the term generally used to describe the twenty-first through twenty-fifth dynasties. Like the previous two Intermediate Periods, it was an era of declining centralized power, a consequent splitting of the nation into a number of separate polities and the appearance of rulers of foreign extraction. The twenty-fifth dynasty, although of Nubian origin, marked a reversal of the disintegrative tendencies of the first four dynasties of the period, and in many of its political and cultural aspects it was more closely allied with the succeeding twenty-sixth dynasty.


There are a number of sources of data available for the study of the period, although far more scanty than those preserved from Ramesside times. The twenty-first dynasty is particularly poorly served, with almost no surviving administrative papyri or ostraca, private votive statuary, or stelae. This is very unfortunate, as twenty-second dynasty statuary has been very helpful in reconstructing the genealogies of this period. Royal texts are also rare.

For throughout the entire period, a series of carved documents in the temple of Amun at Karnak have provided useful primary data, including the remains of the Priestly Annals; records of Nile flood levels on the main quay; a series of hieroglyphic graffiti; a long chronicle text, and one major royal wall composition. Funerary material has also been helpful, in particular the notations on mummy bandages and other items bearing royal names. For the latter part of the Third Intermediate Period, numerous private stelae record pious donations, and there are a series of statues of private individuals, both of which frequently mention contemporary monarchs and dates.

Chronology and Dynastic Divisions

Although the broad thrust of developments during the period are generally agreed, there continues to be considerable debate as to the precise chronology and temporal and political relationships between the various royal lines. Although a standard chronology exists, primarily the work of Kenneth A. Kitchen, there is no unanimity among specialists, and significant revision remains possible, with a probable general lowering of dates prior to 800 BCE, by twenty-five to fifty years.

The main chronological peg of the period has been the Palestinian campaign of Sheshonq I, which has usually been dated, through its mention in 1 Kings 14.25, to 928 BCE. Unfortunately, it is not completely clear where in his reign this campaign should be placed. However, the Assyrian/biblical calculations that underpin that date are now being questioned. Other work also suggests that certain kings of Egypt, who were normally placed in the main succession should instead be regarded as local kings of Thebes only, raising further problems with the so-called standard chronology. These areas of difficulty will be highlighted below; two sets of regnal dates will accordingly be given for most monarchs, first the standard one and then, in square brackets, a revisionist version.

Twenty-first Dynasty

With the demise of Ramesses XI of the twentieth dynasty (r. 1111–1081 [1094–1064] BCE), the national throne passed to Smendes I (r. 1081–1055 [1064–1038] BCE), perhaps a son-in-law of the late king, who ruled from the Nile Delta city of Tanis (San el-Hagar). Earlier, while governor of the town, Smendes had been mentioned in the Report of Wenamun, an account (possibly fictionalized) of a voyage to Lebanon to purchase wood. Wenamun's misfortunes probably illustrated the fall in Egypt's international standing during the previous few decades.

South of el-Hiba, however, the country was controlled by Pinudjem I (r. 1076–1038 [1063–1026] BCE), probably a nephew of Smendes and the latest representative of a series of army commanders and high priests of Amun who had been established in authority at Thebes during the last decade of the New Kingdom. The existence of this Thebes-based military/priestly regime, in parallel with the monarchy, is a particular motif that continues throughout the Third Intermediate Period. During Smendes' reign, the high priest and general, Pinudjem, obtained pharaonic titles as local king in Thebes and was succeeded in his military and pontifical offices by, in turn, his sons Masaharta, Djedkhonsiufankh, and Menkheperre. This kind of priestly/kingly transition was to be not infrequent.

Another important offspring of Pinudjem I was his daughter Maetkare, who took the title “God's Wife of Amun.” During the Early New Kingdom this had been a title held by the king's chief wife, but when resurrected during the twentieth dynasty it seems to have been held by a virgin princess, whose status appears to have paralleled that of the high priest of the god. Although the prominence of the office varied at times during the Third Intermediate Period, it was ultimately to eclipse and replace that of the high priest himself during the twenty-sixth dynasty.

