EGYPT: AN HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION, 6000 BCE TO 1805 CE

1. Ancient Egypt: Introductory Notes p. 1

2. Ancient Egypt: The Pre-Dynastic Period (6000 BCE-3000 BCE) p. 3
3. Ancient Egypt: The Archaic Period (Dynasties I-II, 3000 BC-2650 BCE) p. 6
4. Ancient Egypt: The Old Kingdom Period (Dynasties III-VI, 2700-2180 BCE) p. 7
5. Ancient Egypt: The First Intermediate Period (Dynasties VII-X, 2200-2000 BCE) p. 9
6. Ancient Egypt: The Middle Kingdom Period (Dynasties XI-XII, 2000-1800 BCE) p. 10
7. Ancient Egypt: The Second Intermediate Period (Dynasties XIII-XVII, 1800-1550 BCE) p. 12
8. Ancient Egypt: The New Kingdom Period (Dynasties XVIII-XX, 1550-1100 BCE) p. 13
9. Ancient Egypt: The Third Intermediate Period (Dynasties XXI-XXVI, 1100-525 BCE) p. 16
10. Ancient Egypt: Egypt under the Persians (Dynasties XXVII-XX, 525-332 BCE) p. 18
11. Greco-Roman Egypt: From Alexander to the Arab Conquest (332 BCE to 642 CE) p. 19
12. Islamic Egypt: Egypt in the Middle Ages (642-1805 CE) p. 22

1. Ancient Egypt: Introductory Notes

What most people mean by the term "Ancient Egypt" is the 2500-year-long "Dynastic" Period of
Egyptian history — the "Age of the Pharaohs." But there are a number of problems with this
meaning, not the least being that many of the cultural patterns and forms which are commonly
associated with "Ancient Egypt" persisted well into the Greco-Roman era that followed. Indeed, the
best-preserved "Ancient Egyptian" temples —the Temple of Isis at Philae, the Temple of Hathor at
Dendera, and the Temple of Horus at Edfu — are not, strictly speaking, "Ancient Egyptian" at all,
since they were constructed during the Greco-Roman Period of Egyptian history at the order of
Greek kings or Roman emperors. Nevertheless, they were built in a archaic style to serve cults that
had survived from the earlier pharaonic age, so they may be regarded as the legitimate culmination
of three thousand years of pharaonic architecture.

Insofar as scholars employ the term "dynastic" to describe the broad range of pharaonic history, they
are following an example set by the Ancient Egyptians themselves. The Egyptians — or at least
those literate Egyptians who authored the texts and inscriptions that we still read today, most of
whom were (not surprisingly) associated with the royal courts of the pharaohs — argued that their
history was intimately associated with the existence of monarchy. For them, history itself began with
the foundation of the first Egyptian state, an act that was symbolized by the unification of the Nile
Valley. According to Egyptian accounts of the period 2000-1000 BCE, the first Egyptian king was
“Mn” (pronounced “Min” or “menMenes, with whom began a line of kings that continued for more
than two thousand years. Indeed, in Egyptian reckoning, the reality of a long, unbroken line of kings
tracing the transmission of royal authority back to a great founding monarch justified the very
existence as well as the on-going authority of a unifying, order-providing state.

Several lists of Egyptian kings survive from the Dynastic Period, and these allow us to correct and
expand upon a written king-list that survives in a summary of Egyptian history written (in Greek)
about 280 CE by Manetho, an Egyptian priest. In these king-lists, the Egyptians grouped their rulers
into dynasties, with each dynasty representing a group of kings who were usually (but not always)
related to one another by kinship or marriage. Modern scholars maintain this system of organization
— hence the very term "dynastic" — but superimpose upon it the terms "Archaic Period," "Old
Kingdom," "First Intermediate Period," Middle Kingdom," "Second Intermediate Period," "New
Kingdom," and "Third Intermediate Period." These terms are a purely modern convenience: they do
not reflect Ancient Egyptian practice. Instead, they refer to periods when the ruling dynasties were
either more powerful or less powerful: the "Old", "Middle", and "New" Kingdoms represent peaks
of royal centralization and control of Egypt's resources, while the intermediary periods refer to eras
in which there was no single, all-powerful monarchy governing the entire Nile Valley. In the
intermediary periods Egypt was dominated by regional monarchies, which often ruled
simultaneously in different parts of the Nile Valley. It is important to understand that the use of
these terms reflects a modern judgment concerning the political history of Ancient Egypt. It
 2
provides a framework which proves valuable in discussing the development of Ancient Egyptian art
and culture. For example, most of the great pharaonic works of monumental architecture were
constructed during the three "Kingdom" eras, for only a state that controlled all of Egypt's resources
possessed the means to carry out such grandiose projects as the building of the Giza Pyramids. But
the intermediary periods were not necessarily periods of cultural stagnation. For example, some of
the greatest surviving works of Egyptian literature — such as the Story of Sinuhe — appear to have
been composed in the First Intermediate Period.

The "Dynastic Period" was preceded by several millennia of cultural development, an age that
modern historians have imaginatively titled the "Pre-Dynastic Period." The Ancient Egyptians
themselves wrote virtually nothing about this era, thus complicating efforts of modern Egyptologists
to identify and describe the origins of pharaonic civilization. For the Ancients, this dimly-
remembered early age was a time of myth and legend: a time before kings, when gods ruled the
earth. Some modern historians have attempted to reconstruct the history of the late Pre-Dynastic
Period by seeing it as a time in which real men named Osiris or Seth — men whose names were
later attached to divine identities — struggled for political power. But most of what we know about
this era derives from archaeology. Modern scholars have divided the Pre-Dynastic Period into
cultural phases named after major pre-dynastic sites, such as Gerza, Merimde, and Naqada. Indeed,
many of the most important and exciting archaeological digs of recent years have been aimed at
improving our understanding of the pre-Dynastic era — including the excavation of Hierakonpolis,
the presumed capital of the Upper Egyptian state whose kings are supposed to have carried out the
legendary "Unification of Egypt" about 3000 BC.

But was "Menes," the king whom the Ancient Egyptians believed had brought about this act of
union, one of these kings? Current scholarly opinion doubts that there was a Menes — or, more to
the point, that the first Egyptian state came into being as the act of a single great conqueror. Indeed,
archaeology has revealed a history of the origins of the first Egyptian state that is quite at odds with
the legend of a “first unification," for the achievement of a lasting degree of political centralization
was a process that occurred not within one lifetime but over many centuries. The problem faced by
scholars is that the historical records composed by the Ancient Egyptians may best be described as
royal propaganda, the purpose of which was to glorify and legitimize the authority of a reigning
king. The Egyptian state justified its very existence by proclaiming that it, the state itself, was Egypt
— that Egyptian history had begun with a single glorious act of royal creation (the unification of the
Nile Valley), and that the subsequent history of Egypt was inextricably linked with an endless
progression of legitimate kings. In this reckoning there was no acknowledgement of any civil wars,
dynastic rivalries or pretenders to the throne. But it is now known that there were civil wars, rival
dynasties and royal pretenders, and that the history of Egypt was not characterized by a long,
unbroken line of legitimate kings. If the official king-lists are at odds with the archaeological
evidence, it is because the official king-lists were deliberately composed to document and legitimize
a political myth: the myth of an unbroken line of royal legitimacy stretching from the ruler on the
throne back hundreds of years through his predecessor to the great founder, Menes. The king-lists
therefore ignore or delete the names of kings who were regarded, for whatever reason, as being
illegitimate, such as Akhnaten or Hatshepsut. They also ignore periods of conflict and strife, and
lists sequentially kings and dynasties that in fact existed at the same time and competed with one
another for power. They may even have created the legend of a great hero-king to whom they could
assign the original act of state-creation, someone about whom the authors of the king-lists actually
knew very little.

