.t Libyan Studtes 16 (1985) The Libyan Period in Egypt: An Essay in Interpretation By A. lrahyr Abstract The common assumption that the Libyans who governed Egypt during the .Third Intermediate period, (c.1070-715 BC) were Egyptianised is misleading. The nature and provenance ofthe extant evidence tends to obscure the retention of their ethnic identity, but this is apparent in the persistence of Libyan names and titles in Egypt. The influence of these Libyans can be traced in the fragmented political structure of the period, which represents decentralisation, not anarchy; in the erosion of the distinction between king and subject; in the disintegration of convention in language and script; and in the cessation of elaborate preparation for death and the afterlife. Introduction In a recent volume of the Cambridge Ancient History, a distinguished Egyptologist has written that 'Shoshenq I, although a foreigner by descent, was Egyptian by birth and upbringing' (Edwards 1982, 539). Shoshenq I, who became king of Egypf soon after 950 BC, was not the first Libyan to reign in Egypt but, as the first king of what we call the Twenty- second Dynasty, he formally inaugurated a period of over 200 years of continuous rule in Egypt by men of Libyan extraction. These two centuries form the larger part of what has become known to Egyptologists as the Third Intermediate period, commonly considered as a time of anarchy and decline, and contrasted unfavourably with the preceding and following eras of strong central government, stability and prosperity. The statement I have quoted is no doubt true as far as it goes, and it epitomises a wide- spread tendency to treat the rulers of this period as if they were native Egyptians, after a perfunctory acknowledgement of their foreign extraction, but it seems to -me to leave the most intriguing question unanswered, even unasked. What difference did the fact that the kings themselves and a substantial proportion of the population, many in positions of influence, were not indigenous make to Egypt? The question is of particular inierest to the social historian because it juxtaposes two totally dissimilar cultures * one literate, sedentary and with a strong and utterly distinctive formal tradition stretching back over two millennia behind it; the other non-literate, probably semi-nomadic and apparently undistinguished. The issue has not seriously been addressed before, perhaps because althoughividence of certain kinds is abundant, it does not lend itself to a solution. In the following pages, I analyse aspects of Egyptian society which I believe to have been modified by thl-I_ibyan presence. I do not have in mind a clearly identifiable 'contribution,, so much as alterations in structure and custom which reveal the imprint of a different kind of society. I shall argue that, while the presence of foreigners is endemic in ancient Egypt, the scale of the influx, the slowness of integration and the persistence of non-Egyptian features throughout the Libyan period are without precedent; that the degree of Egyptianisation which the Libyans underwent was uneven and is easily exaggerated; that the retention of their ethnic identity is obscured by the evidence we have; that their foreign background does have practical consequences, and that a proper understanding of Egyptian history in this period is not possible without reference to the Libyan dimension. Even if things appear unchanged on the surface - and given the conservative natuie of the monumental evidence most likely to survive in Egypt, they are liable to - it is naive to assume that there was no modification r Department of Ancient History and Archaeotogy, Llniversity of Birmingham. 5l