There seems to have been some kind of violent out-break in Thebes shortly before the end of Smendes' reign. Djedkhonsiufankh briefly followed Masaharta as high priest but, soon afterward, Menkheperre assumed the high priesthood and proceeded southward to Thebes to suppress some kind of disorder, which may have been linked with the extreme brevity of his predecessor's tenure.

Psusennes I, another son of Pinudjem I, took the Tanite throne (r. 1055–1004 [1038–984] BCE), followed by the short reign of Amenemnisu (r. 1004–1000 [984–981] BCE). Psusennes I and his brother Menkheperre were presumably of a similar age, for they were to hold their respective offices, essentially in parallel, for half a century. Psusennes I's tomb at Tanis was found intact in the 1939–1940 season; it also contained the body of his general, Wendjebaendjed, as well as those of his successor, Amenemhet and the later monarchs Siamun, Psusennes II, and Sheshonq II.

Although it is generally assumed that Amenemhet (r. 1000–990 [981–971] BCE) was Psusennes I's son, a clear break in the line of the dynasty seems to have occurred after Amenemhet's death, since his successor was Osochor (Osorkon the Elder, r. 990–984 [971–965] BCE), the son of the Libyan chief of the Ma (Meshwesh). His existence was only established in 1977. The significance of this Libyan appearance on the Tanite throne is unclear; Libyans had been among the foes of Merenptah and Ramesses III, but no evidence exists to indicate a violent takeover. Rather, the family in question seems to have been resident in Egypt for generations, although able to be distinguished by their ancestral Libyan names and titles. [See LIBYA.] Indeed, the line of Herihor may have included Libyans, since a number of its scions, from the priest-general's sons—Osorkon, Masaqaharta, and Masaharta—to the latter's namesake, Pinudjem I's son and successor as high priest of Amun, bore Libyan names.

Thus, it is possible that the death of Amenemhet's was followed by the assumption of the crown by a collateral line of the existing family, with the senior members of the dynasty retaining the Upper Egyptian command, in the form of Menkheperre's sons, the high priests Smendes II and Pinudjem II, and the latter's offspring and successor, Psusennes II. Osochor's successor, Siamun (r. 984–965 [965–945] BCE), is of unknown antecedents. His purely Egyptian name need not count against him being a member of the Libyan family, as the aforementioned family of Herihor contained a mixture of name types within a single generation; then, too, he may represent a member of the Theban branch taking back control after Osochor's death.

What happened at the end of Siamun's reign is uncertain. The conventional view is that he was followed in turn by the former high priest, Psusennes II (r. 965–931 BCE), and then Sheshonq I, but there are indications that Psusennes II, who had replaced Pinudjem II as high priest in the tenth year of Siamun, may have only held full royal names and titles as a junior coregent of Sheshonq I from about 945 to 940 BCE. Sheshonq I thus may well have been the direct successor of Siamun or, indeed, may have actually assumed power, at least in Thebes, before Siamun's death, to judge from a text in which Sheshonq's second regnal year was accompanied by his naming as a mere chief of the Ma.

The economy

A chronic shortage of funds has been suggested by the extensive recycling of building and other material at Tanis, Thebes, and other sites. Almost all the hard stone used at Tanis is reused stone, while it is now clear that the rewrapping and caching of the New Kingdom royal mummies during the period was accompanied by the stripping of all surviving material of value, in particular, the gold.

Twenty-second dynasty

Sheshonq I (r. 931–910 [945–924] BCE) was a nephew of Osochor, and the son of Nimlot A, chief of the Ma. He reimposed royal control over Upper Egypt through the appointment of his own son, Iuput, as high priest of Amun. Another son, known as Nimlot B, was appointed military governor of Herakleopolis. At Memphis, the high priesthood continued to be held by the incumbent family, in the person of Shedsunefertum A, who also held the distinction of being a king's brother-in-law, having married a daughter of a ruler of the twenty-first dynasty.