These factors have made it difficult for modern historians to construct an accurate chronology for
much of Ancient Egypt. In addition, since the Egyptians reckoned time by reference to the regnal
lengths of their kings instead of by reference to a fixed chronological event (such as the birth of
Christ or the Prophet Muhammad's flight from Mecca to Madina), modern historians may vary by as
 3
much as half a century in assigning dates to specific kings. The problem arises because of the
combination of contradictory regnal lengths in the surviving king-lists with the complicating effect
of co-regencies. Thus, for example, some Egyptologists date the reign of Tutankhamun to the 1350's
BCE, while other place him in the 1320's. Therefore, while the broad range of dates for the major
periods and dynasties of pharaonic history is accurate enough for most general purposes, it is
important to bear in mind that exact dates remain controversial.

(Note: One “problem” in coming to terms with Ancient Egyptian names and terms is the difficulty
of transciphering Ancient Egyptian into other languages. There is no easy solution to this problem,
and anyone who wishes to understand Ancient Egypt must understand it. One cause of the problem
is that the hieroglyphic script of the Ancient Egyptians did not indicate short vowels, much like
modern Arabic. It was a kind of shorthand, with a literate native speaker could easily understand
because he or she could look at the consonants and long vowels of a word and know from his or her
own knowledge of the language what the short vowels should be. But there have been no native
speakers of the forms of Ancient Egyptian that were spoken in the days of the pharaohs for at least
two thousand years. Consequently, when modern Egyptologists first transciphered hieroglyphs in
the nineteenth century, they did not know what the short vowels of words were. For all practical
purposes they still do not know. For example, is it Amunhotep or Amunhotpe? Egyptologists have
been able to establish a set of “best guesses” based in part on their knowledge of Coptic, the only
surviving form of the Ancient Egyptian language. But Coptic is a very late form of Ancient
Egyptian, and because all languages change over time there are limits to which a knowledge of
modern Coptic can serve as a guide to the proper pronunciation of Ancient Egyptian. Complicating
the matter further is that the Greeks produced Greek versions of Egyptians names and terms, many
of which are now much better known than the Egyptian originals even though they are quite
different. For example, were the pyramids of Giza built by Cheops, Chephren and Mycerinus or by
Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure? The former are the names that the Greeks gave these kings; the latter
approximate their Egyptian names. Were the greatest cities of Ancient Egypt Memphis, Heliopolis,
Thebes and Elephantine or were they Mennefer, On, Waset and Yebu? The former are the Greek
names of these cities — and they are probably the most common names in use today even among
professional Egyptologists — while that latter are approximations of their Egyptian names. Adding
to the potential for confusion is that many of the key Ancient Egyptian sites have Arabic names:
Luxor, for example, which is the Arabic name of the city and site that the Ancient Egyptians called
Waset and the Greeks called Thebes.)

2. Ancient Egypt: The Pre-Dynastic Period (6000 BCE-3000 BCE)

Between 6000-5000 BCE the practice of agriculture appeared in the Nile Valley in Egypt. Whether
it was introduced from the outside or was the product of local invention is not clear. However,
scholars now generally agree that agriculture was not first "invented" in Egypt; instead, the earliest
evidence of the prctice of argriculture is found in sites in Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Iran
and Turkey and dates to the time period 10000-8000 BCE, several thousand years before the first
evidence for the practice of agriculture in Egypt. Moreover, when the practice of agirculure does
appear in Egypt, the main food crops are imports from Southwest Asia, especially wheat and barley.

After 6000 BCE the floor of the Nile Valley was cleared; the cultivation of grains (especially
barley) flourished; and the first towns and villages were established. Agricultural surpluses spurred
the development of a barter-based market economy focused on the towns, where specialized crafts
soon appeared — weaving, bone-carving and wood-cutting, and pottery-making. The development
of towns continued after 5000 BCE and a number of distinct local cultural traditions appeared.
Many of these traditions carried on into the fourth millennium. Which witnessed the emergence of
the most important cvultural tradition to date, the “Naqada” (or “Nagada”) culture of Southern
 4
Egypt. After 4000 BCE the growth of urban society resulted in the emergence of primitive state
structures. These developed and grew slowly, but by 3200-3100 BCE, several substantial local states
had emerged. Some of these states were sophisticated enough that they were able concentrate their
resources and use them to extend their domination over surrounding areas.

The most important of these states were located in Upper Egypt and seem to have been centered
upon the towns of Hierakonpolis (“Nekhen,” located near modern Edfu), Ombos (or “Nubt,” located
north of modern Luxor), and Tjenu or Tjeni (also known as “Thinis”). Around 3200 BCE the kings
of Hierakonpolis, possibly in alliance with the rulers of Tjenu (a site, the exact location of which
remains unclear, but whioch must have been near the site of Abydos), extended their control over
most of Upper Egypt — that is, over the part of the Nile Valley between modern Asyut and Aswan.
They then began the process of moving north, bringing Middle Egypt and finally Lower Egypt (the
Delta) under their control.

Egypt in the Late Pre-Dynastic Era, ca. 3200-2900 BCE

There is much evidence that at the end of the Pre-Dynastic Period (3500-3000 BCE) the polities of
the north — such as Buto in the northwestern Delta — were developing into city-states similar to
those of contemporary Iraq, where the emergence of a true urban culture in the fourth millennium
BCE — the “Late Uruk” or “Jemdet Nasr Tradition” — marked the beginning of Sumerian
civilization. There is evidence of substantial trade contacts between Lower Egypt and the Fertile
Crescent during this era — contacts which seem to have diminshed when the north was conquered
and absorbed by the kings of Hierakonpolis. The triumph of these kings was completed by about
3000 BCE, and this event was probably the model for the "Unification of Egypt" that the Ancient
Egyptians later celebrated as the beginning of their history. But the names of these early kings are,
for the most part, obscure, and none seem to have borne the legendary name "Menes." Most likely,
 5
the name "Menes" is a corrupt form of some early royal name — such as that of "Aha-Mena," a king
of the so-called First Dynasty — that was used by later Egyptians to memorialize the achievements
of what were actually a group of kings: the "pre-dynastic" rulers of Hierakonpolis, whom some
scholars identify as "Dynasty 0."

However, the name of one of these early kings has become celebrated because of its presence on the
oldest surviving historical document from Ancient Egypt — a document that also is one of the first
great works of pharaonic art. This document is the Narmar Palette, a double-sided slate palette
recording the triumphs of a king.

The Narmer Palette (Cairo Museum)

On one side of the palette a figure wearing what later will be acknowledged as the "Red Crown" of
Lower Egypt marches forward in procession, preceded by standard bearers and, in front of them, the
decapitated bodies of his enemies. On the other side the figures wears what will come to be known
as the "White Crown" of Upper Egypt and strides forward in active pose of military triumph and
 6
with one arm, up-raised, holding a mace which is about to be brought down upon the head of an
enemy — an image that Egyptian kings would continue to employ for the next three thousand years
in order to proclaim their greatness and power.

The Narmar Palette also offers one of the earliest examples of the use of Egyptian hieroglyphics to
convey written information — in this case, the king's name, "Narmar," which appears between the
two bull's heads at the top of the palette. The best evidence is that the Egyptian script developed out
of the practice of pottery-makers who, in the fourth millennium, began to inscribe or paint their
ware with special marks, both as a record-keeping system and a means of proclaiming their
craftsmanship. In the centuries that followed, these marks became more sophisticated and began to
take on true pictographic qualities. Finally, between 3000 and 2700 BCE, the system evolved into
the fully-developed hieroglyphic script that would become one of the defining elements of
pharaonic civilization.

3. The Archaic Period (Dynasties I-II, 3000 BC-2650 BCE)

The political history of the Archaic Period is obscure, and few ancient documentary records survive
to illuminate it. Later Egyptian records describe two early dynasties and assign names to their kings,
but it is difficult for modern historians to confirm the accuracy of these lists and assign them
accurate dates, even though the tombs of some of the kings in question have been located.

Egypt in the Archaic Period, ca. 3000-2650 BCE)

The extent to which the state during this period exercised truly effective control over all of the Nile
Valley is impossible to determine, but it is likely that it was an era when royal authority regularly
waxed and waned. At one point, the royal seat probably shifted from Hierakonpolis to the town of
Tjenu or Thinis, but beyond this little can be said with confidence.
 7

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the Archaic Period was one in which the basic patterns and
forms of the "high" court culture of Ancient Egypt took initial form. Numerous regional cultural
traditions were flourishing at the time of the unification, and the triumph of one of these at the
expense of the others was a very long, slow process that was not completed until the end of the Old
Kingdom Period at the earliest. The culture that prevailed was that which was espoused and
patronized by the king and his court, and its progress was directly related to the success of the state
in maintaining and extending its control over Egypt.

This court culture was characterized by such elements as the hieroglyphic writing system and by the
development of a particular canon of art and design. It was also characterized by the construction of
architectural monuments aimed at the glorification of the king — especially enormous funerary
monuments, which in this period were constructed of brick. The most important of the royal
funerary monuments of the Archaic Period are the tombs (or cenotaphs) of first dynasty kings at
Saqqara; similar tombs of the same kings at Abydos, probably their true resting-places; and the
huge, brick monument called the Shunat az-Zabiib at Abydos, which is associated with the Second
Dynasty king Khasekhemui.

4. The Old Kingdom Period (Dynasties III-VI, 2700-2180 BCE)

About 2700 BCE the existence of a new, powerful, centralized state was memorialized for eternity
in the building of an extraordinary funerary monument for a king named Zozer. This monument was
the Step-Pyramid complex, which was erected at Saqqara. Zozer was the second king of the Third
Dynasty, but it is with him that the "Old Kingdom" truly began. The Old Kingdom was the first
great era of the royal state of Egypt, an era in which powerful autocrats so dominated the resources
of the Nile Valley that they could devote themselves to the achievement of extraordinary works of
monumental art and architecture.

Four dynasties reigned during the Old Kingdom Period. The Third was the era of the Step-Pyramid
complex, only one of which — that of Zozer — was ever fully completed. The Fourth Dynasty was
the age of the “true” smooth-sided pyramid, signified by the construction of the two pyramids of
King Sneferu at Dashur and by the pyramids of Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure at Giza. The Fifth
and Sixth Dynasties were characterized by pyramid complexes built at Abusir and Saqqara, which,
though smaller in size than those of the Fourth Dynasty, represented a major step forward in the
evolution of engineering techniques as the focus of construction shifted from the pyramid perse to
the mortuary temples at the bases of the pyramids. These various funerary monuments served not
only the king's spirit in the afterlife but also acted as advertisements of the power of the monarchy.

The Egyptian kingship was a divine kingship, and the oldest surviving monumental stone temples of
Ancient Egypt are the great temple-tombs of the monarchs of the Old Kingdoms. The cult of the
king amounted to the apotheosis of the state itself. The best evidence for this is that, before the Fifth
Dynasty, no major temple structures other than the royal tomb complexes were constructed on a
monumental scale, neither in brick nor in stone. Most Old Kingdom temples were small structures
built of brick and located in the midst of densely-packed villages and towns. It is true that in the
Fifth Dynasty several kings built at the site of Abusir large, stone temples dedicated to Ra, the Sun-
God, but these temples were adjuncts to pyramid complexes built at Abusir and cannot be separated
from them.

It appears that, during the Third Dynasty, the cult of the king was characterized by an ideology that
focused on kingship itself. To worship the king was a political act, for it was an acknowledgment of
 8
royal authority and legitimacy. In the Fourth Dynasty, the royal cult appears to have altered so as to
acknowledge the direct association of the king with the greatest and most powerful of the forces of
nature: Ra, the sun. The alteration of the form of the pyramid from the stepped shape of the Third
Dynasty to the "true" pyramid shape of the Fourth Dynasty may have followed from this merging of
the solar cult with the cult of kingship. The efforts of Fifth Dynasty kings to build huge solar
temples near their pyramid complexes at Abusir further attests to the state's apotheosization of itself
in the form of the sun.

Egypt in the Old Kingdom Era, ca. 2650-2200 BCE

The greatest achievement of the Old Kingdom state was its development of a bureaucracy so
extensive and so efficient that it could manage the astonishing logistical problems associated with
that the construction of the pyramid complexes. This was still a primitive society lacking in
technological expertise and sophistication, but the building of the pyramids was a triumph of
organization and management, both on site and in the bringing together and provisioning of
craftsmen and laborers. Moreover, as time passed and Egyptian engineers gradually became more
knowledgeable in their manipulation of stone materials, the Egyptians began to experiment with
buildings composed primarily of walls, columns, and beams — buildings that (unlike the pyramids)
were no longer artificial mountains but that featured larger and larger columned hallways. The
eventual decline of the Old Kingdom state is often (and erroneously) correlated with the fact that the
pyramids of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties are of considerably lesser volume than those of the Fourth
Dynasty, as if the equation of pyramid size with the stability of the regime is a valid guide to
historical process. In fact, it is not, for the lesser volume of the later pyramids follows from a shift in
priorities brought about by important advances in the science of engineering. In the Fifth and Sixth
Dynasties the Egyptians began to master the art of erecting monumental stone structures that
enclosed substantial volumes of empty space. They had also learned how to employ free-standing
columns to support stone or wooden roofs and to create huge hallways, with the consequent effect of
providing vastly-increased wall space for decoration. Indeed, it is likely that the resources required
 9
to build and decorate a Sixth Dynasty pyramid complex were as great as those required to build a
Fourth Dynasty complex.

However, the problem of the decline of the Old Kingdom state remains. It appears to have occurred
rapidly — within a generation or two — for something seems to have happened around the year
2200 BCE that wrecked the centralized state of the Old Kingdom and left the Nile Valley divided
among a series of competing regional principalities. What this “something” was cannot be clearly
identified, but many scholars have argued that the Old Kingdom gave way to centripetal political
forces that had been threatening to tear the state apart for years — forces that represented the
growing power of the Egyptian nobility. However, the evidence for this explanation is limited. A
more recent theory maintains that the collapse of the Old Kingdom was brought about by natural
disaster, as several decades of consistently low Nile floods led to famine, economic disorder, and the
breakdown of the royal bureaucracy. There is firm evidence of a long period of low Niles around
the year 2200 BCE, and periods of natural disaster such as this are known to have occurred during
other, more recent periods of Egyptian history.

