The Second Intermediate Period in Egypt is a tale of division and fragmentation. Around 1555-1550 BC, Theban King Kamose lamented over the divided state of Egypt, with powers split between Avaris and Kush. This era was marked by Egypt’s split into separate regions, each under its own control.
This period began with the move of Egypt’s royal court from Lisht, near Memphis, to Thebes in the south. It ended about 150 years later with Ahmose of Thebes conquering Avaris, the Hyksos capital, leading to over a millennium of united Egypt. The timeline of this period is punctuated by significant cultural and political shifts, which occurred differently across Egypt’s regions.
The history of this era is complex. It’s best understood by examining each region separately, given the varying rates and manners of changes across Egypt. Despite the abundance of written sources, like king-lists, royal inscriptions, and private records, integrating them with archaeological evidence is challenging. The most detailed king-list is the Turin Canon, created during Rameses II’s reign. Other sources include Manetho’s “Aegyptiaca” and various royal and private inscriptions, each contributing pieces to the historical puzzle.
However, many royal inscriptions have been displaced from their original locations, adding to the complexity of interpreting these sources. Additionally, archaeological evidence is limited and uneven due to inadequate excavations and site losses, like those in Lower Nubia submerged under Lake Nasser.
This period highlights the longstanding rivalry between Upper and Lower Egypt, especially evident in the conflict between Thebes and Avaris. The Second Intermediate Period is a mosaic of regional stories, each contributing to the broader narrative of Egypt’s history.
The Territory of Avails
At the core of Egypt’s Second Intermediate Period lies the enigmatic Hyksos. Our understanding of them is skewed, as most historical accounts are from the Egyptian perspective. The Hyksos, whose capital was Avaris (Tell el-Dab’a), have left behind physical traces of their palaces, temples, houses, and graves, showing their cultural evolution. They were not a homogenous group; their identity is complex and multifaceted.
The term “Amu” was used by Egyptians to refer to the people of Avaris. It predates the Second Intermediate Period and broadly referred to people from Syria-Palestine. Egyptologists often translate “Amu” as “Asiatics.” The term “Hyksos,” derived from the Egyptian “hekau khasut” (rulers of foreign lands), specifically referred to the rulers among the Asiatics, without any negative connotations.
Asiatic names found in Egypt during this era mostly stem from West Semitic languages. These Asiatics were present in various roles in Egypt, sometimes adopting Egyptian names while still identified as “Amu.” They were often seen as economic migrants. However, evidence suggests military campaigns against them, like an inscription from Amenemhat II about a campaign yielding over a thousand Asiatics.
Tell el-Habua, near Tell el-Dab’a, reveals a heavily fortified eastern border of Egypt, similar to the southern border with Nubia. This site suggests significant military presence and vigilance over people entering Egypt.
Archaeological evidence at Tell el-Dab’a indicates an Asiatic community existed there as early as the 13th Dynasty. This community was distinctly non-Egyptian, evident in their house layouts and burial practices, which mixed Egyptian and Palestinian elements. One significant find is a limestone statue of a seated man, non-Egyptian in style, suggesting a high-status individual. This contrasts sharply with a small wooden figure from a Middle Kingdom tomb at Beni Hasan, showing an Asiatic woman and her child.
In the Middle Bronze Age layer of Tell el-Dab’a, known as stratum d/i, a distinct cultural shift becomes evident. This era is characterized by the presence of donkey burials, North Syrian-style cylinder seals, Minoan pottery, and a gold pectoral depicting hunting dogs, suggesting a blend of influences. The settlement’s culture, while influenced by its Asiatic inhabitants, was heavily intertwined with Egyptian traditions. Interestingly, the majority of pottery remained Egyptian, although there was a decrease from 80% to 60% in this stratum.
The cultural blend at Tell el-Dab’a reflects various influences from Southern Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. Patrick McGovern’s analysis of non-Egyptian pottery points to Southern Palestinian cities as the primary source. The town’s wealth was tied to maritime trade along the Levantine coast and overland routes to Palestine, explaining the unique cultural amalgamation.
The dynamic nature of Tell el-Dab’a’s culture, with its rapid adoption and discarding of traits, raises questions about the mechanisms of this cultural intermingling. One theory suggests periodic influxes of settlers from Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Cyprus, who integrated with the local Egyptian population. This is supported by preliminary studies of human remains, despite poor bone preservation.
Hundreds of Middle Bronze Age artefacts from Tell el-Dab’a align with the Syrian-Palestinian period of Middle Bronze Age II A-C. Austrian excavator Manfred Bietak connected these artefacts to the reigns of Egyptian kings Amenemhat IV and Ahmose, proposing a timeframe for each stratum. However, this chronology sometimes conflicts with established timelines in Syria-Palestine, sparking debates that could lead to significant revisions in dating methods across the eastern Mediterranean.
An epidemic temporarily halted the expansion of Tell el-Dab’a, as evidenced by communal graves without ceremonial markers. Following this, signs of a less egalitarian society emerge, indicated by the varied architecture and burial practices, suggesting the rise of a wealthy elite.
The city’s identification as the Hyksos capital Avaris becomes apparent through archaeological finds like inscribed limestone door jambs. These inscriptions mention Nehesy, a figure associated with the god Seth, indicating Seth’s established cult in Avaris. This cult likely evolved from the fusion of a local Heliopolitan cult and the North Syrian weather-god Baal Zephon, brought by the Asiatics. The complexity and evolution of Tell el-Dab’a’s cultural landscape during this period reflect a fascinating interplay of Egyptian and Asiatic influences.
During the 14th Dynasty, as outlined in the Turin Canon, a high official named Nehesy briefly assumed royal status at Avaris. Though Nehesy’s origins aren’t definitively known, he was likely Egyptian or possibly Nubian, as suggested by his name. His inscriptions don’t contradict this. The last powerful king of the preceding 13th Dynasty was Sobekhotep IV around 1725 BC. After his reign, Egypt’s unity began to fray, paving the way for regions like Avaris to gain independence.
Nehesy’s realm, judging from where his name is found, spanned the eastern Delta from Tell el-Muqdam to Tell el-Habua. However, the practice of reusing earlier monuments complicates this picture. Reliable evidence from Tell el-Habua and Tell el-Dab’a suggests his kingdom might have been smaller than initially thought.
An intriguing burial at Tell el-Dab’a, belonging to a Deputy Treasurer named Aamu (‘the Asiatic’), indicates the persistence of Egyptian bureaucratic structures in Avaris. Aamu’s tomb, rich but with several non-Egyptian features, suggests a blend of cultures. Notably, his burial near Avaris, away from traditional Egyptian power centers, signifies a shift in administrative and political focal points.
K. S. B. Ryholt’s reconstruction of the Turin Canon reveals a fragmented picture of this period. Among the kings listed with Nehesy, reign lengths are often missing or very short. Only Nehesy and three others—Nebsenra, Sekheperenra, and Merdjedefra—appear in records outside the Canon. Merdjedefra’s stela, found in the eastern Delta, is especially telling. It not only confirms his reign but also demonstrates that these 14th Dynasty kings were real figures, though not necessarily a continuous line from a single location.
Nehesy’s inscription marks a pivotal moment in ancient Egypt, revealing the fragmentation of its once-unified kingdom. According to archaeologist Manfred Bietak, Nehesy’s reign during the late 13th Dynasty aligns with stratum F at Tell el-Dab’a. This period saw no single ruler able to control all of Egypt until the eventual conquest of Avaris. The Turin Canon, a key record from Memphis, lists over 105 royal names from this era, highlighting the brief and localized nature of their reigns.
K. S. B. Ryholt’s detailed reconstruction of the Turin Canon has brought clarity to this chaotic period, revealing four distinct groups of kings corresponding to Dynasties 14 to 17. Dynasties 14 and 15 were based in the eastern Delta, with Avaris as their capital. In contrast, Dynasties 16 and 17 originated from Thebes in Upper Egypt. Ryholt’s categorization, including his controversial placement of earlier Theban kings into Dynasty 16, is a significant contribution to our understanding of this fragmented era.
Some kings from this period appear in monumental inscriptions but are missing from the Turin Canon. For instance, Sekerher, who identified himself as a “ruler of foreign countries,” is known from an inscription on a door jamb found in an 18th Dynasty building at Tell el-Dab’a. Bietak equates him with Salitis, mentioned by Josephus as the conqueror of Memphis.
Additionally, about fifteen royal names are found only on scarabs, with both Egyptian and West Semitic personal names. These scarabs, produced in both Egypt and Palestine, belong to the post-13th Dynasty era. They show these rulers using royal epithets typically reserved for Egyptian kings, likely a sign of local officials assuming royal titles in a time of weakened central authority.
However, the limited sources make it challenging to determine the true extent of these rulers’ power or to establish a precise chronology based on scarab styles. The evidence from Tell el-Dab’a suggests, albeit indirectly, that a figure like Sekerher might have been a supreme ruler, with minor kings paying tribute to him. This theory is supported by the consistent use of the title “ruler of foreign countries” across various records, indicating a complex hierarchy of power during this tumultuous time in Egyptian history.
