypt as the prize of conquest. He treated it as a part of his personal domain, free from any interference by the senate. In the main lines the' Ptolemaic organization was preserved, but Romans were gradually introduced into the highest offices. On Egypt Rome depended for its supplies of corn; entrenched there, a revolting general would be difficult to attack, and by simply holding back the grain ships could threaten Rome with starvation. No senator therefore was permitted to take office or even to set foot in the country without the emperor's special leave, and by way of pre-caution the highest position, that of prefect, was filled by a Roman of equestrian rank only. As the representative of the emperor, this officer assumed the place occupied by the king under the old order, except that his power was limited by the right of appeal to Caesar. The first prefect, Cornelius Gallus, tamed the natives of Upper Egypt to the new yoke by force of arms, and meeting ambassadors from Ethiopia at Philae, established a nominal protectorate of Rome over the frontier district, which had been abandoned by the later Ptolemies. The third prefect, Gaius Petronius, cleared the neglected canals for irrigation; he also repelled an invasion of the Ethiopians and pursued them far up the Nile, finally storming the capital of Napata. But no attempt was made to hold Ethiopia. In succeeding reigns much trouble was caused by jealousies and quarrels between the Greeks and the Jews, to whom Augustus had granted privileges as valuable as those accorded to the Greeks. Aiming at the spice trade, Aelius Gallus, the second prefect of Egypt under Augustus, had made an unsuccessful expedition to conquer Arabia Felix; the valuable Indian trade, however, was secured by Claudius for Egypt at the expense of Arabia, and the Red Sea routes were improved. Nero's reign especially marks the commencement of an era of prosperity which lasted about a century. Under Vespasian the Jewish temple at Leontopolls in the Delta, which Onias had founded in the reign of Ptolemy Philometor, was closed; worse still, a great Jewish revolt and massacre of the Greeks in the reign of Trajan resulted, after a stubborn conflict of many months with the Roman army under Marcius Livianus Turbo, in the virtual extermination of the Jews in Alexandria and the loss of all their privileges. Hadrian, who twice visited Egypt (A.D. 130, 134), founded Antinoe in memory of his drowned favourite. From this reign onwards buildings in the Graeco-Roman style were erected throughout the country. A new Sothic cycle began in A.D. 139. Under Marcus Aurelius a revolt of the Bucolic or native troops recruited for home service was taken up by the whole of the native population and was suppressed only after several years of fighting. The Bucolic war caused infinite damage to the agriculture of the country and marks the beginning of its rapid decline under a burdensome taxation. The province of Africa was now of equal importance with Egypt for the grain supply of the capital. Avidius Cassius, who led the Roman forces in the war, usurped the purple, and was acknowledged by the armies of Syria and Egypt. On the approach of Marcus Aurelius, the adherents of Cassius slew him, and the clemency of the emperor restored peace. After the downfall of the house of the Antonines, Pescennius Niger, who commanded the forces in Egypt, was proclaimed emperor on the death of Pertinax (A.D. 193). Severus overthrew his rival (A.D. 194) and, the revolt having been a military one, did not punish the province; in 202 he gave a constitution to Alexandria and the nome capitals. In his reign the Christians of Egypt suffered the first of their many persecutions. When Christianity was planted in the country we do not know, but it must very early have gained adherents among the learned Jews of Alexandria, whose school of thought was in some respects ready to welcome it. From them Christian-Ity. it rapidly passed to the Greeks. Ultimately the new religion spread to the Egyptians; their own creed was worn out, and they found in Christianity a doctrine of the future life for which their old belief had made them not unready; while the social teaching of Christianity came with special fitness to a subject race. The history of the Coptic Version has yet to be written. It presents some features of great antiquity, and, unlike all others, has the truly popular character of being written in the three dialects of the language. Side by side there grew up an Alexandrian church, philosophic, disputative, ambitious, the very centre of Christian learning, and an Egyptian church, ascetic, contemplative, mystical. The two at length influenced one another; still we can