5. The First Intermediate Period (Dynasties VII-X, 2200-2000 BCE)

Whatever the reasons, the Old Kingdom state collapsed around 2200 BCE and was succeeded by
several competing regional dynasties — Dynasties VII-X — each claiming authority over the entire
Nile Valley. The most important of these dynasties, Dynasties IX and X, were based at the site of
Herakleopolis (modern Ihnasya al-Madina) some forty kilometers south of modern Beni Suef.
 10
Egypt in the Late Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Eras

While the rulers of Herakleopolis exercised considerable authority over Northern Egypt, they never
succeeded in establishing full control over the South. Instead, there emerged in the Luxor area a
family, Dynasty XI, which claimed the authority of kingship. From their base in the Luxor area the
kings of Dynasty X brought all of Southern Egypt under their control and then extended their
authority northward, eventually overthrowing the state based at Herakleopolis and re-uniting the
Nile Valley under their rule. This event marks the beginning of what modern scholars call the
“Middle Kingdom,” the second of Ancient Egypt’s great states.

No major works of architecture survive from the First Intermediate Period. Nothing comparable to
the monuments of the Old Kingdom was produced by any of the period's dynasties, for none of them
possessed sufficient resources to build on the scale achieved by the Old Kingdom rulers.

6. The Middle Kingdom Period (Dynasties XI-XII, 2000-1800 BCE)

The point-of-origin of the Eleventh Dynasty was the Luxor area and its patron deities were the
warrior god Month (whose cult center was at Armant, a town ten kilometers south of Luxor), and
Amun (whose cult center was located at Karnak). The Eleventh Dynasty kings built tombs for
themselves at Luxor, and at least one great Eleventh Dynasty funerary monument — built for a king
named Mentu-hotep —survives there at Deir al-Bahari, just south of Hatshepsut's much later
mortuary temple.
 11
Egypt in the Middle Kingdom Era, ca. 2000-1750 BCE

The Eleventh Dynasty monarchs seem to have been responsible for the transformation of Amun,
until then a minor regional deity, into a great national deity and the focus of a new state cult — the
Middle Kingdom equivalent of the royal solar cult of the Old Kingdom Period. That Amun was
chosen for this critical political role was, for him, very much a matter of luck. Prior to this era,
Amun had been a relatively minor figure, celebrated primarily at Hermopolis in Middle Egypt and
apparently at the small regional center of Luxor as well. But it was a dynasty from the Luxor area
that rose to supreme power throughout Egypt, and so it was one of the deities of this region who
benefited most from the Eleventh Dynasty’s success and patronage.. The Eleventh Dynasty’s rulers
proclaimed Amun as one of the greatest of the Gods and argued that they were his children (both
literally and figuratively): they were the ones upon whom Amun “chose” to confer power over all of
Egypt.

The Eleventh Dynasty's re-unification of the Nile Valley was completed. by about 2000 CE, But
within fifty years there was a change of dynasty. The exact circumstances in which this event
occurred are unclear (they may have involved a period of famine leading to political and economic
disorder) but they permitted a high official of Southern Egyptian origin, Amenemhet, to seize the
throne as Amenemhet I. The kings of the Twelfth Dynasty inherited the state created by their
Eleventh Dynasty predecessors and proceeded to dominate Egypt for the next two centuries. Theirs
was an era of extraordinary achievement in the arts. Indeed, in later centuries, Egyptians looked
back upon this era as the age in which the highest standards of literary composition were set.

The Twelfth Dynasty kings shifted the seat of the state from Luxor in the south to the Memphis
region in the north. This process may, in fact, have begun under the last kings of the Eleventh
Dynasty, for the Memphis area was a far more natural point from which to preside over all of the
Nile Valley than was Luxor. The Twelfth Dynasty monarchs built pyramid complexes for
 12
themselves near Memphis (at Dashur, south of Saqqara, and farther south still at Lisht) and on the
outskirts of the Fayyum (then a swampy area where they seem to have maintained royal palaces and
hunting preserves) at Hawara and Lahun. These pyramid complexes featured relatively small
pyramids, whose interior construction was of brick. Today, stripped of their outer casing of
limestone, they have degenerated into unimpressive hills of mud. However, in their own time their
overall effect was stupendous, for they were extraordinarily sophisticated constructions. Among
other things, their temples featured dozens of rooms covered with thousands of square meters of
elaborate relief. The Greek geographer Strabo, who visited Egypt two thousand years after the
Middle Kingdom Period, saw and admired these monuments. In particular, he marveled at what was
probably the pyramid temple attached to the pyramid of the Twelfth Dynasty king Amenemhet III at
Hawara in the Fayyum. He called it "the Labyrinth," and described it as equal to the Great Pyramid
of Giza in grandeur. Unfortunately, the site of the "Labyrinth" is today an utter ruin, all its stone
having been quarried away.

The kings of the Twelfth Dynasty continue to celebrate Amun as one of the great gods of state even
though they themselves seem not to have come from the Luxor area. Thus the prominence of the
cult of Amun — which was a vital factor in the later history of pharaonic Egypt — can be seen as
very much the result of a deliberate policy initiated by the Middle Kingdom state. The oldest
surviving elements of the Karnak complex date to the Middle Kingdom Period, for at the heart of
the great New Kingdom structures built at Karnak lay a Middle Kingdom sanctuary.

In general, the Middle Kingdom period was the first in which monumental architecture in stone
began to be devoted to structures unrelated to royal funerary monuments. Although the greatest and
grandest structures of the period were still the royal tombs, there is considerable evidence of the
building of substantial stone temples at various points up and down the Nile Valley, Karnak
included. However, few of these structures survive because most were built over or completely
reconstructed in the New Kingdom Period.

The era of the Twelfth Dynasty was also Egypt's first great imperial age, as Egyptian armies crossed
northern Sinai and carried out what were essentially glorified raids into Palestine, leaving behind
small garrisons in the Gaza area. At the same time, Egyptian troops marched south of Aswan and
seized control over much of Nubia. Huge brick forts were built to keep Nubia under control, and the
presence of Egyptians in this area began to have a pronounced "Egyptianizing" influence upon local
culture.

7. The Second Intermediate Period (Dynasties XIII-XVII, 1800-1550 BCE)

After 1800 BCE the Middle Kingdom state weakened and competing regional states reappeared.
The causes of the collapse of the Middle Kingdom state are very much in dispute. Some point to the
apparent power of local or regional nobles during the Twelfth Dynasty — men such as those whose
splendid tombs may be seen today at Bani Hasan in Middle Egypt, south of the modern city of
Minia. However, the evidence that strong centripetal forces pulled apart the Middle Kingdom state
is very weak.
 13

Egypt in the Second Intermediate Period, ca. 1750-1550 BCE

Another explanation of the Middle Kingdom's collapse points to a still mysterious people called the
Hyksos. Of Asiatic origin, these foreigners become the successors of the Middle Kingdom kings in
the northern region of Egypt, dominating this area for nearly two centuries as Dynasties XV and
XVI. Did they take power by conquest? If so, it would explain the collapse of the Middle Kingdom
state. However, there is no surviving evidence of extensive warfare at the end of the Middle
Kingdom era, nor is there persuasive evidence that a large number of Asians (whether soldiers or
immigrants) moved into the Nile Valley from the east at that time.

