1663–1555 BC - The Second Intermediate Period
With the accession of Dynasty XIII comes the second chasm in the Egyptian monumental records. This line, Theban like its predecessor, but with a special favor for Middle Egypt, seems to have ruled all Egypt. Its power, however, was evidently weakened, either by external war or by internal dissension. Many monuments may have been lost or may yet lie hid in the mounds of towns of Middle Egypt, but the scantiness of records of public works is a proof of its weakness. In the Turin Papyrus are preserved the lengths of several of the reigns of its kings, who generally bore the names Sebek-hotep or Nefer-hotep. The longest reign is 13 years, and but one other reaches 10, the total of 13 reigns being but 48 years 22 days, and 6 sums of months and 7 of days effaced. Putting the total at 60 years, the allowance for each reign is under 4 years. This must have been a time of disturbance, but not necessarily of disastrous wars. Dynasty XIV, of Koitos, the next in Manetho's list, is the first which had certainly its capital in the Delta. Beyond this fact is only conjecture as to importance and chronological place.
The invasion and conquest, at least in part, of Egypt by the Hyksos, or Shepherd Kings, is undoubtedly the chief cause of the obscurity of this age. The event did not happen until at least some time after the beginning of Dynasty XVIII, for the eighteenth king of that line in the Turin Papyrus, who bears the significant name Mer-mesha, "the general," has left a record at Tanis near the eastern frontier, which was probably the chief city of at least one dynasty of the invaders. Manetho, as cited by Josephus, allows for the stay of the foreigners in Egypt a period of 511 years, which has been supposed to be about the interval beween Dynasty XII and Dynasty XVIIL, by which they were expelled. This number, however, rests upon the single evidence of Josephus, and is moreover probably made up of sums of dynasties, which would render its evidence doubtful. A better means of measuring the period would be afforded by the monumental evidence that a Shepherd king ruled 400 years before Ramses II. could place this foreign sovereign. All that can be said as to the chronology is that Dynasty XV and XVI were probably of Shepherds, and Dynasty XVII was certainly Theban, Judging from the numbering, it is probable that there was a break in the Theban succession, and that the two Shepherd dynasties were successive.
The story of the Hyksos is thus told by Manetho. Under a king called Timaios, or Timaos (not recognized in the list or on the monuments), certain invaders from the East conquered Egypt without a battle, destroying the temples and slaying or enslaving the people. At length they made one of themselves, Salatis by name, king, who ruled at Memphis, and made all Egypt tributary. For the better protection of the eastern border he rebuilt and fortified the city Avaris, in the Sethrolte in Lower Egypt, where he kept a great force of soldiers. He was succeeded by other kings mentioned by name, who, and their descendants, held Egypt for 511 years. After this the kings of the Thebans and of the rest of Egypt rose against the Shepherd rule, and a great and long war was waged, until Misphragmuthosis drove the Shepherds out of all Egypt except Avarie, where his son Tuthmosis besieged them, and failing to take the place agreed to a capitulation, on the condition that they should be allowed to leave the country. Accordingly they went through the desert to Judaea and founded Jerusalem. They were called Hyksos, or Shepherd kings, and, according to some, they were Arabs.
This narrative, notwithstanding a general confirmation from the monuments, is evidently not wholly correct. In particular it is inconsistent with all other evidence in attributing the foundation of Jerusalem to the Shepherds, which is evidently the result of an endeavour to connect their departure with the Exodus. Manetho seems to have preserved two Egyptian theories of the Exodus, which both explained that event as the retreat of eastern invaders. M. Mariette's researches in the ruins of Tanis brought to light monuments of the Shepherds, and led to the discovery of others elsewhere, while M. de Bongó and other scholars explained Egyptian documents connected with the war of independence. From these different sources the foreigners were of the Shemite or a kindred type, resembling the modern inhabitants of the north-east of Lower Egypt who still retains the peculiarities already noticed by Greek writers.
Modern scholars began by discarding the time-honored name Hyksos. The etymologies given of it in the fragment of Manetho cannot have been given by anyone acquainted with the ancient language, and the name is not found elsewhere. The appellation in Manetho's list, "Shepherds," is more probable, and leads to the Egyptian Menti-u by which these foreigners seem to be called, and which certainly means "Shepherds," though it is not certain that this is its sense when used ethnically. Unfortunately the word Menti-u is a generic term. It belongs to a class of appellations given to the hereditary enemies of the Egyptians, which usually, if not always, have a wide extent.
Though their conquest may have been marked by violence, in their own monuments they were using and cultivating the manners and civilization of Egypt, and even giving a new and characteristic development to its art in their costly monoliths of granite, which show from their material that their rule extended to the southern boundary of Egypt The war of independence arose between Apepeo, one of their later kings, who is described as worshipping Seth only, and one of the three Theban kings called on the monuments Ea-ekenen Tea, at this time apparently a tributary prince. The war, contrary to Manetho's statement, does not to have been of long continuance, having been brought to a successful end by Aahmes, first king of Dynasty XVIII, between whom and Ra-skenen Taa no great length of time can have elapsed.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