Apart from the possibility of some activity by Siamun, there is no real evidence for Egyptian military intervention in Palestine from the late Ramessid period until the reign of Sheshonq I. Then, the king penetrated into Palestine, at least as far north as Megiddo, where he erected a stela, before returning to Egypt. A large wall area at Karnak was dedicated to the depiction of the Palestinian campaign, and a long list of the towns attacked was provided, although some entries are unreadable.

This campaign is usually equated with the attack on Jerusalem by “King Shishak,” related in the Bible's first book of Kings as taking place in the fifth regnal year of Judea's King Rehoboam. The equivalence of the names seems transparent, despite the recent chronologically inspired protests to the contrary. However, the relevant toponym is missing from the Karnak reliefs, and the itinerary of the campaign does not fit easily. Possibly, the attack on Jerusalem took place as part of an earlier or later second campaign, of which no monumental commemoration is extant.

On Sheshonq I's death, the throne passed to Osorkon I (r. 910–896 [924–889] BCE), whose wife Maetkare B was a daughter of Psusennes II. Soon after his accession, the new king's eldest son, Sheshonq C, succeeded as high priest of Amun. A statue of Osorkon I, with an added Phoenician inscription, has been found at Byblos on the Lebanese coast, attesting to continuing international relations at the time: another statue from the site belonged to Sheshonq I.

Toward the end of Osorkon I's long reign, Sheshonq became his father's coregent and was replaced as pontiff by a brother, Iuwlot. Unfortunately, Sheshonq II died shortly afterward, the result of an infected head wound.

When Osorkon I died soon afterward, he was followed by Takelot I (r. 896–873 [889–874] BCE), whose reign is particularly obscure. Thebes continued to be ruled by the high priest, Iuwlot, and then by his brother, Smendes III, but almost nothing else is known of the events during Takelot I's occupation of the throne.

Takelot I's son was Osorkon II (r. 873–844 [874–835] BCE), and around the time of his accession, Harsiese, apparently the son of Sheshonq II, was appointed high priest of Amun. Perhaps that was an unwise choice, given Harsiese's direct descent from the former twenty-first dynasty high priests. Giving such a man Egypt's southern command, rather than a son of Osorkon II, diluted the direct control of the Tanite king over Thebes. Furthermore, it may be that at some later time this Harsiese claimed royal titles, after the model of Pinudjem I, although an attempt has been made by Karl Jansen-Winkeln (1995) to make the high priest and King Harsiese different individuals.

Elsewhere in Egypt, during the Third Intermediate Period, the practice of installing royal sons in positions of power was continued from previous reigns, and extended at Memphis, where the old, established line of high priests was supplanted by the crown prince, Sheshonq D. The approach

Third Intermediate Period

Third Intermediate Period. Victory relief of Sheshonq I, on the exterior wall of the Bubastite Portal, in the First Court of the Great Temple of Amun at Karnak. The king was formerly modeled in plaster on the right-hand side of the scene, smiting his enemies before Amun. Behind Amun are the name-rings of the defeated Palestinian cities. (Courtesy Aidan Dodson)

was also readopted at Thebes after the end of the pontificate of King Harsiese's son, when Prince Nimlot C became high priest of Amun. Nimlot combined his high priesthood with his earlier post, the governorship of Hierakleopolis and Middle Egypt, in which he followed his earlier namesake, the son of Sheshonq I. Nimlot C predeceased his father, Osorkon II, and was followed in the pontificate by his own son, Takelot F. The female side of the Amun clergy was headed by the “God's Wife,” Karomat G, who was a king's daughter, but the identity of her father is uncertain. Little is known of twenty-second dynasty “God's Wives,” although a number were buried in the area of the Ramesseum at Western Thebes.

The only evidence for Osorkon II's foreign relations is the statue that was presented to the ruler of Byblos and also the remains of a vase from Samaria. In addition, he seems to have been the pharaoh who contributed a thousand troops to the coalition of the Syrian-Palestinian polities that opposed the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser III, at the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE. Later, he sent gifts of various exotic fauna to the Assyrian king, who was pleased to present them as “tribute from Egypt.”

Late in the reign, the high priest of Amun, Takelot F, appears to have imitated Harsiese in taking kingly names and titles. As Takelot II, he was formerly regarded by Egyptologists as being Osorkon II's successor at Tanis from 850 to 825 (or 844–819) BCE, but evidence marshalled in 1989 by David A. Aston strongly points to his having been a Theban king, effectively founding the “Theban twenty-third dynasty” in 841 BCE (see below).

On this basis, Osorkon II's direct successor at Tanis was Sheshonq III (r. 819–767 [835–795] BCE), presumably his son, although no certain evidence survives. The new king had three known sons: his prematurely deceased heir, Bakennefi, Pashedbast, and his second successor, Pemay.

Sheshonq III's authority was acknowledged by the great array of “princedoms” and “chiefdoms” that had been established throughout the Nile Delta during the middle of the twenty-second dynasty. Based on each of the major cities of the area, this network of territories was to remain a key element in Egyptian politics for the remainder of pharaonic history.

Despite the number of local rulers in existence by the latter part of his reign, Sheshonq III's position as nominal overlord of all Egypt does not seem to have been seriously challenged. Until the 1980s, it appeared that he was directly succeeded by his son, Pemay (r. 767–763 [786–780] BCE), but the 1980s reassessment indicated that a King Sheshonq IV probably interposed between the two (r. 785–773 [795–783] BCE).

The short reigns of these two kings are rather obscure, as is the much longer one of Sheshonq V (767–730 [780–743] BCE). All continued to rule from Tanis, but before the end of the latter's reign, the twenty-second dynasty monarch had become no more than a “first among equals” among the myriad local rulers in the Delta.

The Theban twenty-third dynasty is the term now used to describe a group of kings who ruled in Upper Egypt alongside the later Tanite kings. Considerable debate exists as to whether some should be regarded as being based at Leontopolis in the Delta, rather than at Thebes, but the consensus seems to be shifting toward the latter option.

The first king to be so classified could be either Harsiese or Takelot II, both of whom seem to have begun their careers as Theban high priests. Takelot II's activities were largely confined to the area of Thebes. The king had married Karomat D, daughter of the former high priest, Nimlot C; with her, and others, he had at least seven children, four sons and three daughters. The eldest son, Osorkon B, was appointed to the high priesthood of Amun, while at least two of the daughters married various Theban dignitaries. The northern part of what had been since the twenty-first dynasty part of the Theban polity was in the hands of Ptahudjankhef, another son of Nimlot C, based at Hierakleopolis.

Troubles seem to have begun in Takelot II's eleventh regnal year, when the high priest, Osorkon B, was forced to sail southward from el-Hiba toward Thebes to face some potential “enemy who will take hold of the office of the High Priest of Amun.” This occurrence was recorded in the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon at Karnak, the major written source for the events that followed. Initial success was followed two years later by the appearance on the scene of Petubastis (King Pedubast I; r. 813–773 [830–799] BCE) as a direct rival to Takelot II, the expulsion of Prince Osorkon from his city, and a civil war.

This lasted some two decades, during which the Petubastis faction seems to have received support from Sheshonq III of Tanis. At one point, Osorkon resumed office, only to be expelled from Thebes once again; at length, he was able to find the wherewithal to finally defeat the opposition and resume his office. Within a short time of his return, the prince-priest became king at Thebes, as Osorkon III (r. 773–745 [799–769] BCE).

The king had a number of children, the eldest son being Takelot G, who served as high priest of Amun for the whole of Osorkon III's reign. He was also placed in charge of Hierakleopolis, which gave him undisputed operational control of the Theban realm. Takelot's sister, Shepenwepet (I), later became “God's Wife of Amun.” It seems that the power of the “God's Wife” was henceforth increased at the expense of the high priest, later ladies appearing to be far more important than their male colleagues, some of whose very identities are today uncertain.

After a quarter-century as king, Osorkon appointed High Priest Takelot as coregent c.750–c.720 [774–759] BCE). As high priest, the new king was replaced by his own son, Osorkon F. Takelot's place at Hierakleopolis was taken by Peftjauawybast, clearly a scion of the royal house, who would later be its final ruling representative.

After Takelot III and his brother and successor, Rudamun (757–754 [759–739] BCE), the succession at Thebes is somewhat obscure. Peftjauawybast, who ruled the northern part of the former Theban dominion (c.749–720 [734–724] BCE) seems to be classifiable as part of this line, until supplanted by the twenty-fifth dynasty. The later kings of the dynasty displayed a distinct archaism in their titulary, which was to be taken further during the later twenty-fifth dynasty and the twenty-sixth.

The (Tanite) twenty-third dynasty comprises a number of different groups of kings, including the Theban line, just described, and some at Leontopolis (Kitchen) in the Delta. The trend now seems to be to use the term to designate the rulers at Tanis who followed Sheshonq V on the throne at Tanis. The last of them is known to be Osorkon IV (730–715 BCE), with a predecessor probably being Pedubast II ([743–730] BCE), but little detail is available concerning them, apart from Osorkon's ultimate submission to the invading twenty-fifth dynasty.

The twenty-fourth dynasty is the designation used for two rulers of the west-Delta Principality of the West, based at Sais, who used pharaonic titles, named Tefnakhte (r. 724–717) and Bakenrenef (r. 717–711). It was entirely contemporary with the twenty-fifth dynasty, and according to Manetho, Bakenrenef was burned alive by its King Shabaqa.

Twenty-fifth dynasty

The kings of this dynasty were part of a line that had established itself in Upper Nubia (Kush) not long after the Egyptian withdrawal from south of Aswan, after the end of the New Kingdom; they were centered on Napata. (Gebel Barkal [see NAPATA; TWENTY-FIFTH DYNASTY]). Although the dynasty began with Alara in the early eighth century BCE, about 755 BCE, King Kashta assumed full pharaonic titles, and rapidly expanded his power into lower Nubia.

Kashta was succeeded by Piya (735–712 BCE). Early in his reign, Kushite influence was extended farther north, to Thebes. There, the king had his sister, Amenirdis I, adopted by the incumbent “God's Wife of Amun,” Shepenwepet I, as her intended successor. The appearance of the regnal years of both Piya and his Theban twenty-third dynasty contemporary, Amunrud or Rudamun, in a graffito referring to their priestly sisters implies that both kings were recognized at Thebes. After Amunrud's death, Thebes seems to have effectively passed under Kushite rule.

Following southward expansion by Tefnakhte, the twenty-fourth dynasty Prince of the West, Piya undertook a campaign against Lower Egypt, capturing Memphis and accepting the submission of most of the local rulers of the Delta. The most notable of these were two who held pharaonic titles, Osorkon IV (twenty-third dynasty) and Iuput II of Leontopolis (754–720/715 BCE). In all, fifteen Delta rulers came to formally submit to him, the exception being Tefnakhte, who was only ultimately prevailed upon to submit, and then only by proxy.

Piya then withdrew back to Kush, leaving Egypt in the control of his new vassals; Nubian authority was not reasserted over Lower Egypt until after the accession of his brother and successor, Shabaqa (r. 712–698 BCE). He was followed on the throne by his nephew, Shabtaqa (r. 705–690 BCE), a son of Piya (Pi[ankh]ya). Since the late tenth-century BCE campaigns of Sheshonq I, Egypt had apparently kept herself largely apart from the politics of Syria-Palestine, but Egypt's troops were in 701 BCE unsuccessfully fighting against the Assyrians at the Battle of Eltekeh. Among the Egyptian–Nubian personnel was Taharqa, who was crowned king at Memphis in 690 BCE, following Shabtaqa's death.