An alternative explanation for the rise of the Hyksos is the suggestion that the later Middle Kingdom
kings recruited Asian mercenaries to serve in their army. After 1800 or 1750 BCE, perhaps during
the reign of a particularly weak or inept ruler, or at a time of economic, environmental or military
crisis, these mercenaries might have become so influential in the army or the bureaucracy that they
were able to seize the throne for themselves. But however they came to power, the Hyksos kings
ruled only the northern part of Egypt, although they tried to extend their authority into the south.
Their state appears to have been relatively stable and prosperous, but they have left behind no major
works of monumental architecture. Their capital, Avaris, was located in the Eastern Delta at the site
of Tell ad-Dab’a, where archaeological evidence clearly establishes the Hyksos as Canaanites: that
is, as one of the peoples living along the Levantine coast in this era. The evidence also suggests that
the principal Hyksos state of the seventeenth and early sixteenth centuries BCE was a strong
Mediterranean kingdom anchored into both North Egypt and Coastal Palestine, — a state that
maintained fruitful relations with other Mediterranean people of the era, such as Minoan CreteAfter
 14
1650 BCE a native Egyptian dynasty, the Seventeenth, established itself in control of the Luxor
area. Gradually it extended its authority over most of southern Egypt, which eventually brought it
into direct conflict with the Hyksos strate to the north and a powerful Nubian state to the south
centered at the site of Kerma, which is located in the Sudan near the Third Cataract of the Nile. By
1550-1525 the Seventeenth Dynasty had destroyed the Hyksos states and re-unified Egypt under its
control, bringing into being the last great Ancient Egyptian state, the “New Kingdom.” The first
dynasty of the New Kingdom state, the Eighteenth, was simply a continuation of the Seventeenth
Dynasty. Ahmose, its first king (and with his brother and predecessor Kamose, the heroic leader
who defeated the Hyksos), was actually the son of one of the last kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty.

8. The New Kingdom Period (Dynasties XVIII-XX, 1550-1100 BCE)

Three dynasties ruled over Egypt during the era of the New Kingdom, probably the most powerful
and prosperous of the great bureaucratic states of Ancient Egypt. These dynasties represent a series
of distinct phases in which the power of the state rose, flourished, declined and then rose again. The
Eighteenth Dynasty saw several reigns devoted to the stabilization of the state's control over the Nile
Valley (including that of Queen Hatshepsut) and then burst forth in a wave of imperial conquests
under the leadership of Tuthmosis III (circa 1450 CE). Tuthmosis III and his immediate
predecessors created an empire that controlled much of modern Palestine and Lebanon and all of
Nubia as far south as the Fourth cataract of the Nile, and the booty won by his conquests earned
great renown and wealth for the state. His immediate successors were probably the wealthiest —
and certainly the most profligate — of all of those who ever ruled Ancient Egypt, a fact marked not
only by their magnificent tombs but also by the construction of such massive structures as the Luxor
Temple (most of which was completed during the reign of Tuthmosis III's great-grandson,
Amunhotep III, circa 1400 BCE).Nonetheless, after several generations Tuthmosis III's successors
allowed the state's control over its far-flung possessions to weaken, and during the controversial
reign of Amunhotep III's son, Akhnaten (1377-1360), Egypt's empire collapsed. But within a
generation, the Eighteenth Dynasty was replaced by a new ruling family, the Nineteenth. Under the
leadership of the new dynasty’s greatest kings, Seti I (circa 1300) and his son Rameses II (circa
1275), the Nineteenth Dynasty regained some of the territories won a century-and-a-half earlier by
Tuthmosis III. But Egypt's hold on its Eastern empire was precarious. Powerful new opponents
threatened Egypt's interests — the Hittite Empire, for example, which, from its base in Anatolia,
created a huge state that dominated much of the Fertile Crescent. By 1200 BCE Egypt had once
again lost most of its Asiatic possessions.

By 1200 the Nineteenth Dynasty had come to an end in the form of a series of weak rulers. A new
dynasty replaced it, the Twentieth, but its greatest king, Rameses III, spent most of his reign
warding off invaders who attacked the Nile Valley itself. The walls of his mortuary temple at
Madinat Habu in the Luxor area record in detail victories over invading "Libyans" (attackers from
the West) and a coalition of sea-borne invaders grouped under the name "the Sea Peoples".)
 15
XVIIIth Dynasty Egypt, 1450-1350 BCE XIXth Dynasty Egypt, 1300-1200 BCE

At its height, the New Kingdom was an era of astonishing achievement in art and architecture most
dramatically marked at Waset — modern Luxor (or "Thebes", as the Greeks called it, probably a
Greek corruption of an Egyptian term). Since the Luxor area was the origin-point of the New
Kingdom state, the kings of the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Dynasties turned it into the
ritual and ceremonial heart of the state. Here they built enormous shrines to the chief god of the
state cult, Amun, whose continuing prominence was still due to luck —that is, to the fact that the
Seventh and Eighteenth Dynasties hailed from the locality where he was the great regional deity.
Thus Karnak, the center of the cult of Amun, became the largest and most impressive temple
complex in the world. The New Kingdom kings also built tombs for themselves in the Luxor area —
magnificent shaft-tombs that were carved into the walls of the Valley of the Kings. Grand mortuary
temples were also built, funerary palaces where the kings' spirits could be served throughout
eternity. These monuments gave visual expression to the power of the state itself, in much the same
way that the great pyramid complexes had testified to the grandeur of the Old Kingdom state a
thousand years earlier. But in spite of its magnificence, Luxor was not the true "capital" of the state,
for the kings resided most of the time either in the Memphis area in the north or in palace cities built
on the eastern edge of the Delta, from which their armies had easy access to the deserts leading to
Asia. Luxor was thus a shrine center of great ceremonial importance to the New Kingdom state.

A constant theme of New Kingdom history is the growing political power of the cult of Amun. This
power derived from the support that the state itself was devoting to the cult, granting it lands and
territories and the income that these possessions generated. In return, the state received the benefits
of the cult's ideological support, allowing it to claim that the power of the reigning king was a direct
grant from Amun. Some scholars have argued that the cult and its servants — the priests of Amun,
who controlled and manipulated the cult’s resources — benefited from this arrangement far more
than did the state, since the growing independent economic power of the cult turned it into a major
political force. It has also been suggested that, at the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Amunhotep III
and his son Akhnaten attempted to strike at the political power of the Amun cult by depriving it of
its economic base: they tried to shift the state's patronage to another cult, a revived version of the
old royal solar cult in which the king and the all-powerful sun were equated. This effort ultimately
failed, and during the reign of Akhnaten's successor, Tutankhamun, the primacy of the state cult of
Amun was restored.

But was the cult of Amun in fact a threat to the New Kingdom state? Except for the events
associated with the reign of Akhnaten, the evidence for this is poor, consisting principally of the fact
 16
that when the New Kingdom state collapsed around 1100 BCE, its successor in Upper Egypt was a
dynasty of priests of Amun. These clerical dynasts ruled the South more-or-less independently of
the XXIst Dynasty kings who governed the North.

However, the available evidence suggests that the priests in question were in fact of the same family
as the rulers of the XXIst Dynasty, and one might reasonably conclude that the “division” of
authority was simply a practical administrative re-arrangement en familie. Indeed, throughout much
of the New kingdom period the high priests who controlled not only Karnak but many other of the
great temple complexes of the day were state-appointed officials, often members of the royal family
itself.

Egypt and the Middle East, 1200 BCE to 1000 BCE

The decline of the New Kingdom state was probably due not to a struggle between priests and kings
but instead to the intense pressure that constant threats from outside of Egypt placed upon the its
stability — threats which disastrously drained its resources. It is likely that, throughout this era of
crisis, the cult of Amun conscientiously played out its role as a key support of the state. But when
the kings of the XXIst Dynasty finally accepted the fact that they could no longer maintain control
over all of the Nile Valley with the limited resources available to them, they seem to have willingly
ceded authority in the South to their relatives, the high priests of Amun

9. The Third Intermediate Period (Dynasties XXI-XXVI, 1100-525 BCE)

 17
After 1100 BCE a long period of political decentralization and foreign intervention in Egyptian
affairs began. Dynasties XXI and XXII claimed control over all of the Nile Valley but actually
ruled only the northern part of the country. The south was ruled by local dynasts based at Luxor and
bearing the title of "High Priest of Amun." These high priests were often related by blood or
marriage to the kings who ruled the North and they therefore acknowledged the suzerainty of the
northern pharaohs, but for all practical purposes the high priests governed Southern Egypt
autonomously.Under these circumstances, the resources available to the kings of this era were
considerably reduced. The tomb of one of these kings, Psusennes I (reigned circa 1000 BCE), was
discovered in 1939 virtually unrobbed and intact within the precinct of a large temple at his capital
Tanis in the eastern Delta. The tomb's collection is characterized by many objects of gold and other
precious material, but the assemblage pales by comparison with the items discovered in
Tutankhamun's tomb, and the quality of workmanship is much inferior.

