&HZQUJBO*NQFSJBMJTNBGUFSUIF/FX,JOHEPN 5IF26th Dynasty and the Southern Levant1

Bernd U. Schipper

Humboldt University, Berlin.

Abstract lical passages refer to the second ruler of that Dynasty, Necho II.2 The article draws attention to the foreign policy of the first kings of the 26th Dynasty It is striking to note that he is the and argues that Psammetichus I and his most frequently named in successor Necho II practiced a form of the Hebrew .3 Apart from the imperialism by establishing a system of statistical argument, Necho II’s par- vassal states in the Southern for ticular significance is seen in a nota- the first time since the New Kingdom. In ble episode. According to 2 Kings the second stage of this imperial expan- sion, this system included the Kingdom of 23 , King of Judah, was killed Judah, under the rule of King Josiah. From by Necho II near Megiddo. The the Egyptian point of view, this kingdom new king Jehoahaz – who had just was only a small and marginal entity in been enthroned by the Judean aris- the Southern Levantine region and of little tocracy (the “people of the land”) interest. – was deposed by Necho II and held captive in his military camp in The foreign policy of the 26th at the Orontes. Mor eover, Dynasty is important not only in pharaoh Necho also controlled the history of after the New Judean succession, installing in his Kingdom but also in that of the 2 Southern Levant. For the first time See :29, 33-35 and 2 Chr. 35:20-22; 36:4. since the end of the so-called “New 3 Five Egyptian are mentioned Empire” Egyptian Pharaohs like in the : (1 Kings Psammetichus I or Necho II devel- 14:25; 2 Chr. 12:2,5,7; 1 Kings 11:40); oped an extensive foreign policy, (2 Kings 19:9 = Isa 37:9), Necho which is documented in extra-Egyp- II, and probably Osorkon IV (2 tian sources including Kings 17:4 – under the name aAs; for the problem of interpretation see Galpaz- and the Hebrew Bible. In Jeremiah Feller, “So,” 338-47, with further litera- 44:30 Apries, the penultimate ruler ture); see Pfeiffer, Ägypten, 61-63. Exclud- of the 26th Dynasty, is mentioned ed from this list are references to Egyptian by the name “Hophra” ([r:p.x'), pharaohs that are difficult to interpret, while Jer 46:2 and four other bib- particularly in the book of Ezekiel; cf. Freedy and Redford, “Dates,” 482 f., who 1 I would like to express my gratitude to perceived in Ez 30:10-22 an allusion to Michael Lesley for improving my English. Apries’ Nebty name. EGYPTIAN IMPERIALISM AFTER THE NEW KINGDOM 269 place Josiah’s older son, Eliakim, dom of Judah and on its rulers, under the new name .4 Josiah and Jehoiakim.7 These events, described in matter- of-fact terms in 2 Kings, are quite I. The Southern Levant of the astonishing. How could an Egyp- 7th Century BCE tian Pharaoh govern succession in a kingdom in the Southern Levant? The historical situation in the first th And what were the circumstances decades of the 7 century is deter- under which Josiah, king of Judah, mined by the so-called “westward ended up getting killed by the pha- expansion” of the Neo-Assyrian th th raoh at Megiddo?5 Empire. From the 9 to 7 cen- turies the Assyrian kings gradu- In what follows I would like ally subordinated the entire Levant, to advance the thesis that the two th first the Northern Syrian states, fol- first pharaohs of the 26 Dynasty, lowed by the Phoenician cities, the Psammetichus I and Necho II, Kingdom of Israel, and finally the practised a form of imperialism by and the Philis- establishing a system of vassal states tine territory.8 The small city-states in the Southern Levant for the of -Palestine, including the first time since the New Kingdom Phoenician cities on the Mediterra- – which, in a later stage, included 6 nean, formed alliances in hopes of the Kingdom of Judah. The first resisting Assyrian expansion. This chapter offers a brief overview of th particularly affected the Kingdom the historical situation in the 7 of Israel in the 9th and 8th century, century BCE, and is followed by which, having joined anti-Assyrian an examination of the archaeologi- coalitions drew the attention, and cal evidence. The final section is an finally the wrath, of the Neo-Assyr- evaluation of the significance of the ian Kings. There is an underlying Egyptian domination on the King- geopolitical principle in the history 4 See Miller and Hayes, History (2nd edi- of the Syro-Palestinian isthmus in tion), 460-62. the first part of the 1st millennium 5 There are countless theories about BCE: the empires of the Ancient Josiah’s death, from a battle at Megiddo to , whether Assyrian, Egyp- the idea that, as an Egyptian vassal, Josiah wanted to render an oath of loyalty to the tian or, later, Neo-Babylonian, were new pharaoh. See Na’aman, “Kingdom,” not interested in running political 52 f. For an earlier view see Noth, History, entities, but in controlling over- 289 f. 6 Miller and Hayes, History (1st Edition), 7 The following chapters present the 383-85, 388-90; Na’aman, “Kingdom,” results from a more elaborated discussion 38-41, and Lipschitz, Fall, 23-39. For of the material, Schipper, “Egypt.” a broader discussion of the evidence see 8 See Mayer, Politik, Chapters 8 and 9, Schipper, “Egypt”. and Lamprichs, Westexpansion, Ch. 4.1.2.