generally trace the philosophic teachers to a Greek origin, the mystics to an Egyptian. Caracalla, in revenge for an affront, massacred all the men capable of bearing arms in Alexandria. His granting of the Roman citizenship to all Egyptians in common with the other provincials was only to extort more taxes. Under Decius, A.D. 250, the Christians again suffered from persecution. When the empire broke up in the weak reign of Gallienus, the prefect Aemilianus, who took the surname Alexander or Alexandrinus, was made emperor by the troops at Alexandria, but was conquered by the forces of Gallienus. In his brief reign of only a few months he had driven back an invasion of the Blemmyes. This predatory tribe, issuing from Nubia, was long to be' the terror of Upper Egypt. Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, after an unsuccessful invasion, on a second attempt conquered Egypt, which she added to her empire, but lost it when Aurelian made war upon her (A.D. 272). The province was, however, unsettled, and the conquest of Palmyra was followed in the same year by the suppression of a revolt in Egypt (A.D. 273). Probus, who had governed Egypt for Aurelian and Tacitus, was subsequently chosen by the troops to succeed Tacitus, and is the first governor of this province who obtained the whole of the empire. He expelled the Blemmyes, who were dominating the whole of the Thebaid. Diocletian invited the Nobatae to settle in the Dodecaschoenus as a barrier against their incursions, and subsidized both Blemmyes and Nobatae. The country, however, was still disturbed, and in A.D. 296 a formidable revolt broke out, led by Achilleus, who as emperor took the name Domitius Domitianus. Diocletian, finding his troops unable to determine the struggle, came to Egypt, captured Alexandria and put his rival to death (296). He then reorganized the whole province, and the well-known " Pompey's Pillar " was set up by the grateful and repentant Alexandrians to commemorate his gift to them of part of the corn tribute. The Coptic era of Diocletian or of the Martyrs dates from the accession of Diocletian (A.D. 284). The edict of A.D. 303 against the Christians, and those which succeeded it, were rigorously carried out in Egypt, where Paganism was still strong and face to face with a strong and united church. Galerius, who succeeded Diocletian in the government of the East, implacably pursued his policy, and this great persecution did not end until the persecutor, perishing, it is said, of the dire malady of Herod and Philip II. of Spain, sent out an edict of toleration (A.D. 311). By the edict of Milan (A.D. 313), Constantine, with the agree. ment of his colleague Licinius, acknowledged Christianity a, having at least equal rights with other religions, and when he gained sole power he wrote to all his subjects advising them, like him, to become Christians (A.D. 324). The Egyptian Church, hitherto free from schism, was now divided by a fierce controversy, in which we see two Greek parties, rather than a Greek and an Egyptian, in conflict. The council of Nicaea was called together (A.D. 325) to determine between the Orthodox and the party of the Alexandrian presbyter Arius. At that council the native Egyptian bishops were chiefly remarkable for their manly protest against enforcing celibacy on the clergy. The most conspicuous controversialist on the Orthodox side was the young Alexandrian deacon Athanasius, who returned home to be made archbishop of Alexandria (A.D. 326). After being four times expelled by the Arians, and once by the emperor Julian, he died, A.D. 373, at the moment when an Arian persecution began. So large a proportion of the population had taken religious vows that under Valens it became necessary to abolish the privilege of monks which exempted them from military service. The reign of Theodosius I. witnessed the overthrow of Arianism, and this was followed by the suppression of Pagan-ism, against which a final edict was promulgated A.D. 390. In Egypt, the year before, the temple of Serapis at Alexandria had been captured after much bloodshed by the Christian mob and turned into a church. Generally the Coptic Christians were content to build their churches within the ancient temples, plastering over or effacing the sculptures which were nearest to the ground and in the way of the worshippers. They do not seem to have been very zealous in the work of destruction; the native religion was already dead and they had no fear of it. The prosperity of the church was the sign of its decay, and before long we find persecution and injustice disgracing the seat of Athanasius. Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria (A.D. 415), expelled the Jews from the capital with the aid of the mob, and by the murder of the beautiful philosopher Hypatia marked the lowest depth to which ignorant fanaticism could descend. A schism now produced lengthened civil war and alienated Egypt from the empire. The distinction between religion and politics seemed to be lost, and the government grew weaker and weaker. The system of local government by citizens had now entirely disappeared. Offices, with new Byzantine names, were now almost hereditary in the wealthy land-owning families. The Greek rulers of the Orthodox faith were unable to protect the tillers of the soil, and these being of the Monophysite persuasion and having their own church and patriarch, hated the Orthodox patriarch (who from the time of Justinian onwards was identical with the prefect) and all his following. Towards the middle of the 5th century, the Blemmyes, quiet since the reign of Diocletian, recommenced their incursions, and were even joined in them by the Nobatae. These tribes were twice brought to account severely for their misdoings, but not effectually checked. It was in these circumstances that Egypt fell without a conflict when attacked by Chosroes (A.D. 616). After ten years of Persian dominion the success of Heraclius restored Egypt to the empire, and for a time it again received a Greek governor. The Monophysites, who had taken advantage of the Persian occupation, were persecuted and their patriarch expelled. The Arab conquest was welcomed by the native Christians, but with it they ceased to be the Egyptian nation. Their language is still used in their churches, but it is no longer spoken, and its literature, which is wholly ecclesiastical, has been long unproductive. The decline of Egypt was due to the purely military government of the Romans, and their subsequent alliance with the Greek party of Alexandria, which never represented the country. Under weak emperors, the rest of Egypt was exposed to the inroads of savages, and left to fall into a condition of barbarism. Ecclesiastical disputes tended to alienate both the native population and the Alexandrians. Thus at last the country was merely held by armed force, and the authority of the governor was little recognized beyond the capital, except where garrisons were stationed. There was no military spirit in a population unused to arms, nor any disinclination to be relieved from an arbitrary and persecuting rule. Thus the Moslem conquest was easy. (R. S. P.; F. LL. G.) 2. Mahommedan Period. (I) Moslem Conquest of Egypt.In accordance with the scheme of universal conquest conceived by the founder of Islam, an army of some 4000 men was towards the end of the year A.D. 639 sent against Egypt under the command of `Amr (see `AMR-IBNEL-Ass), by the second caliph, Omar I., who had some doubt as to the expediency of the enterprise. The commander marched from Syria through El-'Arish, easily took Farama or Pelusium, and thence proceeded to Bilbeis, where he was delayed for a month; having captured this place, he proceeded to a point on the Nile called Umm Dunain, the siege of which also occasioned him some difficulty. After taking it, he crossed the Nile to the Fayum. On the 6th of June of the following year (64o) a second army of 12,000 men, despatched by Omar, arrived at Heliopolis (On). `Amr recrossed the river and joined it, but presently was confronted by a Roman army, which he defeated at the battle of Heliopolis (July 64o) ; this victory was followed by the siege of Babylon, which after some futile attempts at negotiation was taken partly by storm and partly by capitulation on Good Friday, the 6th of April 641. `Amr next proceeded in the direction of Alexandria, which was surrendered to him by a treaty signed on the 8th of November 641, under which it was to be occupied by the Moslems on the 29th of September of the following year. The interval was spent by him in founding the city Fostat (Fustat), near the modern Cairo, and called after the camp (Fossatum) occupied by him while besieging Babylon; and in reducing those coast towns that still offered resistance. The Thebaid seems to have surrendered with scarcely any opposition.The ease with which this valuable province was wrenched from the Roman empire appears to have been due to the treachery of the governor of Egypt, Cyrus, patriarch of Alexandria, and the incompetence of the generals of the Roman forces. The former, called by the Arabs Mukaukis (Muqauqis) from his Coptic name Pkauchios, had for ten years before the arrival of `Amr maintained a fierce persecution of the Jacobite sect, to which the bulk of the Copts belonged. During the siege of Babylon he had been recalled and exiled, but after the