The XXIInd Dynasty was of "Libyan" origin — probably a family of nomadic, possibly Berber,
background from the area west of the Nile Valley. Libyans (that is, nomadic Berber-speakers) had
been living along the western edges of the Delta throughout pharaonic times and had been employed
in the Egyptian army, where they earned a considerable reputation for their martial prowess.
Precisely how a family of Libyans came to power in northern Egypt around 950 BCE is unknown,
but evidence of serious internal disorder is absent, whereas evidence of the prominence of Libyans
in affairs of the XXIst Dynasty is abundant. One of the Libyan kings, Sheshonq I (circa 930 BCE)
— probably the Pharaoh "Shishak" of the Old Testament — raided into Palestine and returned
which much booty, an event recorded in reliefs carved at Karnak. But after the middle of the ninth
century civil strife within the Egyptian royal family rapidly degenerated into a break-up of the state.
By 750 BCE several competing dynasties had arisen: the XXIIIrd, the XXIVth, and, most
importantly, the XXVth, the last representing a line of Nubian kings who led their armies north into
Egypt and eventually brought most of the Nile Valley under their control.

The Nubian Dynasty represents in many ways the greatest "success" of the civilization of Ancient
Egypt in influencing the development of another culture. From early in dynastic times, Egyptians
had been in regular commercial (and, frequently, military) contact with the peoples of the land of
Kush, which is the stretch of the Nile Valley lying between the present Egyptian-Sudanese border
and the city of Khartoum. In the Middle and New Kingdom Periods, the Egyptian presence in Nubia
and Kush was profound, and after the New Kingdom state lost control of Nubia in the twelfth and
eleventh centuries BCE 1000 BCE a native-ruled state emerged in the Northern Sudan that featured
a complex mix of traditional Egyptian patterns and local Nubian forms. This state featured a
powerful monarch who ruled as a divine pharaoh and who worshipped many deities of Egyptian
origin. Egyptian patterns in art and architecture were favored.

After 770 BCE the Nubian state began to extend its political influence north into Egypt proper. In
the anarchic circumstances of the time, the Nubians were by far the most powerful force on the
scene. During the reigns of Kings Kashta (770-750), Pi'ankhi (750-712), and Shabaka (712-698), the
Nubians seized control of the entire country and re-unifying it under their rule. They even shifted
their capital from Napata in the Sudan to Memphis. The Nubian kings claimed that they were
restorers, whose intention was to return Egypt to its ancient traditions and former greatness. The art
and architecture of the period was consequently characterized by the use of archaic forms and
patterns. Moreover, additions were made to many of the most important temple complexes in Egypt.
But the rule of the XXVth Dynasty came to an abrupt end around 660 BCE. During the previous
decade, the Nubian kings had fought off several efforts by the Assyrian Empire — then the
dominant power in the Fertile Crescent — to conquer Egypt. The fighting in Egypt raged back and
forth, with the Assyrians receiving aid from an ambitious and powerful Egyptian family centered in
the Delta town of Saïs. This family already claimed the title of pharaoh, but it was not until the
Assyrian king Assurbanipal finally drove out the Nubians for good that the Saïte dynasty was able to
 18
assert its authority over the entire Nile Valley. The principal author of this dynasty's success was
Psammetik I (664-610), who took advantage of the victory of his Assyrian allies and their
subsequent withdrawal from Egypt (due to civil strife back in Asia) to make himself pharaoh.

The Middle East in the Era of the Nubian XXVth Dynasty, ca. 750-660 BCE

Psammetik's dynasty was the XXVIth, often called the "Saïte" dynasty in recognition of the
importance of its capital, the Delta city of Saïs. The XXVIth Dynasty was another that sought to
justify its assumption of power by harkening back to the old rituals and traditions of kingship and
religion, rebuilding and restoring many monuments in the process. Craftsmen and artists of the
period drew heavily upon ancient models for inspiration, but at the same time there were interesting
innovations, particularly in the extreme naturalism of some of the sculptural portraiture.

Nevertheless, however much the Saïte kings may have hearkened back to ancient forms and
patterns, they also recognized the extent to which Egypt had fallen behind much of the rest of the
Mediterranean world in terms of military technology, and in order to maintain themselves in power
they depended heavily upon foreign mercenaries. Many of these mercenaries were Greek, and it is
with the Saïte period that Egypt's interaction with the Greek world began. Before the seventh
century BCE, contact between the Greek world and Egypt had been sporadic at best, and it had not
involved any serious level of political interaction.

But in the Saïte Period, Greek presence in Egypt sharply accelerated. Not all of the Greeks in Egypt
were mercenaries. Many were merchants, for the Saïte kings promoted and facilitated trade with the
Mediterranean world by establishing special entrepots for foreign traders. The most famous of the
these trading posts was Naucratis, a Delta town to which Greek merchants were permitted access.
 19

The Middle East in the Era of the Saïte XXVIth Dynasty, ca. 610-550 BCE

The excavated remains of Naucratis reveal huge dumps of Greek sixth and fifth century BC Greek
pottery and bear witness to the existence of a flourishing commerce between Greece and Egypt. If
Egyptian art and architecture ever had any influence upon the development of Greek art and
architecture, it was certainly during the Saïte period that this influence was most profound. What
form the influence took remains controversial, but the size and scope of Egyptian monumental
sculpture in particular may have inspired Greek craftsmen to create works of a similar character —
but with a style that quickly became uniquely Greek.

10. Egypt under the Persians (Dynasties XXVII-XX, 525-332 BCE)

In 525 BCE the Persian king Cambyses conquered Egypt, deposing the XXVIth Dynasty and
establishing Egypt as a province (or "satrapy") of the Persian Empire. This was the great Persian
state of Darius I (521-486) and Xerxes I (486-466) who ruled most of the Middle East and entered
into a long struggle for power with the mainland city-states of Greece (especially Athens and
Sparta).

Throughout the fifth century BCE the Persians ruled Egypt as the XXVIIth Dynasty, generally
respecting local traditions but benefiting greatly by the taxes that they levied. Nevertheless, there
were frequent Egyptian rebellions against Persian rule during the fifth century BC, and on several
occasions the Greek enemies of the Persian Empire sent military expeditions to Egypt to assist the
 20
rebels. The purpose of these expeditions was by no means altruistic. For example, it is likely that an
Athenian expedition to Egypt in the 450's (an expedition that ended in disaster) aimed not only at
driving the Persians from the Nile Valley, but also at giving Athens control over Egypt's principal
resources: grain and gold.