Manfred Bietak links the final phase of the Hyksos at Tell el-Dab’a to Manetho’s 15th Dynasty, a period marked by significant authority and control. A fragment from the Turin Canon notes six foreign rulers governing for 108 years, with Khamudi being the last identifiable king. Other key rulers from this era, including Sekerher, Apepi, and Yanassi (Khyan’s son), are documented at Tell el-Dab’a. This period, especially under Apepi’s long reign of over forty years, saw the emergence of a true dynasty, mirroring the structure of earlier successful Egyptian dynasties.
During its peak, the city of Avaris expanded to nearly 4 square kilometers, dwarfing its 13th Dynasty size and exceeding Hazor, the largest contemporary site in Palestine. The city’s fortifications were extensive, featuring a citadel, watchtower, and massive enclosure walls, suggesting a highly organized and defensive urban center.
The reign of Aauserra Apepi around 1555 BC, despite Theban opposition, was a high point for the Hyksos. There was a revival of Egyptian administrative and scribal practices, as evidenced by the palette of a scribe named Atu praising Apepi and the creation of the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, indicative of a high level of scholarly activity. Other evidence, like a genealogy stele from Memphis and a shrine found at Tell el-Dab’a, further underscores the blend of Egyptian and Asiatic cultures under the Hyksos.
The cultural impact of the Hyksos was widespread across the Delta, with a distinctive mix of Egyptian and Syro-Palestinian traits. Sites like Tell Fauziya, Tell Geziret el-Faras, and Tell el-Yahudiya, though smaller than Tell el-Dab’a, reflect this cultural fusion during the Hyksos era.
Trade, especially with Cyprus, played a significant role in Avaris’ prosperity. The Kamose stelae enumerate various imported goods, though details on Hyksos exports remain scarce. The Hyksos kings claimed rulership over all of Egypt, but their actual control was more limited, with the southern boundary theoretically at Hermopolis and specifically at Cusae. The extent and nature of the Hyksos influence in regions like Memphis and Itjtawy, the capitals of the 12th and 13th Dynasties, remain subjects of ongoing investigation, reflecting the complex interplay of cultures and power during this transformative period in ancient Egypt.
Memphis: The Mansion of Ptah
Josephus claims to be quoting directly from Manetho in his description of the conquest and occupation of Egypt by the Hyksos:
The sovereigns of our realm, in their conquest, mercilessly set our cities ablaze, demolishing the sacred temples to mere rubble… In the end, they crowned one among them as monarch, named Salitis. He established his rule in Memphis, imposing taxes on both Upper and Lower Egypt, and strategically stationing troops in the most beneficial locations.
The reign of the Hyksos, particularly under Kamose’s rejection of vassal status, showcases a distinct period in Egyptian history. The Theban ruler’s defiance, alongside strict border controls at Cusae, taxation of Nile traffic, and the presence of Asiatic garrisons under Egyptian commanders, indicates a structured Hyksos administration. This approach mirrors the 12th Dynasty’s rule over Nubia, suggesting that existing bureaucratic and military frameworks were utilized. The strategic importance of Memphis, highlighted by Kamose’s accounts, underscores that effective rule over Egypt necessitated control over the Nile from the Delta apex, near modern Cairo.
Evidence of Hyksos’ destructive tendencies is limited. Notable finds include colossal sphinxes of Amenemhat III and statues of Smenkhera at Tanis, inscribed with Aqenenra Apepi’s name, hinting at possible looting from Memphis. However, the actual extent of these actions remains uncertain. One clear instance of desecration was the pyramidion of King Memeferra Ay, discovered far from its likely origin at Saqqara.
There’s no conclusive evidence that Hyksos kings built funerary monuments in the Western Desert. However, the extensive demolition at Tell el-Dab’a by Ahmose and the subsequent repurposing of materials by later rulers caution against drawing firm conclusions from the lack of direct evidence. For instance, blocks bearing the names of Khyan and Aauserra Apepi found in the Hathor temple at Gebelein likely originated from Memphis.
Excavations in Memphis during the 1980s by the Egypt Exploration Society revealed a Second Intermediate Period community distinctly Egyptian in culture, contrasting with Tell el-Dab’a. This consistency in cultural development from the 13th Dynasty, despite Hyksos rule, is notable. Both Memphis and Tell el-Dab’a experienced significant changes post-Hyksos era, evident in architectural and ceramic styles, possibly correlating with the Hyksos-Theban wars.