death of Heraclius had been reinstated as patriarch by Heraclonas, and been welcomed back to Alexandria with general rejoicing in September 641. Since Alexandria could neither have been stormed nor starved out by the Arabs, his motives for surrendering it, and with it the whole of Egypt, have been variously interpreted, some supposing him to have been secretly a convert to Islam. The notion that the Arab invaders were welcomed and assisted by the Copts, driven to desperation by the persecution of Cyrus, appears to be refuted by the fact that the invaders treated both Copts and Romans with the same ruthlessness; but the dissensions which prevailed in the Christian communities, leading to riots and even civil war in Alexandria and elsewhere, probably weakened resistance to the common enemy. An attempt was made in the year 645 with a force under Manuel, commander of the Imperial forces, to regain Alexandria for the Byzantine empire; the city was surprised, and held till the summer of 646, when it was again stormed by `Amr. In 654 a fleet was equipped by Constans with a view to an invasion, but it was repulsed, and partly destroyed by storm. From that time no serious effort was made by the Eastern Empire to regain possession of the country. And it would appear that at the time of the attempt by Manuel the Arabs were actually assisted by the Copts, who at the first had found the Moslem lighter than the Roman yoke. A question often debated by Arabic authors is whether Egypt was taken by storm or capitulation, but, so far as the transfer- ence of the country was accomplished by the first Terms of taking of Alexandria, there seems no doubt that the capitula- tion. latter view is correct. The terms were those on which conquered communities were ordinarily taken under Moslem protection. In return for a tribute of money (jizyah) and food for the troops of occupation (daribat-al-ta'am), the Christian inhabitants of Egypt were to be excused military service, and to be left free in the observance of their religion and the administration of their affairs. From 639 to 968 Egypt was a province of the Eastern Caliph-ate, and was ruled by governors sent from the cities which at different times ranked as capitals. Like other provinces of the later Abbasid Caliphate its rulers were, during this period, able to establish quasi-independent dynasties, such being those of the Tulunids who ruled from 868 to 905, and the Ikshidis from 935-969. In 969 the country was conquered by Jauhar for the Fatimite caliph Mo'izz, who transferred his capital from Mandia (q.v.) in the Maghrib to Cairo. This dynasty lasted till 1171, when Egypt was again embodied in the Abbasid empire by Saladin, who, however, was himself the founder of a quasi-independent dynasty called the Ayyubites or Ayyubids, which lasted till 1252. The Ayyubites were followed by the Mameluke dynasties, usually classified as Bahri from 1252-1382, and Burji from 1382-1517; these sovereigns were nominally under the suzerainty of Abbasid caliphs, who were in reality instruments of the Mameluke sultans, and resided at Cairo. In 1517 Egypt became part of the Ottoman empire and was governed by pashas sent from Constantinople, whose influence about 1707 gave way to that of gfficials chosen from the Mamelukes who bore the title Sheik al-balad. After the episode of the French occupation, government by pashas was restored; Mehemet Ali (appointed pasha in 1805) obtained from the Porte in 1841 the right to bequeath the sovereignty to his descendants, one of whom, Ismail Pasha, received the title Khedive, which is still held by Mehemet Ali's descendants. (2) The following is a list of the governors of Egypt in these successive periods: (a) During the undivided Caliphate. 'Amr-ibn-el-Ass, A.H. 18-24 (A.n. 639-645). 'Abdallah b. Sa'd b. Abi Sarh, 24-36 (645-656). Qais b. Sa'd b. 'Ubadah, 36 (657-658). Mahommed b. Abu Bekr, 37-38 (658). Ashtar Malik b. al-Harith appointed, but never governed). 'Arnr-ibn-el-Ass, 38-43 (658-663). 'Utbah b. Abu Sofian, 43-44 (664-665). 'Utbah b. 'Amir, 44-45 (665). Maslama b. Mukhallad, 45-62 (665-682). Sa'id b. Yazid b. 'Alqamah, 62-64 (682-684). Abdarrahman b. 'Utbah b. Jandam, 64-65 (684). Abdalaziz ('Abd al-'Aziz) b. Merwan, 65-86 (685-705). 'Abdallah b. 'Abd al-Malik, 86-90 (7Q5-7o8). Qurrah b. Sharik al-'Absi, 90-96 (709-714). 'Abd al-Malik b. Rifa'ah al-Fahmi, 96-99 (715-717). Ayyub b. Shurabbil al-Asbabi, 99-101 (717-720). Bishr b. Safwan al-Kalbi, 101-102 (720-721). Hanzalah b. Safwan, 102-105 (721-724). Mahommed b. 'Abd al-Malik, 105 (724). Hurr b. Yusuf, 105108 (724727). IIafs b. al-Walid, 108 (727). 'Abd al-Malik b. Rifa'ah, 109 (727). Walid b. Rifa'ah, Io9-117 (727-735). 