Egypt and the Middle East, 525 to 360 BCE

Thus, in spite of Persian rule, the fifth century was one in which Greece’s involvement with Egypt
continued to grow. In was at this time, for example, that Herodotus made his celebrated visit to
Egypt — and perhaps Plato too, although the evidence for his trip is much more obscure. But
Persian rule came to an end in 400 BCE, when Amyrtaeus, an Egyptian from Saïs, succeeded in
driving the Persians out of the Egypt. Amyrtaeus (404-399) founded a short-lived dynasty, the
Twenty-Eighth, which ended with his death but ushered in a period of seventy years during which
most of the Nile Valley was ruled by native kings. These kings maintained their independence (often
with the aid of Greek mercenaries) in spite of constant pressure from the still-powerful Persian
Empire. The Twenty-Ninth Dynasty (399-379) ruled Egypt from the city of Mendes, and the
Thirtieth (379-341) from Sebennytus. The later dynasty was distinguished by the reigns of two able
kings, Nectanebo I and Nectanebo II, who carried out a number of building projects and restoration
works throughout the Nile Valley.

11. From Alexander to the Arab Conquest (332 BCE to 642 CE)

In 343-341 BCE the last great Persian king, Artaxerxes III, reconquered Egypt and overthrew the
Thirtieth Dynasty. It was a harsh reconquest, and many structures — including some of the greatest
temples — were damaged in the fighting. But the Persian restoration was short-lived, because in 332
BC, Alexander the Great entered Egypt, drove out the Persians, and added the Nile Valley to his
growing empire. Alexander arrived in Egypt in the fall of 332 and left just a few month later (in the
spring of 331) leaving behind a Greek garrison and governor and having selected the site for a great
 21
new Greek city that was to be built in Egypt and named after himself — Alexandria. He died a
decade later, in 323 BCE, having never returned to Egypt. But with his conquest of the Nile Valley,
a new phase of Egyptian history began. Egypt now became an integral part of the wider
Mediterranean world, and its culture interacted with, affected, and was affected by other cultures
(Greek culture in particular) in ways wholly new to the Nile Valley.

Alexander's generals began to struggle for control of his empire soon after his death. One of them,
Ptolemy, seized Egypt and ruled it as governor and regent for seventeen years before finally
declaring himself king in 305 BCE. He founded a Greco-Macedonian dynasty of kings who
governed Egypt until 30 BC, when the Nile Valley was absorbed by Rome. The dynasty's height
was achieved in its first century under the able leadership of the first three Ptolemies. Ptolemy I
began the development of Alexandria as a great Mediterranean port, and his son, Ptolemy II,
completed its emergence as the largest and most influential city in the Greek world. Thousands of
Greeks migrated to Egypt. Most Egyptians simply endured their advent, others resisted them
(unsuccessfully), while still others — especially well-to-do, upper-class Egyptians — began a
process of cultural assimilation that would eventually produce a hybrid Greco-Egyptian culture.

The Ptolemies took over and tightened the administrative system that they found already in place.
They also introduced massive new hydraulic projects, draining lands in the Fayyum and turning it
into the most productive agricultural area in Egypt. They earned an enormous income from their
control of the land of Egypt and the port of Alexandria, and much of that wealth was poured into the
patronage of scholarship and learning. The great mathematician Euclid migrated to Egypt and
flourished with the support of Ptolemy I. Ptolemy II established the famous Museum of Alexandria,
the greatest "think-tank" of its day and host to the best work of the finest Greek scientists of the day,
including the mathematician Archimedes and the geographer Eraatosthenes. Alexandria also became
the most fertile center for contemporary Greek literature. Here, for example, the Sicilian-born poet
Theocritus — one of two or three greatest Greek poets of all time — created masterpieces of verse
that exemplified one of Alexandria’s greatest gifts to the Mediterranean world: an entirely new
literary genre, the pastoral lyric.

Egypt and the Mediterranean World, ca. 300-200 BCE

After 220 BCE the Ptolemaic house entered into a very long, slow decline, one which ended with
Octavian's defeat of Cleopatra — the last ruler of the Ptolemaic line, and one of the ablest — and
Rome's conquest of Egypt in 30 BCE. Thereafter, as a Roman province, Egypt experienced nearly
two hundred years of unbroken peace and prosperity, flourishing as the "breadbasket" of the Empire.
Alexandria shared in this prosperity, and it remained one of the most important centers of Greek
intellectual and artistic endeavor throughout the Roman era.
 22

Egypt in the Roman World, ca. 100-200 CE

In the third century CE turmoil wracked the Roman state. A new Persian Empire ruled by the
Sassanid Dynasty rose in the East and put immense pressure on Rome’s eastern boundaries. In the
250’s the Sassanid Persians invaded the eastern provinces, defeated a major Roman army, captured
the reigning emperor, Valerian, and executed him. At the same time German tribes burst through the
northern borders and devastated the northern roman territories. Disease — perhaps a virulent form
opf the flu — swept the Empire and killed thousands. Civil war broke out within the Empire as
various generals laid claim to the throne. Trade and commerce suffered grievously. The collapse of
Roman imperial order devastated Egypt perhaps more than any other of the major Roman provinces,
and it was in the context of this turmoil that Christianity made rapid and permanent advances among
the people of the Nile Valley.

Between 270 and 325 CE a series of tough, able and ruthless military men managed to re-assert
imperial authority and bring order to the Roman world. But the restored Roman Empire was a very
different one from the Empire of the first and second centuries CE. It was now a much authoritarian
state and, thanks to the Emperor Constantine, it was sanctioned by a new state religion: Christianity.

By the time of the rise to power of the Roman emperor Constantine in 325 CE most Egyptians had
become Christian. By 400 CE, paganism had virtually disappeared as an active force. The Egyptian
Church, presided over by the powerful and influential Patriarchs of Alexandria (men such as
Athanasius and Cyril), became a major force in the politics of the revived Roman Empire of the
fourth and fifth centuries. Alexandria was now one of the most important intellectual centers of the
Christian Church. It was in Alexandria, for example, that the great third century scholar Origen (a
man of mixed Greek and Egyptian parentage) undertook the task of reconciling Greco-Roman
philosophy and Christian revelation, thereby establishing the foundations of Christian theology and
philosophy. But in the rural parts of Egypt spiritual leadership was provided by the monastic
movement. Indeed, the roots of Christian monasticism lay in Egypt, and many of the great early
figures of Christian monasticism — for example, St. Anthony of the Desert, the first great hermit,
and St. Pachomius, the founder of communal monasticism — were Egyptians.
 23

Egypt and the “Later Roman” or “Early Byzantine” World

However, in 451 CE, after the ecclesiastical Council of Chalcedon, the Egyptian Church split with
the powerful Greek Church and its imperial patrons over issues of dogma and church politics. In the
years that followed, several Roman emperors attempted to suppress the Egyptian Church, but their
efforts only stirred up a powerful Egyptian opposition to Roman rule itself. When, in 640 CE, the
Muslims Arabs invaded the Nile Valley, most Egyptian Christians stood aside and offered no
resistance, preferring rule by non-Christians who promised the restoration of their local church to
the continued despotism by the Christian Roman emperors.

12. Islamic Egypt: Egypt in the Middle Ages (642-1805 CE)

Islam entered Egypt in 640 CE in the form of an invading Arab army commanded by 'Amr b. al-'As.
The Arab conquest was completed in 642, when the Romans abandoned Alexandria and 'Amr's army
occupied the city. 'Amr chose not to reside at the old capital. Instead, he established his residence at
Fustat, the camp city built by the Arab army just north of Babylon. By 700 CE Fustat had become a
flourishing urban center; by 800 CE it had superseded Alexandria in size, becoming one of the most
important cities in the world.

