THE EGYPTIAN SUDAN probably their leader. His descendants appear to have held positions under the kings of Tanis of the XXIst Dynasty, and Shashanq, his great-great-great-grandson, married the highpriestess of Amen, called Mehtet-en-usekht. This marriage, of course, gave him a claim to the throne of Egypt. Shashanq's son, Nemareth, married Thent-sepeh, who also had the divine blood of Amen in her veins, and thus the claim of the descendants of Buiuuaua to the throne was still further strengthened. Among the offspring of Nemareth and Thent-sepeh was a son called after his grandfather Shashanq, better known from the Bible narrative ' as " Shishak," who, a few years before the death of the last Tanite king of the XXIst Dynasty, established himself at Bubastis in the Delta, and declared himself king of Egypt. He was the founder of the XXHnd Dynasty," the kings of which ruled Egypt for considerably more than one hundred years.

Shashanq's eldest son, Osorkon, married Tashet-Khensu, and succeeded him on the throne at Bubastis, and his second son, Auapeth, married a priestess of Amen, and became a sort of viceroy in Upper Egypt, with Thebes for his capital.

We may now leave the Kingdom of the North out of consideration, and note the consequence of the appointment of Auapeth in Upper Egypt. During his rule at Thebes the robberies of the royal tombs continued, and it seemed impossible either to prevent them or to arrest the malefactors. Early in the period of the rule of the priests of Amen the mummies of Seqenen-Ra III., Aahmes I., three of the kings called Thothmes, Seti I., Rameses I., Rameses XL, Rameses III., Rameses X., and of several queens, had been removed from their respective tombs to the tomb of Amen-hetep I., which was strictly guarded, but in spite of all the precautions taken, the thieves succeeded in effecting an entrance and in plundering the mummies.

Although we cannot suppose that the Libyan Auapeth looked upon the mummies of the great kings with the same reverence as the priests of Amen, yet we may suppose that he was anxious to put ' See I Kings xiv. 25 ; 2 Chronicles xii. 2-9.

' The Libyan origin of this dynasty was first noted by Krall. Dr. Birch attribuied to it a Babylonian origin, and was partially followed by Brugsch, and Oppert thought that some of its members might have been Elamites.

648