'Abd al-Rabman b. Khalid, 117-118 (735). Han?alah b. Safwan, 118-124 (735-742). Hafs b. al-Walid, 124-127 (742-745). Hassan b. 'Atahiyah al-Tu'jibi, 127 (745). Ilafs b. al-Walid, 127 (745). Hautharah b. Suhail al-Bahili, 128-131 (745-749). Mughirah b. 'Ubaidallah al-Fazari, 131132 (749). 'Abd al-Malik b. Marwan al-Lakhmi, 132 (750). Salib b. 'Ali, 133 (750-751). Abu 'Aun 'Abdalmalik b. Yazid, 133-136 (751-753). Will b. 'Ali, 136-137 (753-755)second time. Abu 'Aun, 137-141 (755-758)second time. Musa b. Ka'b b. 'Uyainah al-Tamimi, 141 (758-759).Mahommed b. al-Ash'ath b. 'Uqbah al-Khuza i, 141-143 (759-760). Humaid b. Qabtabah b. Shabib 143-144 (760-762). Yazid b. Hatim b. Kabisah al-Muhallabi, 144-152 (762-769). 'Abdallah b. 'Abdarrabman b. Moawiya b. Hudaij, 152-155 (769772). Mahommed b. Abdarrabman b. Moawiya b. Iludaij, 155 (772). Musa b. 'Ulayy b. Rabah al-Lakhmi, 155-161 (772-778). 'Isa b. Lugman b. Mahommed al-Jumahi, 161-162 (778). Wadib, 162 (779). Mansur b. Yazid b. Mansur al-Ru'aini, 162 (779). Abu $alib Yabya b. Dawud b. Mamdud, 162-164 (779-780). Salim b. Sawadah al-Tamimi, 164 (780-781). Ibrahim b. Salib b. 'Ali, 165-167 (781-784). Musa b. Mus'ab b. al-Rabi al-Khath'ami, 167-168 (784-785). Usamah b. 'Amr b. 'Alqamah al-Ma'afiri, 168 (785). al Fadl b. Salib b. 'Ali al-'Abbasi, 168-169 (785-786). 'Ali b. Sulaiman b. 'Ali al-'Abbasi, 169-171 (786-787). Musa b. 'Isa b. Musa al-'Abbasi, 171-172 (787-789). Maslamah b. Yabya b. Qurrah al-Bajili, 172-173 (789-790). Mahommed b. Zuhair al-Azdi, 173 (790). Dawud b. Yazid b. Ilatim al-Muhallabi, 174-175 (790). Musa b. 'Isaal-`Abbasi, 175-176 (790-792). Ibrahim b. Salib, 176 (792). ,glib b. Ibrahim, 176 (792). Abdallah b. al-Musayyib b. Zuhair al Dabbi, 176-177 (792-793)- Isbaq b. Sulaiman b. 'Ali al-'Abbasi, 177-178 (793-794). Harthamah b. A'yan, 178 (794-795). 'Obaidallah b. al-Mandi, 179 (795). Musa b. 'Isaal-'Abbasi, 179-180 (795-796). 'Obaidallah b. al-Mandi, 18o-181 (796-797)second time. Isma'il b. Salib b. 'Ali al-'Abbasi, 181182 (797-798). Ismail b. 'Isa b. Musa al-'Abbasi, 182-183 (798). Laith b. al-Fadl al-Abiwardi, 183-187 (798-803). Abmad b. Isma'il b. 'Ali al-'Abbasi, 187-189 (803-805). 'Obaidallah b. Mahommed b. Ibrahim al-'Abbasi, 189-190 (805-806). Husain b. Jamil, 190-192 (806-808). Malik b. Dalham b. 'Isa al-Kalbi, 192-193 (808). Uasan b. al-Tabtab, 193-194 (808-809). I-latim b. Harthamah b. A'yan, 194-495 (809-811). Jabir b. al-Ash'ath b. Yabya al-'j a'1, 195-196 (811-812). 'Abbad b. Mahommedb. Hayyan al-Balkhi, 196-198 (812-813). Mottalib b. 'Abdallah b. Malik al-Khuza'i, 198 (813-814). 'Abbas b. Musa b. 'Isa al-'Abbasi, 198199 (814). Mottalib b. 'Abdallah, 199-200 (814-816)--second time. Sari b. al-Hakam b. Yusuf, 200-201 (816). Sulaiman b. Ghalib b. Jibril al-Bajili, 201 (816817). Sari b. al Hakam, 201-205 (817-820). Abu Nasr Mahommed b. al-Sari, 205 (820-821). 'Obaidallah b. al-Sari, 205211 (821-826). 'Abdallah b. Tahir, 211-213 (826-829). Mahommed b. Harun (al-Mo'tasim), 213-214 (829). 'Umair b. Al-Walid al-Tamimi al-Badhaghisi, 214 (829). 'Isa b. Yazid, 214 (829). 'Abduyah b. Jabalah, 215-216 (830-831). 'Isa b. Mansur b. Musa al-Rafi'i, 216-217 (831-832). Nasr b. Abdallah Kaidar al-$afadi, 217-219 (832-834). Muzaffar b. Kaidar, 219 (834). Musa b. Abi'l-Abbas Thabit al Hanafi, 219-224 (834-839). Malik b. Kaidar al $afadi, 224-226 (839-841). 'Ali b. Yabya abu 1-Hasan al-Armani, 226-228 (841-842). 'Isa b. Mansur al-Rafi'i, 229-233 (843-847). Harthamah b. al-Nadir al Jabali, 233-234 (848-849). Hatim b. Harthamah, 234 (849). 'Ali b. Yabya, 234-235 (849-850). Ishaq b. Yabya al-Khatlani, 235-236 (850-851). 'Abd al-Wahid b. Yabya b. Mansur, 236-238 (851-852). 'Anbasa b. Ishaq b. Shamir, 238-242 (852-856). Yazid b. 'Abdallah b. Dinar, 242-253 (856-867). Muzahim b. Khagan al-Turki, 253-254 (867-868). Abmad b. Muzahim b. Khagan, 254 (868). Urjuz b. Ulugh Tarkhan al-Turki, 254 (868). Tulunid house. Abmad b. Tulun, 254-270 (868-884). Khomaruya b. Abmad, 270-282 (884-896). Jaish h. Khomaruya, 282 (896). Harun b. Khomaruya, 283-292 (896-904). Shaiban b. Abmad, 292 (905). 'Isa b. Mahommed al-Naushari, 292 (905). Mahommed b. 'Ali al-Khalanji, 292-293 (905-906). 'Isa al-Naushari, 293-297 (906-910)second time. Takin b. Abdallah al-Khazari, 297-302 (910-915). Dhuka al-Rumi, 303-307 (915-919). Takin b. 'Abdallah, 307-309 (919-921)second time. Abu Qabus Mabmud b. Ilamal, 309 (921). Hilal b. Badr, 309-311 (921-923). Abmad b. Kaighlagh, 311 (923). Takin b. Abdallah, 311-321 (923-933)third time. Mahommed b. Takin, 321 (933). Fkshidi house. Mahommed b. Tughj al-Ikshid, 321 (933). [Abmad b. Kaighlagh, 321-322 (933-934)]. Mahommed b. Tughj, 323-334 (934-946)--second time. LUnjur b. al-Ikshid, 334-349 (946-961). 