At Thebes, the tradition of installing one of the reigning king's close female relations as the heir-apparent to the current “God's Wife of Amun” was continued, with Taharqa's daughter, Amenirdis (II), being adopted by her aunt, Shepenwepet II. Male priesthoods of Amun also remained in the royal family: the high priests Haremakhet and Harkhebi were, respectively, the son and grandson of Shabaqa.

An important figure at Thebes under Taharqa (r. 690–664 BCE) was Montuemhet, who combined the offices of mayor of the city with the fourth prophetship of Amun. [See MONTUEMHET.] Also key figures during the dynasty (and afterward) were the “stewards of the God's Wives of Amun,” Akhamunru and Harua, who were responsible for major tombs in the Asasif area of Western Thebes.

The rule of the twenty-fifth dynasty was brought to an end by an Assyrian invasion, which led to Taharqa's flight back to Napata and the definitive departure of his successor, Tanutamun, after a short resurgence. Egypt's retreat was followed by an Assyrian sack of Thebes, and masses of loot were carried back to Assyria. Power in Egypt ultimately passed to the Assyrian vassal of Sais, Psamtik I, who became the founder of the twenty-sixth dynasty (r. 664–610 BCE), which is regarded either as a fresh period in itself (the Saite) or as the first dynasty of the Late period. [See LATE PERIOD.]

Sites and Settlement Patterns

The archaeological data for the Third Intermediate Period is fairly scrappy, as compared with some other periods, but is still significant. The poor excavation of many Delta sites has been unfortunate, given the political center of gravity, which had definitively shifted there. Elsewhere, a major growth in the number of fortified settlements in Middle Egypt reflected the breakdown in the conception of the unitary state; that was paralleled by the walled nature of the major Delta centers. There is evidence that more of the rural population was now to be found dwelling within those protected towns, sallying forth on a daily basis to till the fields.

Large amounts of material have survived at Tanis, however, including the royal tombs; the temple of Amun had been begun in the eleventh century BCE by Psusennes I, a court added by Siamun in the tenth century BCE, and a new forecourt and other outlying structures the responsibilities of Osorkon II and Sheshonq III in the ninth and the eighth century BCE. Major temple remains have been examined at Bubastis, where a Jubilee Hall was added by Osorkon II. Material from Memphis attests to work under the twenty-first dynasty and the twenty-second, including the high priests' necropolis, while out at Giza a small temple was erected by Psusennes I. After a break in the record between Smendes I and Osorkon II, burials of the Apis bulls were carried out at the Saqqara Serapeum; votive stelae left there are important historical documents for the latter part of the period. Spanish excavations at Ehnasiya [See HERAKLEOPOLIS] have revealed significant twenty-second dynasty remains, including a necropolis.

The northern outpost of the Theban regime, el-Hiba, still awaits comprehensive attention, although a temple of Sheshonq I is known. Farther south, a considerable number of high-status burials, spanning the whole period, have been found at Abydos. At Thebes, the first courtyard of the Karnak temple was constructed by Third Intermediate Period kings, while the small chapel of Osiris-Ruler-of-Eternity was the eighth-century BCE joint work of Osorkon III and Takelot III. At Western Thebes, the center of administration was the temple complex at Medinet Habu, which also housed the tombs of the later “God's Wives” and at least one of the Theban kings, Harsiese. The tombs of lesser individuals clustered around Deir el-Bahri/Asasif and the Ramesseum; until the latter part of the twenty-fifth dynasty, these tombs were almost exclusively of simple design and housed the body and coffins, accompanied by minimal equipment.

Cultural and Artistic Traditions

During the first part of the period, there seems to be a clear attempt to continue the state traditions of the late New Kingdom. However, it has been suggested that transition of the twenty-second to the twenty-third dynasty, the Libyan cultural background of the royal house encouraged the breakdown of the state into separate polities. This non-Egyptian stratum might also explain the extreme banality of most royal titularies, which are extremely repetitive, reusing a very limited number of elements and making the positive identification of a number of kings rather difficult. For example, of a sample fifteen kings of this period, seven certainly bore the prenomen Usermare and another five bore Hedjkheperre.

