i. e. nomads, do not make war by building fortresses as a base of operations for extending their conquests; they had nothing to gain by conquering Egypt for the mere purpose of shutting up the whole or the greater part of their numbers with their flocks in a fortified place. On the other hand, it might have seemed advisable to them, when they had subjugated Egypt, to possess a fortified place on the eastern border, in order to keep up a connection with their tribe; and it was natural that the shepherds, when the Egyptians had risen against them with success, and they were no longer able to hold the Delta, should attempt to maintain themselves in the flats and swamps of the Eastern Delta; and when forced to act on the defensive should fortify their camp at Avaris in this district.
In the narrative of Manetho we can accept no more than the facts that Egypt succumbed to the attack of the shepherds, and that they, to take the lower estimate, ruled over Egypt for five centuries. Herodotus also learnt in Egypt that the shepherd Philitis had once pastured his flocks at Memphis. There is nothing wonderful in such an occurrence. Nomad tribes dwelt in the deserts on the east and west of Egypt, to whose poverty and scanty means of subsistence the abundance and cultivation of Egypt must have presented a continual temptation. That temptation would increase in force when the tribes became more numerous, when unusual heat diminished the springs in the oases, and robbed these shepherds of the produce of their scanty agriculture. The tradition of the Hebrews tells us that their ancestor Abraham went to Egypt when "there was a famine in the land," and the sons of Jacob bought corn in Egypt.
According to Manetho's account, the tribes from whom the attack proceeded were not famous, and he regarded the invaders as coming from the east. The peninsula of Sinai, Northern Arabia, and the Syrian desert sheltered in the Amalekites, Horites, Edomites, and Midianites, tribes who were rendered hardy and warlike by life in the desert, tribal feuds, and raids for plunder; and these may very well have united in considerable number under some leader of military genius, and attempted the invasion of the rich river-valley in their neighbourhood. According to Manetho, the invaders were Phenicians or Arabians. The name of the shepherd Philitis, given by Herodotus, points to a Semitic tribe, and one immediately bordering on Egypt on the Syrian coast – the Philistines (Pelischtim), from whom the whole Syrian coast was called by the Greeks Palæstina. The name of the stronghold of the shepherds, Avaris, or Abaris, recurs in Hauara, a town of Arabia on the shore of the Red Sea.180 If the shepherds who conquered Egypt had not been Semitic, and closely related to the Hebrews, Manetho would not have made them the ancestors of the Hebrews and founders of Jerusalem after their expulsion from Egypt.
After the conquest, the chiefs of the shepherds ruled over Egypt. The inscriptions on the monuments repeatedly denote certain tribes in the east of Egypt by the name Schasu, which in the later language is contracted into Sôs. Schasu means shepherds. Moreover, in old Egyptian, the head of a family, a tribe, and a province is called hak, and Hyksos thus can be explained by Haku-schasu, chiefs of the shepherds, shepherd kings, as Josephus, Eusebius, and Africanus render it.181 What Manetho tells us of the destruction of the cities and shrines, the slaughter and enslaving of the Egyptians may be correct for the time of the war and conquest. But this hostility and destruction cannot, as he intimates, have gone on for centuries, for, on the restoration of the Pharaohs, we find ancient Egypt unimpaired in population, unchanged in language, customs, and manners, in civilisation and art. If the national development was interrupted and repressed by the Hyksos, it still remained uninjured at the core, so far as we have the means of judging.
When at a subsequent period the kings of Ethiopia subjugated Egypt, the warrior caste, the soldiers settled in the country by the Pharaohs, were deprived of their lands. The same thing may have taken place on the irruption of the shepherds. The warriors of the Pharaohs fell in battle, were carried away as prisoners, or deprived of their weapons; and in their place came the victorious army of the shepherds. Of these many would soon return home laden with the booty of Egypt, others pitched their tents in the conquered land, and settled in the greenest meadows, more especially in the eastern provinces of the Delta, nearest their own home, on the Tanitic and Pelusiac arms of the Nile, and Lake Menzaleh. The chief of the immigrants became the head of the conquerors and the conquered. The latter would render the same abject homage to their new masters as they rendered before and after to their native kings; and the power which the conquered willingly acknowledged in the chief would exalt his position even among the conquerors. As time went on, the culture and civilisation of Egypt had their natural effect on the barbarous invaders, and when the storm of conquest was over, we may assume that Egypt was no worse off under the rule of the shepherd kings than at later periods under the rule of the Persians, the Ptolemies, and the Romans.
That the new princes, soon after the conquest, attempted to approximate their position as much as possible to that of the ancient Pharaohs may be concluded from the mere fact that Manetho was in a position to give a catalogue of their reigns by years and months. But this is proved more definitely still by certain monuments. In the neighbourhood of Lake Menzaleh, among the ruins of the ancient Tanis, the modern San, two old statues have been discovered, the forms and lineaments of which exhibit a physique different from the Egyptian. In the heads of four sphinxes, discovered in the same place, it is thought that we may recognise the portraits of four shepherd kings, and a colossus discovered at Tel Mokdam is said to bear the following inscription: – "The good god, the star of both worlds, the child of the sun, Sel Salati, beloved by Sutech, the lord of Hauar.182"
The six shepherd kings enumerated by Josephus from the Egyptian History of Manetho reigned, according to the dates given by the latter, for 260 years, i. e. from the year 2101 B.C., in which, on Lepsius's arrangement, the irruption of the shepherds took place, till the year 1842 B.C. Their successors must therefore have ruled over Egypt for 251 years more, i. e., down to the year 1591 B.C. But in the time of the later shepherd kings, native princes again arose in Upper Egypt, although subject to tribute. A papyrus of the British Museum tells us: "It so happened that the land of Egypt became the possession of her enemies, and when this took place there was no king. And behold Raskenen became king of the country in the south. The enemy were in possession of the fortress of Aamu (p. 120), and their chief, Ra Apepi was at Hauar. The whole land paid tribute to him, and rendered service of all kinds, and brought to him the produce of Lower Egypt. King Apepi chose Sutech as his lord, and served no other god, and built him a temple of firm and lasting structure."183
The power of the native princes at Thebes must have been gradually strengthened till the successors of Raskenen were in a position to press forward towards Lower Egypt, and place limits on the sway of the shepherd kings, and finally to drive them entirely out of Egypt. Josephus has already told us from Manetho that the princes of Thebes and the rest of Egypt rose up against the shepherds, and in consequence a long and severe struggle took place between them. In Manetho's list the series of shepherd kings is followed by Amosis of Thebes (1684-1659 B.C.). Hence we may assume that it was under this prince that the kingdom of Thebes got the upper hand, and the power of the shepherd kings was restricted to the Eastern Delta.
This conclusion is established by the evidence of monuments. There Amosis is again mentioned as king of Upper and Lower Egypt, and two inscriptions of the twenty-second year of Amosis (1662 B.C.), in the quarries of Massara, inform us that these quarries were opened to restore the temples at Memphis and the temple of Ammon at Thebes.184 Hence by this time Amosis had again rescued the old capital, Memphis, from the shepherds; that he also forced his way beyond Memphis, and attacked the shepherds at Avaris, is proved by the inscription of a tomb at El Kab, in Upper Egypt. It is the tomb of Aahmes, the son of Abuna, the chief of the steersmen. The inscription tells us that, at the time of Amosis, Aahmes, with his father on the boat, had ministered to "the calf." He had not yet seen any woman, and wore the clothing of the young men, when Hauar was attacked. When he had won a hand, he received the king's commendation, and the golden necklace in token of his bravery. In a second and third battle at Hauar he had again won a hand, and made
Caussin de Perceval, "Hist. des Arab." 1, 13, 19. That the tradition of the Arabs about the Amalika is worthless has been proved by Nöldeke ("Ueber die Amalekiter").
Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 77.
Ebers,
Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 85.