'Ali b. al-Ikshid, 349-355 (961-966). Kafur b. Abdallah al-Ikshidi, 355-357 (966-968). Abu'l-Fawaris Abmad b. 'Ali b. al-Ikshid, 357 (968). (b) Fatimite Caliphs, 357-567 (969-1171). Mo'izz Abu Tamim Ma'add (or li-din allah), 357-365 (969-975). 'Aziz Abu Mansur Nizar (al-'Aziz billah), 365-386 (975-996). Hakim [Abu 'Ali Mansur], 386-411 (996-1020). Zahir [Abu'I-Hasan 'All], 411-427 (1020-1035). Mostansir [Abu Tamim Ma'add], 427-487 (1035-1094). Mosta'li [Abu'l-Qasim Abroad], 487-495 (1094-1101). Amir [Abu 'Ali Mansur], 495-524 (1101-1130). Manz [Abu'l-Maimun 'Abd al-Majid], 524-544 (1130-1149). Zafir [Abu'l-Mansur Ismaiil], 544-549 (1149-1154). Fa'iz [Abu'I-Qasim 'Isa], 549-555 (1154-1160(). Adid [Abu Mahommed 'Abdallah], 555-567 (1160-1171). (c) Ayyubite Sultans, 564-648 (1169-1250). Malik al-Nasir Salab al-din Yusuf b. Ayyub (SALADIN), 564-589 (1169-1193). Malik al-'Aziz 'Imad al-din Othman, 589-595 (1193-1198). Malik al-Mansur Mahommed, 595-596 (1198-1199). Malik al-'Adi?Saif al-din Abu Bakr, 596-615 (1199-1218). Malik AL-KAMIL Mahommed, 615-635 (1218-1238). Malik al-'Adil II. Saif al-din Abu Bakr, 635-637 (1238-1240). Malik al-Salih Najm al-din Ayyub, 637-647 (1240-1249). Malik al-Mo'azzam Turanshah, 647-648 (1249-1250). Malik al-Ashraf Musa, 648-65o (1250-1252). (d) Bahri Mamelukes, 648-792 (1250-1390). Shajar al-durr, 643 (1250). Malik al-Mo'izz 'Izz al-din Aibek, 648-655 (1250-1257). Malik al-Mansur Nureddin 'Ali, 655-657 (1257-1259). Malik al-Mozaffar gaif al-din KOTuz, 657-658 (1259-1260). Malik al-Zahir [Rukn al-din (Rukneddin) BIBARS Bundukdari], 658-676 (1260-1277). Malik al-Sa'id Nasir al-din Barakah Khan, 676-678 (1277- Malik~al-'Adil Badr al-din Salamish, 678 (1279). Malik al-Mansur Saif al-din QALA'Ux, 678-689 (1279-1290). Malik al-Ashraf [Salab al-din KHALIL], 689-693 (1290-1293). Malik al-Nasir [Nasir al-din Mahommed], 693-694 (1293-1294). Malik al-'Adil [Zain al-din KITBOGA], 694-696 (1294-1296). Mansur [Husain al-din LAJIN], 696-698 (1296-1298). NASIR MAHOMMED (again), 698-708 (1298-1308). Mozaffar [Rukn al-din Bibars Jashengir], 708-709 (1308-1310). Nasir Mahommed (third time), 709-741 (1310-1341). Mansur [Saif al-din ABU BAKR], 741-742 (1341). Ashraf [Ala'u '1-din KucxuK], 742 (1341-1342). Nasir [Shihab al-din Abroad], 742-743 (1342). $alih 'Imad al-din Ismaiil], 743-746 (1342-1345). Kamil [Saif al-din SuA'BAN], 746-747 (1345-1346). Mozaffar [Saif al-din HAJJI], 747-748 (1346-1347). Nasir [Nasir al-din Hasan], 748-752 (1347-1351). Salib [Salah al-din Sahb], 752-755 (1351-1354). Nasir [Hasan] (again), 755-762 11354-1361). Mansur [Salah al-din Mahommed], 762-764 (1361-1363). Ashraf [Nasir al-din Sha'ban], 764-778 (1363-1377). Mansur ['Ala'u '1-din 'Ali], 778-783 (1377-1381). Sahli [Sahib al-din Hajji], 783-784 (1381-1382). Barkulc or Barquiq (see below), 784-791 (1382-1389). Hajji again, with title of Mozaffar, 791-792 (1389-1390). (e) Burji Mamelukes, 784-922 (1382-1517). Zahir [Saif al-din Barquq], 784-801 (1382-1398) [interrupted by Hajji, 791-792]. Nasir [Nasir al-din FARAJ], 8o,-8o8 (1398-1405). Mansur ['1zz al-din Abdalaziz ('Abd al-'Aziz)], 808-809 (1405-1406). Nasir Faraj (again), 809-815 (1406-1412). Adil Mosta'in (Abbasid caliph), 815 (1412). Mu'ayyad [Sheikh], 815824 (14121421). Mozaffar [Abmad], 824 (1421). Zahir [Saif al-din Tatar], 824 (1421). Salib [Nasir al-din Mahommed], 824-825 (1421-1422). Ashraf [Saif al-din Barsbai], 825-842 (1422-1438). 'Aziz []aural al-din Yusuf], 842 (1438). Zahir [Saif al-din Jakmak], 842-857 (14381453). Mansur [Fakhr al-din Othman], 857 (1453). Ashraf [Saif al-din 'nail, 857-865 (1453-1461). Mu'ayyad [Shihab al-din Abmad], 865 (1461).Zahir [Sail al-din Khoshkadam], 865-872 (1461-1467). Zahir [Saif al-din Yelbai or Bilbai], 872 (1467). Zahir [Timurbogha], 872-873 (1467-1468). Ashraf [Saif al-din (KAIT BEY)], 873-901 (1468-1495). Nasir [Mahommed], 901-904 (1495-1498). Zahir [Kansuh], 904-905 (1498-1499) Ashraf [Janbalat or Jan Bela], 905-906 (1499-1501). 'Adil Tumanbey (1501). Ashraf [Kansuh Ghuri], 906-922 (1501-1516). Ashraf [Tumanbey], 922 (1516-1517). (f) Turkish Governors after the Ottoman Conquest. Khair Bey, 923 (1517). Hosain, 1085 (1674). Mustafa Pasha, 926 (1520). , I-Iasan al-Janbalat, 1687 (1676). Ahmad, 929 (1523). Othman, 1091 (1680). Qasim, 930 (1524). Hasan al-Silabdar, 1099 (1688). Ibrahim, 931 (1525). Abmad, Iio, (169o). Suleiman, 933 (1527). 'Ali Qilij, 1102 (1691). Dawud, 945 (1538). Ismail, 1107 (1696). 'Ali, 956 (1549). Hosain, 1109 (1697). Mahommed, 961 (I 54). Qara Mahommed or Abmad, Iskandar, 963 (1556). 1111 (1699). 'Ali al-Khadim, 968 (1561). Mahommed Rami, 1116 (1704). Mustafa, 969 (1561). 'All Muslim, 1118 (1706). 