For most of the period, the artistic norms closely followed New Kingdom prototypes. However, from around 800 BCE, there was an increasing move toward archaism, with the Old Kingdom then being viewed and emulated as the key prototype. This may be seen in the adoption of simple titular names by the kings of the late Theban twenty-third dynasty and the twenty-fifth and was also to be seen emerging in artistic styles. The archaism becomes particularly marked during the twenty-fifth dynasty, with the trend continuing into the twenty-sixth dynasty, of which it is often (wrongly) held to be characteristic.



  • Aston, David A. “Takeloth II—A King of the ‘Theban Twenty-third Dynasty’?” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75 (1989), 139–153.
  • Bierbrier, Morris L. The Late New Kingdom in Egypt (c. 1300–664 B.C.): A Genealogical and Chronological Investigation. Warminster 1975.
  • Bonhême, Marie-Ange. Les noms royaux dans l'Égypte de la troisième période intermédiere. Cairo, 1987.
  • Caminos, Ricardo. The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon. Rome, 1958.
  • Dodson, Aidan M. “Psusennes II.” Revue d'Égyptologie 38 (1987), 49–54.
  • Dodson, Aidan M. “Psusennes II and Shoshenq I.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 79 (1993), 267–268. Two discussions of the possible contemporaneity of the last king of the Twenty-first and first king of the Twenty-second Dynasties.
  • Dodson, Aidan M. “A New King Shoshenq Confirmed?” Göttinger Miszellen 137 (1993), 53–58. A presentation of the evidence for a hitherto-unsuspected King Sheshonq (IV) as the direct successor of Sheshonq III.
  • Dodson, Aidan M. “Towards a Minimum Chronology of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period.” Bulletin of the Egyptian Seminar (forthcoming). A discussion of the chronological options for the late second and early first millennia BCE.
  • Fazzini, Richard A. Egypt: Dynasty XXII–XXV (Iconography of Religions XVI/10). Leiden, 1988. Deals with the art and iconography of the latter part of the Third Intermediate Period.
  • Heerma van Voss, M. Ägypten, die 21. Dynastie (Iconography of Religions XVI/9). Leiden 1982. Deals with the art and iconography of the earlier part of the Third Intermediate Period.
  • Jansen-Winkeln, Karl. “Thronname und Begräbnis Takeloths I.” Varia Aegyptiaca 3 (1987), 253–258. The re-identification of the king who was classified as the first of the name Takelot.
  • Jansen-Winkeln, Karl. “Historische Probleme der 3. Zwischenzeit.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 81 (1995), 129–149. A discussion of certain questions concerning the twenty-second and the twenty-third dynasties.
  • Kitchen, Kenneth A. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.). 3d ed., with new preface and supplement. Warminster, 1995. The absolutely fundamental work on the period, first published in 1972, upon which all subsequent works were based although now dated in a number of areas.
  • Leahy, Anthony. “The Libyan Period in Egypt: An Essay in Interpretation.” Libyan Studies 16 (1985), 51–65.
  • Leahy, Anthony, ed. Libya and Egypt, c.1300–750 BC. London, 1990. A collection of important papers dealing with aspects of the Third Intermediate Period.
  • Myśiliwiec, Karol. Royal Portraiture of the Dynasties XXI–XXX. Mainz, 1988.
  • O'Connor, David. “The Third Intermediate Period.” Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge 1983. pp. 232–249. A key summary of the social and political trends during the period.
  • Tanis: l'or des pharaons. Paris, 1987. The richly illustrated catalog of the exhibition of material from San el-Hagar. Abridged editions in English are Gold of the Pharaohs (Edinburgh 1988 and Victoria NSW 1988); the latter incorporates additional information not included in the other versions.

Aidan Dodson