Memphis, unlike Tell el-Dab’a, lacked prominent Middle Bronze Age traits, with Palestinian pottery making up a much smaller percentage of the archaeological finds. This continuity in Memphis’s cultural development from the mid-13th Dynasty through the Second Intermediate Period raises questions about the extent of Hyksos influence in other major Egyptian centers. It suggests a complex and varied impact of the Hyksos across different regions of Egypt, blending control with cultural integration in some areas, while others, like Memphis, maintained a more distinctly Egyptian character throughout this period.
The evidence from Saqqara, Dahshur, Lisht, and Lahun offers a multifaceted view of Egypt during the late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period. At Saqqara, activity centered around King Teti’s mortuary temple, with continuous cult practices until the early 13th Dynasty. A notable burial here is that of a man named Abdu, possibly an Asiatic, with a dagger linked to King Apepi. This isolated burial doesn’t align with Tell el-Dab’a’s style, and its context remains unclear. Saqqara also hosted a rich early 18th Dynasty cemetery.
Dahshur, known for Senusret III and Amenemhat III’s mortuary complexes, showed continued ritual activity into the early 13th Dynasty. Later, large grain silos were constructed within Amenemhat III’s complex, suggesting a shift in the site’s use. The pottery found here is distinctly Middle Kingdom Egyptian, correlating with finds at Memphis and Tell el-Dab’a. The occupation at Dahshur continued for some time post-13th Dynasty, but the exact duration is unclear.
Lisht, near the 12th and 13th Dynasty royal residence of Itjtawy, presents a complex scenario. A private cemetery emerged around Amenemhat I’s pyramid, eventually intruding into the royal complex. Burials from the end of the Hyksos period included ‘Tell el-Yahudiya’ pottery, yet were Egyptian in character. The settlement here displayed continuity of Middle Kingdom culture well into the Second Intermediate Period.
The use of the Lisht necropolis and the persistence of Middle Kingdom culture there deep into the Second Intermediate Period raises questions about when the royal court moved from Itjtawy to Thebes. The last 13th Dynasty king with monuments in the area was Memeferra Ay. However, an official named Horemkhauef provided a testimonial on his funerary stele, mentioning a visit to Itjtawy, suggesting continued importance of the site even later into the period.
Horus, seeking retribution for his father, entrusted me with a mission to the capital, to bring back Horus of Nekhen along with his mother, Isis… Recognizing my skill and dedication as an official in his temple, he assigned me the command of a vessel and its crew. With great efficiency, I journeyed downstream and successfully retrieved Horus of Nekhen and his divine mother, accomplishing this esteemed task in Itjtawy, right before the eyes of the king himself.
Horemkhauef’s collection of divine statues was likely a significant act, as creating or restoring such images was crucial to the Egyptian ruler’s role in validating divine status. This tradition dates back to the Old Kingdom, highlighting the king as the guardian of sacred craftsmanship. Horemkhauef’s journey to the Residence, the only place with the necessary artisans and priests, underscores the importance of this task. The unnamed king who commissioned him points to a pivotal time when the Residence was still central to such religious and cultural activities.
The abandonment of the Residence and the subsequent break with Memphis led to significant changes in artistic and writing traditions. The shift from the hieroglyphic to the cursive hieratic script in funerary inscriptions is a marker of this change, reflecting the influence of administrative scribes over those trained in stone carving. Horemkhauef’s stele, written in post-Middle Kingdom style, suggests that this fragmentation may have occurred in his lifetime. Based on genealogies, Horemkhauef’s tomb dates to between 1650 and 1630, indicating his visit to the Residence might have happened around 1670-1650, well after Memeferra Ay’s reign ended in 1685.
During the Hyksos-Theban wars, small cemeteries like Maiyana, Abusir el-Melek, and Gurob provide insights into this era. These Egyptian-style burials, with some containing Kerma-ware pottery, reflect the presence of Kerma Nubians, possibly allied with the Thebans. A scarab of the Hyksos ruler Khyan at Abusir el-Melek dates the burial to this period.
Maiyana’s pottery includes Tell el-Yahudiya juglets and Cypriote imports, similar to finds from Tell el-Dab’a and Memphis. The absence of weapons and the use of non-Egyptian burial customs suggest a unique foreign community, distinct from Avaris.
Graves in New Kingdom cemeteries at el-Haraga and el-Riqqa align with this transitional phase, marking the end of the Second Intermediate Period and the dawn of the 18th Dynasty. The king’s relocation from Itjtawy to Thebes about 130 years earlier marked the beginning of this transition. Although the royal cults at 12th Dynasty mortuary complexes started to fade, the Lisht necropolis remained active until the Second Intermediate Period’s end, possibly mirroring the Residence’s continued significance.