'Ali al-Sufi, 971 (1563). Hosain Ketkhuda, 1119 (1707). Mabmud, 973 (1566). Ibrahim Qabudan, 1121 (1709). Sinan, 975 (1567). Khalil, 1122 (1710). Hosain, 980 (1573). Wall, 1123 (1711). Masib, 982 (1575). 'Abidin, 1127 (1715). Hasan al-Khadim, 988 (1580). 'Ali Izmirli, 1129 (1717). Ibrahim, 991 (1583). Rajab, 1130 (1718). Sinan, 992 (1584). Mahommed al-Bashimi, 1132 Uwais, 994 (1585). (1720). Hafiz Abroad, 999 (1591). 'Ali, 1138 (1728). Kurt, 1003 (1595). Bakir, 1141 (1729). Sayyid Mahommed, 1004 (1596). 'Abdallah Kuburlu, 1142 (1729). Khiclr, 1006 (1598). Mahommed Silandar, 1144(1732) 'Ali al-Silabdar, 1009 (16o,). Othman Halabi, 1146 (1733). Ibrahim, 1012 (1604). Bakir, 1148 (1735). Mahommed al-Kurji, 1013 (1605). Mustafa, 1149 (1736). Hasan, 1014 (1605). Sulaimanb.al-'Azim 1152(1739). Mahommed al-Sufi, 1016 (1607). 'Ali Hakim Oghlu,R153 (1740). Abmadal-Daftardar, 1022 (1613). Yabya, 1154 (1741). Mustafa Lafakli, 1026 (1617). Mahommed Yedkeshi, 1156 Ja'far, 1027 (1618). (1743) Mustafa, 1028 (1619). Mahommed Raghib,1158 (1745). Hosain, 1028 (1619). Abmad Kuruzir, 1161 (1748). Mahommed, Io 1 (1622). Sharif 'Abdallah, 1163 (1750). Ibrahim, 1031 (1622). Mahommed Amin, 1166 (1753). Mustafa, 1032 (1623). Mustafa, 1166 (1753). 'Ali, 1032 (1623). 'Ali Hakim Oghiu, 1169 (1756). Mustafa, 1032 (1624). Mahommed Sa'id, 1171 (1758). Bairam, 1036 (1626). Mustafa, 1173 (1759). Mahommed, 1037 (1627). Abmad Kamil, 1174 (1761). Musa, 1040 (1631). Bakir, 1175 (1761). Khalilal-Bustanji, 1041 (1631). Hasan, 1176 (1761). Abroad al-Kurji, 1042 (1633). I,Iamzah, 1179 (1765). Hosain, 1045 (1636). Mahommed Ragim, 1181 (1767). Mahommed b. Abroad, 1047 Mahommed Urflu, 1182 (1768). (1638). Abroad, 1183 (1770). Mustafa al-Bustanji, 1049 (1639). Qara Khalil, 1184 (1770). Magsud, 1050 (1641). Mustafa Nabulsi, 1188 (1774). Suyan Bey, 1054 (1644). Ibrahim 'Arabgirli, 1189 (1775). Ayyub, 1055 (1645). Mahommed 'Izzet, 1190 (1776). Mahommed b. Haidar, 1057 Ismail, 1193 (1779). (1647). ' Mahommed Malik, 1195 (1781). Abroad, 1058 (1648). Sharif 'Ali Qassab, 1196 (1782). 'Abd al-Rabman, 1061 (1651). Mahommed Silabdar,,198(1783). Mahommed al-Silandar, 1062 Mahommed Yeyen, 1200 (1785). (1652). 'Abidin Sharif, 1201 (1787). Ghazi, 1066 (1655). Ismail Tunisi, 1203 (1788). Omar, 1067 (1652). Salib Qaisarli, 1209 (1794). Abmad, 1077 (1666). Abu Bakr Tarabulsi, 1211 Ibrahim, 1078 (1667). (1796). French Occupation. Khosrev, 1216 (1802). All Jaza'irli or Tarabulsi, 1218 Tahir, 1218 (1803). (1803). Khorshid, 1219 (1804). (g) Hereditary Pashas (later Khedives), from 1220 (from 1805). Mehemet 'Ali, 1220-1264 (1805- Sa'id, 1270-1280 (1854-1863). 1848). Ismail, 1280-1300 (1863-1882). Ibrahim, 1264 (1848). Tewfik, 1300-1309 (1882-1892). 'Abbas I., 1264-1270 (1848-1854). Abbas II., 1309 (1892). (3) Period under Governors sent from the Metropolis of the eastern Caliphate.The first governor of the newly acquired province was the conqueror 'Amr, whose jurisdiction was presently restricted to Lower Egypt; Upper Egypt, which was divided into three provinces, being assigned to Abdallah b. Sa'd, on whom the third caliph conferred the government of Lower Egypt also, `Amr being recalled, owing to his unwillingness to extort from his subjects as much money as would satisfy the caliph. In the troubles which overtook the Islamic empire with the accession of Othman, Egypt was greatly involved, and it had to be reconquered from the adherents of Ali for Moawiya (Mo'awiyah) by `Amr, who in A.H. 38 was rewarded for his services by being reinstated as governor, with the right to appropriate the surplus revenue instead of sending it as tribute to the metropolis. In the confusion which followed on the death of the Omayyad caliph Yazid the Egyptian Moslems declared themselves for Abdallah b. Zobair, but their leader was defeated in a battle near Ain Shams (December 684) by Merwan b. Hakam (Merwan I.), who had assumed the Caliphate, and the conqueror's son Abd al-`Aziz was appointed governor. They also declared themselves against the usurper Merwan II. in 745, whose lieu-tenant al-Hautharah had to enter Fostat at the head of an army. In 750 Merwan II. himself came to Egypt as a fugitive from the Abbasids, but found that the bulk of the Moslem population had already joined with his enemies, and was defeated and slain in the neighbourhood of Giza in July of the same year. The Abbasid general, Salih b. Ali, who had won the victory, was then appointed governor. During the period that elapsed between the Moslem conquest and the end of the Omayyad dynasty the nature of the Arab occupation had changed from what had originally been intended, the establishment of garrisons, to systematic colonization. Conversions of