|
The Second Intermediate Period
Historical Background
The long and successful reign of Amenemhet III (Dynasty 12) was followed by that of his coregent Amenemhet IV whose sister, Sobekneferu, succeeded him as the last of the dynasty. Under Amenemhet IV and Sobekneferu the country was beset with problems, and in the ensuing years (which Egyptologists call the Second Intermediate Period) Egypt suffered many difficulties. The Second Intermediate Period was at first a time of internal collapse when a rapid succession of kings failed to hold the kingdom together. Eventually native centralized government was restored by a line of Theban princes. In between these events, however, foreign rulers (whom we know as the Hyksos) entered Egypt and established their dynastic control over the country. They were not a minor harassment as the intrusion of foreign tribes had been in the First Intermediate Period but were regarded by later generations as foreign conquerors. Their advent profoundly changed the Egyptian attitude toward her neighbors and regarding warfare techniques. The Second Intermediate Period includes Dynasties 13 to 17 and in many ways reflects the dissolution and decentralization of the First Intermediate Period. Dynasty 13 appears to have succeeded Dynasty 12 without major political upheaval, and the rulers of the two dynasties may have been related by ties of blood or marriage. The many rulers of Dynasty 13 had short reigns and were possibly puppet kings dominated by a line of powerful viziers. They ruled from Memphis and wielded power in Egypt and abroad, but toward the end of the dynasty lack of a strong ruler undermined the country. The dynasty no longer ruled all of Egypt. (Dynasty 14, centered on the city of Xois in the Delta, and other lines of rulers seem to have existed concurrently with Dynasty 13.) .
.
The Hyksos Period
During Dynasties 15 and 16 the Hyksos took advantage of Egypt’s internal weakness and seized control of Egypt. Their arrival (once viewed by scholars as an invasion) was probably achieved by infiltration rather than by significant military conquest. They probably represented a change of rulers rather than a massive influx of a new ethnic group. Literary tradition provides some information about the Hyksos. Flavius Josephus (in Against Apion) claims to quote Manetho in stating that the invaders of an obscure race came without warning to conquer Egypt in the reign of King Tutimaios. They took the land without striking a blow and then ravaged the countryside, burning the cities, destroying temples, and massacring the people or taking women and children into slavery. They then appointed Salitis, one of their own, as king. He ruled from Memphis, levied taxes on the whole country, and positioned garrisons to protect his gains. He rebuilt and massively fortified the city of Avaris on the east bank of the Bubastite branch of the Nile. Josephus also refers to Manetho’s suggestion that Hyksos meant “Shepherd Kings” and was derived from hyk (meaning “king” in the sacred language) and sos (meaning “shepherd” in the vulgar tongue). Josephus adds his own interpretation that Hyksos meant “captive shepherds” from the Egyptian word hyk for a “captive.” He believed this tied in with the idea (not supported by most modern scholars) that the Hyksos’s arrival in Egypt, their occupation, and final expulsion were the basis for the biblical account of the sojourn and Exodus. The name Hyksos is in fact derived from two Egyptian words meaning “rulers of foreign lands.” This term was used in the Middle Kingdom to refer to the leaders of the Bedouin tribes who infiltrated Egypt. It was now, however, applied to the new foreign rulers who were almost certainly not a new race. Manetho’s account (preserved in Josephus) probably distorts the degree of severity of the rule that the Hyksos imposed. Probably based on an early account compiled under the Theban rulers who finally expelled the Hyksos, it doubtless reflects strongly propagandist influences, vilifying the Hyksos to justify Theban military action. In reality the Hyksos probably adopted and carried on existing Egyptian roles and powers, appointing Egyptian bureaucrats to administer the country and supporting native traditions. Even their policies of taxation and taking tribute from vassal rulers in the south merely perpetuated Egyptian practices. The Hyksos also encouraged native arts and crafts and patronized literary composition. Royal programs of temple building were initiated, and they elevated Seth as their patron god. He was probably more closely associated with one of their own Asiatic deities than the “Evil One” in the Osiris myth, and his cult center was at Avaris. The Hyksos also promoted the worship of Re, Egypt’s traditional royal god. The facts, therefore, do not bear out the literary claim that they set out to make extensive political, social, or religious changes in Egypt. Also their rule probably