From 642 to 868 CE Egypt was a province of a much wider Arab-Islamic empire, the center of
which lay first in Syria and later in Iraq. But in 868 the current rulers of this empire, the Abbasid
family, sent their general Ibn Tulun was to Egypt to put down a series of local revolts. Recruiting an
army locally (and relying heavily on Sudanese troops), Ibn Tulun restored order but proceeded to
rule the Nile Valley on his own. Within a few years he had established a personal empire based in
Egypt but including Cyrenaica, Palestine, and Western Arabia. As a sign of his power and
independence, Ibn Tulun built a grand palace city further north of Fustat, and of at the heart of this
city he constructed an enormous ceremonial mosque, the Mosque of Ibn Tulun. The mosque still
survives and is one of the masterpieces of Cairo’s Islamic heritage. Ibn Tulun ruled sternly but
effectively, but his dynasty was overthrown not long after his death in 882 CE. A series of
governors thereafter ruled Egypt on behalf of the Abbasids until the advent of a new conquering
dynasty a century later, the Fatimids.

The Fatimids initially rose to power in North Africa and then, in 969 CE, invaded and seized the
Nile Valley. The Fatimids now built a new palace city and named it "the Victorious City" — in
 24
Arabic, "al-Qahira," or Cairo. In the years that followed, the Fatimid Caliphate attained a peak of
power and prosperity. With Egypt as its new center and Cairo its new capital, the Fatimids extended
their control over Palestine, much of Syria, and Arabia. The Fatimid period witnessed an
extraordinary flourishing in the arts and sciences and produced such splendid architectural works as
the mosques of al-Azhar and al-Hakim. But in the eleventh century the Fatimid state entered a long,
slow period of decline, and in 1172 CE, a new dynasty overthrew the Fatimids and seized control of
Egypt — the Ayyubids.

The Early Arab-Islamic Empires, 660-850 CE

In 1172 CE a new dynasty overthrew the Fatimids and seized control of Egypt — the Ayyubids. The
founder of this dynasty was Salah ad-Din, the famous “Saladin” of the era of the Crusades. Salah
ad-Din unified Egypt and Syria under his control and then turned his attention to the Crusading
states that had been established seventy-five years earlier in the Levant. In 1186/87, he defeated the
army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and regained the Holy City for Islam. Salah ad-Din died in 1193,
having won great renown throughout the Islamic world for his victories. He was succeeded as
sultaan ("ruler") by his brother, whose line continued on the throne of Egypt for nearly sixty years.
The heart of the Ayyubid state was an elite military corps called the Mamluks. The Mamluks were
organized into "households," each presided over by an "Amir." These "households" were cavalry
battalions, each commanded by its "Amir.” The Mamluk system was based on slavery ("Mamluk"
means "slave"): young children living in lands beyond Muslim control (especially in Central Asia)
were taken by slavers and brought to Egypt, where they were purchased by agents of the Mamluk
households. They were converted to Islam, educated, and rigorously trained in the military arts.
Upon reaching maturity, the young men — now superb cavalrymen — were freed, promising in
return to devote themselves the Sultan's service. They then entered the lowest ranks of their
respective households, thus joining Egypt's socio-political elite. As time passed they rose through
the ranks, some of them reaching the rank of Amir. The system was self-perpetuating: each
household continued to purchase slaves with which to renew itself. The children of Mamluks could
not become Mamluks, but they inherited some of their fathers' wealth and remained among the elite
of Egyptian society.

The purpose of the Mamluk system was to create a military corps loyal to the sultan only (that is, to
their pay-master) and possessing no local ties that might interfere with that loyalty. In this regard,
the system worked well until 1249/50, when the leading Mamluk amirs began to contend for the
sultanate themselves.
 25
The Middle East, 1100-1170 BCE

In 1260, a Mongol invasion was defeated by the Mamluks at the Battle of 'Ayn Jaluut in Palestine.
The victory not only spared Egypt from the Mongols; it won enormous prestige for the Mamluks.
One of their commanders, Baybars, then seized power, marking the beginning of two-and-a-half
centuries of Mamluk rule in Egypt and Syria. Between 1260 and 1292 the Mamluks drove the
Crusaders from their last outposts in the Levant and forced them to retreat to island bases on
Cyprus, Crete, and Rhodes. The century that followed was generally one of considerable prosperity,
as the rule of the Mamluks lasted until 1516 and produced an era of competent (if autocratic)
government and extraordinary achievement in the arts, producing some of the finest examples of
Cairo’s Islamic architecture. But it was also a troubled era, one that witnessed the advent of the
Black Death (which appeared in Egypt in the mid-fourteenth century and lingered in the Nile Valley
for hundreds of years after) as well as a draining, debilitating warfare of incessant sea-borne raids
and piracy that characterized the last two centuries of the Crusader enterprise.

The Middle East, 1275-1400 BCE

The rule of the Mamluks lasted until 1516 and engendered an era of extraordinary achievement in
the arts, producing some of the finest examples of Cairo’s Islamic architecture — including the
great mosque and college ("madrasa") for the teaching of Islamic law built by Sultan Hasan in 156-
 26
1361. But in 1516-17, the Ottoman Empire invaded Egypt, defeated the Mamluks, and annexed the
country. For the next three centuries much of Egypt’s wealth flowed out of the Nile Valley and
enriched the Ottoman state, while in Egypt, local Ottoman governors struggled with the Mamluks
for political power and influence.

The Middle East. 1500-1700 BCE

In 1798 a French expedition commanded by Napoleon Bonaparte arrived in Egypt. Napoleon’s

army marched on Cairo. At the “Battle of the Pyramids,” which was fought near the village of
Imbaba northwest of Cairo, he defeated a Mamluk force that tried to defend the capital on behalf of
the Ottomans. The French then occupied Cairo.

Napoleon’s motives in invading Egypt remain controversial. He may have been trying to gain Egypt
as a base to assist French efforts to prevent a British takeover of India. Regardless, whatever may
have been Napoleon’s strategic aims, his plans were shattered only a few weeks after his arrival in
Egypt, when a British fleet commanded by Horatio Nelson destroyed the French fleet that had
transported Napoleon to Egypt in the “Battle of the Nile,” which was fought in the Bay of Abukir
east of Alexandria. The Battle of the Nile left the British in complete control of the Mediterranean
and ensured that Napoleon troops would be stranded in Egypt with no hope of reinforcement.
Napoleon himself soon abandoned his troops and returned to France, and in 1802 a truce was signed
whereby the remaining French troops in Egypt were transported back to France on board British
ships. According to the terms of the treaty, the French were obligated to turn over to the British
whatever interesting artifacts they had picked up during their three years in Egypt, which explains
why the Rosetta Stone, which was found by French soldiers in 1978, ended up in British hands. It
remains in British hands — in the British Museum — to this day.

The French expedition to Egypt, which was celebrated as a grand beau geste in the French press,
was actually a political fiasco. It gained nothing for the French and it left Egypt in a state of
anarchy. But it was the first encounter between “modern” Europe and Egypt and it would have
profound consequences in a number of ways. For example, it led to the development of the modern
science of Egyptology, because Napoleon brought a number of French scholars with him to Egypt,
and when they published the results of their observations in the multi-volume Description de
l’Egypte, they stimulated a fascination with Ancient Egypt that persists among Europeans and others
to this day.
 27
Within Egypt, the forced departure of the French resulted in a struggle for power between the
Mamluks, The Ulamaa (the religious scholars who had come to serve as representatives of popular
Egyptian concerns), and an Ottoman military force commanded by a young Ottoman officer whose
family was based in the Balkan Penisula — Muhammad Ali Pasha. In 1805 the Ottoman Sulatn
appointed Muhammad Ali as the Ottoman governor of Egypt, which — given the critical
importance of Muhammad Ali and his family in the “modernization” of Egypt during the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries — makes 1805 as good a year as any to make the beginning of the
Modern Period of Egypt’s history.