Invasion and Rule of the Hyksos—War of Liberation.
(_Circa_ 2100-1600 B.C.)
The close of the twelfth dynasty was followed at no distant date
by confusion and disaster. It appears, indeed, that the succeeding
dynasty held for a time, at least nominally, the supremacy of Egypt;
but sooner or later we find there was a rival dynasty (the fourteenth)
ruling at Xois, in the Delta. To the kings composing it is assigned an
average length of reign of little over two years, and this has led some
to suppose that they were not in any sense Kings of Egypt, but were
ruling in the Delta merely as governors—viceroys of foreign invaders.
But all details, all records, fail us here, and we have no account
of the events that led up to the crisis, when the long threatening
storm broke over the land at last. A warlike race, known to us as
the _Hyksos_,[27] aided no doubt by the wandering tribes beyond the
frontier, passed the north-east boundary of Egypt, seized upon the
Delta, and set up their kingdom at Avaris, and were doubtless welcomed
by the settlers of kindred blood already dwelling in the district.
Egypt was weakened by discord; the dissensions of rival dynasties had
probably led once more to the breaking up of the kingdom into small
principalities; no united opposition could be offered to the invaders,
and rival chieftains and kings were forced to acknowledge the supremacy
of the stranger at the point of the sword.
The horse is never represented in Egyptian sculptures and drawings
previous to this date, and if, as is most probable, the Hyksos invaders
were mounted, it would be barely possible for foot soldiery to resist
their progress. Memphis fell into their hands, and the Egyptian
princes and governors as far south as Thebes were compelled to become
their vassals and pay tribute. ‘Under one of our kings,’ says a native
writer of later days,[28] in a fragment that has been preserved, ‘it
came to pass that God was angry with us, and men came from the East,
who subdued our country by force, though we never ventured on a battle
with them. When they had gotten our governors under their power, they
burnt down our cities and demolished the temples of the gods. Their
king lived at Memphis, and made the upper and the lower country pay
tribute, and he left garrisons in fitting places. He strengthened
Avaris greatly, building walls around it and filling it with armed men.
These people and their descendants kept possession of Egypt for 511
years.’
The Egyptians might well have said, to use their favourite phrase,
‘Never had the like been seen since the days of Ra.’ There had been
wars on the frontiers, and there had been one long dark period of
division and civil war, but during the two or three thousand years
that Egypt had been a kingdom no foreign foe had set foot upon her
soil. Memphis, the ‘secure and beautiful’ city, had stood in all her
splendour, and had never seen a hostile banner unfurled against her.
The royal line of Mena had ruled,[29] the worship of the temples of
Abydos and of the City of the Sun had prevailed uninterruptedly since
the days of the pyramid builders and the ‘old time before them.’ It
is a wonderful chapter in the world’s history, and one turns the page
with regret. Nor can we be surprised at the burning shame and bitter
resentment with which the Egyptians of after times looked back upon
those days of disgrace and subjection. As far as it was possible
they obliterated every trace of the detested Hyksos supremacy; they
chiselled out the names of their kings, and destroyed their monumental
records. Very few traces survive, but it is plain, nevertheless, that
the conquerors soon adopted Egyptian customs and Egyptian civilisation.
The Hyksos kings assumed Egyptian titles and erected magnificent
temples. And it is more than likely that the feelings of the native
historians, galled and exasperated by the recollection of the harsh
supremacy of aliens, considerably exaggerated the tale of the suffering
and ruin entailed by their presence.
This period, of about 500 years’ duration, is veiled from us in almost
impenetrable darkness. The records left of themselves by the Hyksos
Pharaohs were destroyed, and over the rest of the subject land there
brooded the darkness of a long-protracted eclipse. The tribute was
probably paid, and external quietude and order prevailed.
At length a ray of light dispels the darkness for an instant. ‘It came
to pass,’ says an ancient papyrus, ‘that the land of Khemi belonged to
the enemy. No one was sovereign lord in the day when that happened.
The King Sekenen-Ra ruled in the south, but the enemy ruled in the
district of the Amu, and Apepi, their king, was in the city of Avaris;
the whole land did him homage with the best of its handiwork. King
Apepi took unto him Sutech for lord, refusing to serve any other god in
the whole land, and he built for him a temple of enduring workmanship.
King Apepi appointed festival days for making sacrifice to Sutech, as
in the temple of Ra-harmakhu.’ Here there is a break, after which the
manuscript goes on to tell how King Apepi, by the advice of his learned
councillors, sent an embassy to the ruler of the south (the tributary
native prince, Sekenen-Ra). ‘The ruler of the south said to the
messenger, “Who sent thee hither? Why art thou come? Is it to spy out
the land?”’ So far as we can gather from the text (which is here again
interrupted) the messenger’s reply related merely to the construction
of a certain well for cattle, although he adds that ‘sleep had not
come to him by day or by night until he had delivered his message.’
‘The ruler of the south was amazed, and knew not how to reply to the
messenger of King Apepi.’ Here another vexatious break occurs in the
story.
It is more than likely that a spirit of independence was awakening
in the south, under the brave Sekenen-Ra, and even that certain
secret preparations for an uprising might have been afoot; so that
the Hyksos messenger may, after all, have been neither more nor less
than a spy, although apparently charged with nothing but an innocent
message concerning a tank. It is at any rate clear that Sekenen-Ra’s
heart misgave him. His answer indeed is missing, but we read that ‘the
messenger of King Apepi rose to depart to where his royal master was,’
and that the Egyptian chief, who evidently felt that the die was cast,
forthwith ‘bade summon his mighty chiefs, his captains and expert
guides.’ He repeated to them the whole story of the ‘words King Apepi
had sent concerning them. But they were silent, all of them in great
dismay, and wist not what to answer him, good or bad.’ Here the papyrus
breaks off suddenly, and darkness closes in again.
We are left to guess the sequel, but it seems as though we can see how
the prince of the south cast off his allegiance and defied the Hyksos
sovereign.
His successors bore the same name as himself, and also his family name
of Taa. They were known as Taa the Great and Taa the Victorious, and
followed up his bold initiative with vigour and success. It was very
slowly, and only by hard fighting and step by step, that Egypt was won
back from the stranger. But as these brave chieftains pushed their way
northward, one tributary prince after another would take heart and
join in the war of liberation. The horse must by this time have been
naturalised and made use of throughout the land, and thus one terrible
and fatal disadvantage would be removed. Old rivalries and minor
jealousies would melt away under the influence of a common need and a
common hope. Taa the Victorious prepared a flotilla of Nile vessels,
two of which bore the significant names of the ‘_North_,’ and the
‘_Going up into Memphis_.’ Doubtless it was under him that the ancient
capital was regained, after which all was ready for the final attack,
in view of which he had made ready his little navy,—the attack which
should drive the foe from his stronghold in the Delta, where by this
time he was standing desperately at bay.
Taa the Victorious married his son Kames to the Princess Aah-hotep, an
heiress of the ancient line, and it was their son Aahmes who brought
the great war of liberation to a triumphant close, and placed upon his
brow the double crown of Upper and of Lower Egypt.
FOOTNOTES:
[27] Probably _Hak-shasu_, or Princes of the Shasu. The Shasu were
wandering tribes on the north-east, and it is not unlikely, Brugsch
thinks, that this name was assigned them in derision of their claim to
be considered Kings of Egypt. Kings of Egypt, indeed! No—haks (petty
princes) of the Shasu they were. An accidental coincidence of meaning
between Shasu and shepherd led to their being designated in later times
‘Shepherd Kings.’
[28] Manetho, the Egyptian priest, who, in the days of the Ptolemies,
wrote a history of his country in Greek. It is, unfortunately, lost,
excepting his list of kings and dynasties, and a few fragments quoted
by later writers.
[29] Even during the civil wars some branch of the ancient line was
ruling, and it is probable that the eleventh dynasty was united by
marriage to the early kings.