did not extend over the whole land, as Josephus claimed, but was limited to the north. The Theban princes of the south appear to have retained a considerable degree of autonomy, although they paid taxes to the Hyksos. Josephus and some modern scholars have claimed that the Hyksos were a race of invaders who first conquered Syria and Palestine and then pushed onward into Egypt. Manetho claimed that they were Arabians and Phoenicians. Another theory stated that they had originated in Asia Minor and included Hurrians (people from the Caspian region) who, when they passed through Syria/Palestine, were joined by Semitic peoples who accompanied them in a mass invasion of Egypt. This is based on the idea that their conquest of Egypt was easy because they used the horse-drawn chariot which, it is claimed, was of Aryan origin (the Hurrians were Indo-Aryan). The technical terms associated with the horse-drawn chariot may be Indo-Aryan in origin, but horses and chariots were known in Mesopotamia long before the Hurrians appeared. Also, there is no real evidence that the Hyksos made use of the horse in Egypt until the end of their rule. The Hurrians and others exerted pressure downward into Syria for many years, but there is no conclusive evidence that they were a major element in the Hyksos invasion of Egypt. The Hyksos were most probably a small group of people of Semitic origin (the names of their chieftains indicate this) who moved from Palestine to Egypt, where internal dissension allowed them to impose their dynastic rule over part of the country. Major discoveries at Tell el-Dab‘a have illuminated this period. .
.
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE HYKSOS
AND THEBANSToward the end of this period some hostility appears to have developed between the Hyksos and the native population. Foreigners were used increasingly to administer Egypt, and this may have led to resentment. The conflict came to a head in a confrontation between the Hyksos and the native Theban rulers (Dynasty 17). Later generations regarded these princes as heroes who expelled the Hyksos, pursuing them into southern Palestine where they finally subdued them. The Theban princes established Dynasty 18 and the New Kingdom when the Egyptian Empire was founded. Three Theban rulers were especially involved with the expulsion of the Hyksos Seqenenre Ta’o II and Kamose of Dynasty 17 and Amosis I who founded Dynasty 18. Various sources (the Carnarvon Tablet, a stela, and fragments of a historical inscription discovered at Karnak) provide details of Kamose’s campaigns against the Hyksos ruler Auserre Apophis I. They indicate that Kamose was assisted by Nubian soldiers from the south and reached Avaris where he attacked the Hyksos before returning to Thebes. His brother, Amosis, finally drove the Hyksos from Egypt and brought about the fall of Avaris. In the tomb of Ahmose, son of Ebana, at el-Kab, a wall inscription describes Ahmose’s role as a fighter who accompanied Amosis on this expedition. It mentions Sharuhen in southern Palestine, which was probably the northernmost extent of the Egyptians’ pursuit of the Hyksos. Another tomb inscription at el-Kab, belonging to a younger relative, Ahmose Pennekheb, provides other details of military action during this period. .
.
LASTING INFLUENCE
OF THE HYKSOSThe Hyksos rule marked a turning point in Egyptian history. National character and attitudes changed. The Egyptians no longer remained an isolated though brilliant society but became an empire-building people who sought not only resources but also power abroad. The Hyksos interlude forced the Egyptians to realize that unless they adopted an aggressive foreign policy, others would attempt to seize Egypt. Toward the end of their rule the Hyksos adopted new skills and war techniques from the north to help them subdue the Egyptians. When they won the Theban princes took over these innovations and used them to lay the foundations of an Egyptian empire. A professional army was also established, and the soldiers were paid by gifts of land from the king that remained in the family as long as they continued to fight for Egypt. The Hyksos changed Egyptian attitudes toward political and military matters and also introduced important technical ideas and developments such as a special type of fort, weapons including the khepesh sword and composite bow, the horse-drawn chariot, advances in metalworking skills, the vertical loom for weaving, humped cattle, the lyre, and the lute. The Hyksos period was not a time of anarchy, but it led to important changes. The Hyksos seem to have had no common language or culture to impose on Egypt, and whenever possible they adopted Egyptian customs. They were important as carriers of new ideas, however, and their rule prepared the Egyptians for the new challenges that faced them in the New Kingdom. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Second Intermediate Period
|
||||