Copts to Islam were at first rare, and the old system of taxation was maintained for the greater part of the first Islamic century. This was at the rate of a dinar per feddan, of which the proceeds were used in the first place for the pay of the troops and their families, with about half the amount in kind for the rations of the army. The process by which the first of these contributions was turned into coin is still obscure; it is clear that the corn when threshed was taken over by certain public officials who deducted the amount due to the state. In general the system is well illustrated by the papyri forming the Schott-Reinhardt collection at Heidelberg (edited by C.H. Becker, 1906), which contain a number of letters on the subject from Qurrah b. Shank, governor from A.H. 90 to 96. The old division of the country into districts (nomoi) is maintained, and to the inhabitants of these districts demands are directly addressed by the governor of Egypt, while the head of the community, ordinarily a Copt, but in some cases a Moslem, is responsible for compliance with the demand. An official called " receiver " (gabbal) is chosen by the inhabitants of each district to take charge of the produce till it is delivered into the public magazines, and receives 5% for his trouble. Some further details are to be found in documents preserved by the archaeologist Maqrizi, from which it appears that the sum for which each district was responsible was distributed over the unit in such a way that artisans and tradesmen paid at a rate similar to that which was enforced on those employed in agriculture. It is not known at what time the practice of having the amount due settled by the community was altered into that according to which it was settled by the governor, or at what time the practice of deducting from the total certain expenses necessary for the maintenance of the community was abandoned. The researches of Wellhausen and Becker have made it clear that the difference which is marked in later Islam between a poll-tax (jizyah) and a land-tax (khardj) did not at first exist: the papyri of the 1st century know only of the jizyah, which, however, is not a poll-tax but a land-tax (in the main). The development of the poll-tax imposed on members of tolerated cults seems to be due to various causes, chief of them the acquisition of land by Moslems, who were not at first allowed to possess any, the conversion of Coptic landowners to Islam, and the enforcement (towards the end of the 1st century of Islam) of the poll-tax on monks. The treasury could not afford to lose the land-tax, which it would naturally forfeit by the first two of the above occurrences, and we read ofvarious expedients being tried to prevent this loss. Such were making the Christian community to which the proselyte had belonged pay as much as it had paid when his lands belonged to it, making proselytes pay as before their conversion, or compelling them to abandon their lands on conversion. Eventually the theory spread that all land paid land-tax, whereas members of tolerated sects paid a personal tax also; but during the evolution of this doctrine the relations between conquerors and conquered became more and more strained, and from the time when the control of the finance was separated from the administration of the country (A.D. 715) complaints of extortion became serious; under the predecessor of Qurrah, `Abdallah b. `Abd al-Malik, the country suffered from famine, and under this ruler it was unable to recover. Under the finance minister Obaidallah b. Habhab (720734) the first government survey by Moslems was made, followed by a census; but before this time the higher administrative posts had been largely taken out of the hands of Copts and filled with Arabs. The resentment of the Copts finally expressed itself in a revolt, which broke out in the year 725, and was suppressed with difficulty. Two years re copm volt. volt after, in order that the Arab element in Egypt might be strengthened, a colony of North Arabians (Qaisites) was sent for and planted near Bilbeis, reaching the number of 3000 persons; this immigration also restored the balance between the two branches of the Arab race, as the first immigrants had belonged almost exclusively to the South Arabian stock. Mean-while the employment of the Arabic language had been steadily gaining ground, and in 706 it was made the official language of the bureaux, though the occasional use of Greek for this purpose is attested by documents as late as the year 780. Other revolts of the Copts are recorded for the year 739 and 750, the last year of Omayyad domination. The outbreaks in all cases are attributed to increased taxation. The |
