In traditional historiography, studies of ancient empires have been informed by implicit assumptions that some imperialism is inherently good, and some is not. In Egypt, this is most evident in the treatment of the New Kingdom, a period of intense Egyptian imperialism in Kush and the Levant, as a high point in Egyptian history, especially in comparison to the first millennium which, to quote the title the title of one book, was the 'twilight of ancient Egypt.' The period of Achaemenid rule especially is often contrasted with the so-called Saite renaissance of the 26th Dynasty. Such implicit assumptions obscure the complex realities of Persian imperialism in Egypt during the sixth through fourth centuries BCE. This lecture illustrates these complexities, with a focus on two topics in particular. First, it considers how the Persians controlled Egypt. By and large this was accomplished through existing institutions, most notably the office of pharaoh, which was occupied by the Persian king, acting through a satrap. As pharaoh, the king could effectively employ Egyptian temples as instruments of imperial power, for example, by utilizing them to colonize the Kharga Oasis in the Western Desert or to convert Egypt's agricultural wealth into more easily portable silver. Second, it examines Egyptian reactions to Achaemenid rule, as discernible in decisions about identity. Some people adopted attributes reminiscent of Persian attire on their votive statues, while others used seals with Achaemenid iconography. Some may also have adopted elements of Persian banqueting practices, as attested by the presence of the distinctive 'Achaemenid bowl' at sites across Egypt. The decisions imply a more complex relationship to their Persian conquerors than is captured in a simple dichotomy of good or bad. Achaemenid rule of Egypt was neither disastrous nor harmless. As in any colonial encounter, it entailed violence and exploitation. At the same time, for many Egyptians it represented little change at all, as Persian rule was largely embedded in Egyptian institutions. And some Egyptians accepted it and even thrived under it. In short, in order to understand this important period, it is necessary consider how Persian rule worked on the ground and how different individuals may have experienced it.
Henry Colburn (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: