The Hyksos and the Restoration of the Egyptian Kingdom

In spite of the union of Upper and Lower Egypt, and the extension of the Egyptian dominion up the Nile as far as Semne and Kumne, the kingdom of the pyramids, of the lake of Moeris, and the labyrinth succumbed to the attack of a foreign enemy. According to Josephus, Manetho, in the second book of his Egyptian History, gave the following account: "There was a king Amyntimaeus. In his reign the divine power, I know not why, was ungracious. From the East came an unexpected swarm of men belonging to a tribe of no great reputation, with a bold resolution of taking the country. This they succeeded in doing without much trouble. They made themselves masters of the ruling princes, ruthlessly set fire to the cities, and destroyed the shrines of the gods. Towards the inhabitants they behaved in a most hostile manner; some they put to the sword, from others they carried away their wives and children into slavery. At last they made one of their own number, by name Salatis, their king. He took up his abode at Memphis, collected tribute from the Upper and Lower country, and placed garrisons in the most suitable places. The eastern districts were fortified most strongly, since he foresaw that the Assyrians, who were then growing in power, would be seized with the desire of invading his country. In the Saitic (Sethroitic) province he found a city excellently adapted for his purpose, lying eastwards of the river from Bubastis, and called Avaris, from some old legend or another. This he surrounded with the strongest walls, filled it with inhabitants, and placed there the bulk of his armed soldiers, 240,000 men, as a garrison. In the summer he visited this stronghold to measure the corn, pay his soldiers, and exercise his troops in order to strike fear in those who dwelt beyond the fortress. After a reign of nineteen years Salatis died. After him reigned a king of the name of Beon, for forty-four years, then Apachnas for thirty-six years and seven months, then Apophis for sixty-one years, and Annas for fifty years and one month, and finally Assis for forty-nine years and two months. These six were their first rulers, and they sought more and more to destroy Egypt to the very root. The whole tribe was called Hyksos,i. e. shepherd kings. For in the sacred language hyk  means 'king,' and sos  in the ordinary dialect is 'a shepherd,' and from composition of the two comes the word Hyksos. Some authorities say that they were Arabs." "The shepherd kings named above and their descendants are supposed by Manetho to have ruled over Egypt for 511 years. Yet he afterwards tells us that kings arose in the district of Thebes and the rest of Egypt, between whom and the shepherds there was a long and severe struggle. In the reign of a king named Misphragmuthosis the shepherds were defeated by the king, driven out of Egypt, and confined in one place, 10,000 arouræ in extent, the name of which was Avaris. This space, as Manetho tells us, the shepherds surrounded with a great and strong wall, in order to preserve their possessions and their booty in security. But Tuthmosis, the son of Misphragmuthosis, attempted to take Avaris by force, and led out 480,000 men before the walls. When he found that the investment made but little way, he came to terms with the shepherds, permitting them to leave Egypt uninjured and go whither they would. On these terms they departed from Egypt with their families, and goods, not less than 240,000 strong, and went into the Syrian desert, and through fear of the Assyrians, who were then the great power in Asia, they built a city in the land now called Judæa, large enough to contain their numbers, and named it Jerusalem."

The short excerpts made by Africanus and Eusebius from the Egyptian History of Manetho only tell that "there were certain foreign kings, Phenicians, who took Memphis, and built a city in the Sethroitic province, from which they went forth and subdued the Egyptians." Africanus gives six, Eusebius four, names of these foreign kings, which are somewhat the same in sound as those in Josephus, only in Africanus Apophis is the last in the list, not last but two.[179]

If Josephus has transcribed and reproduced Manetho correctly there is an obvious contradiction in his narrative. The first shepherd king, Salatis, fortified and peopled Avaris, and placed there a garrison of 240,000 men, for protection against the Assyrians. Then after a lapse of 511 (or according to the excerpt of Africanus of 953) years, when the shepherds had lost Egypt they were shut up in a place containing 10,000 arouræ, i. e. a square of twenty-five miles, of the name of Avaris, which they surrounded with a strong wall in order to keep their possessions and booty in security. At last they were compelled to retire even from this, and march out in just the same strength as the garrison which Salatis had placed so long before at Avaris, towards Judæa, and here they founded a second city of Jerusalem, also for protection against the Assyrians.

We may leave the Assyrians out of the question, and assume that the reference to them has been transferred by Manetho from the later position which Assyria took up towards Syria and Egypt in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. to those earlier times; we may also regard the turn of the narrative, which makes the shepherds the ancestors of the Jews and builders of Jerusalem, as a combination invented by Manetho, for in the tradition of the Hebrews there is no hint that their ancestors had once ruled over Egypt for centuries, and Jerusalem down to the time of David was merely the stronghold of a small tribe, the Jebusites. Still it remains inexplicable that these shepherds, who, after they had taken Egypt, or, in order to take it, fortified Avaris, and garrisoned it with 240,000 men, should fortify Avaris a second time centuries later, in order to maintain their last possession in Egypt, and at last march out of Avaris in exactly the same numbers as the garrison originally settled there. Shepherds, 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 a prisoner, and he received the chain for the second and third time.[185]

From the accounts given in Josephus and the excerpts of Africanus and Eusebius, Avaris lay eastward of the Tanitic arm of the Nile, in the province of Sethroe. Consequently we must look for this fortified camp of the shepherds on the eastern shore of the Lake Menzaleh, perhaps on the site of the later Pelusium. In the lists of kings Amosis is followed by Amenophis I., then follows Tuthmosis I., then Tuthmosis II. and III., under the regency of Misphra (1625-1591 B.C.). From this connection has arisen the king Misphragmuthosis, who, in Josephus, defeats the shepherds, drives them out of the rest of Egypt, and shuts them up in Avaris. Hence it must have been Tuthmosis III., after the rise of the independent monarchy (1591-1565), who led the great host of 480,000 men against the shepherds in Avaris, and failing to enter the place by storm, allowed them to depart unharmed, whereupon the strangers, to the number of 240,000, retired into the Syrian desert (1591 B.C.). Yet the inscriptions do not agree with this account. From the inscription of Aahmes already quoted, it seems more probable that Amosis had already taken Avaris, and that Tuthmosis I. had marched through Syria to Naharina, i. e. to Mesopotamia, a fact which is confirmed by the inscriptions of Tuthmosis III., though here also there are accounts of battles fought by Tuthmosis II. against the Schasu, or shepherds.[186]

However this may be, after a long subjection to foreign rulers, and weary struggles against them, the whole land of Egypt was again governed by native kings. These battles must have invigorated the military strength of the Egyptians; and the happy result could not but increase the self-confidence of the new dynasty to which Egypt owed her liberation. The mighty impulse thus given carried the kingdom quickly to the height of its power and greatness. Tuthmosis III. caused an enumeration to be made of the conquests which he won from the twenty-second to the forty-second year of his reign, and the tribute which he received in this period. In this enumeration sixteen or seventeen campaigns are mentioned. In the twenty-third year the king marched against the Retennu (Syrians). From Kazatu (Gaza) beyond Taanaka (Taanach) he reached Maketi (Megiddo). Here, on the twenty-ninth of the month Pachor he defeated his enemies. The conflict was not sanguinary. Only eighty-three of the enemy were slain. The king made 340 prisoners, but took at the same time 924 chariots and 2,132 horses. Megiddo surrendered, and Tuthmosis was able to lead back 2,500 prisoners into Egypt. After this 117 cities and places in Syria surrendered, Kadeschu (Kades), Tevekhu (Tibshath on the Orontes), Maram (Merom), Tamesku (Damascus), Atara (Ataroth), Hamtu (perhaps Hamath), Kaanu (Kanah), Masaar (Misheal), Astartu (Astaroth Karnaim), Hutar (Hazor), Kennarut (Kinneroth), Aksap (Achshaph), Bar Semas (Beth Shemesh), Atuma (Adamah), Ranama (Rimmon), Japu (Joppa), Harar (Har El), Rabbau (Rabbah), Baratu (Berothai, Berytus), Sarta, &c.[187] Thus the coast of Syria and the mountain district as far as Damascus and Hamath on the Orontes would have become subject to the Pharaohs. This subjection, however, does not seem to have gone beyond payment of tribute. The following campaigns of the king were again for the most part directed against the Retennu; a battle was fought at Aratu (Aradus). The sums which Tuthmosis received in tribute from the Cheta (Hittites) are enumerated. Afterwards the king made repeated expeditions against Naharina (Arem Naharaim), i. e. against the land of the two rivers, Mesopotamia, and here also he levied tribute. Then the tribute is given in the list, which the king received from the Punt (the Arabians). That Lower Nubia, as far as the old boundary at Semne, was subject to Tuthmosis III. is beyond a doubt. An inscription found at Ellesieh in Nubia informs us that Nahi, the governor of Nubia, has sent the tribute of the lands of the south to the king in gold, ebony, and ivory,[188] and the list quoted mentions 115 tribes or places subdued by Tuthmosis in the south of Egypt.[189] Of Amenophis II., the successor of Tuthmosis III. (1565-1555 B.C.), inscriptions at Amada in Nubia declare that he fought against the Retennu (Syrians), and slew seven kings, and that in the south he forced his way as far as Napata, i. e. up the Nile as far as Mount Barkal.[190]

His successor, Tuthmosis IV., appears on monuments of the island Konosso, near Philæ, as victorious over the negroes.[191] And after him Amenophis III. (1524-1488 B.C.) again directed his arms in his first campaign against the negroes; a memorial stone at Semne tells us that he traversed Abha, the land of the negroes. That the power of Amenophis III. extended to the south far beyond Semne is proved by the ruins of a temple which he built at Soleb on the Nile, "to his image living upon earth," i. e. to the copy or manifestation of his divine nature, his own divinity,[192] and inscriptions on certain scarabæi assure us that Amenophis ruled from Naharina, i. e. Mesopotamia, to the land of Karu in the south.[193]

Thebes was the point from which the liberation of the land began. Here the new dynasty who had restored the kingdom, driven out the enemy, and carried the arms of Egypt far to the south and east, took up their lasting abode, and this city became the brilliant centre of the new kingdom. Here, also, the new Pharaohs glorified themselves by mighty works, as the old kings had done in the city of Memphis and the burial-place adjacent. And along with the warlike vigour displayed by the people, the art and civilisation of Egypt, under the series of kings extending from Amosis to Amenophis III. (1684-1488 B.C.), reached the highest perfection which the position and character of the nation permitted.

On the right bank of the Nile, on a terrace near the modern village of Karnak, the first Sesurtesen (2371-2325 B.C.), built a temple of moderate size to Ammon (p. 102 ). To this Tuthmosis I. (1646-1625 B.C.) added a splendid gateway, a lofty gate between two broad wings, which rise in the form of truncated pyramids, and behind this gateway he built an oblong court, encircled by a portico supported on pillars. Against these pillars leaned karyatids, images of Osiris, with the hands, in which is the cross with handles, crossed upon the breast. Of these four remain still uninjured. Before the entrance of the gateway he erected two obelisks of red granite, of which one, sixty-nine feet in height, is still standing. The inscription runs thus:—"The mighty Horus, the friend of truth, the king Tutmes, the mighty sun, which is given to the world, whom Ammon establishes, has erected this firm structure in honour of his father Ammon Ra, the protector of the world, and has placed two large obelisks before the double gates."[194] The queen Misphra (Ramake), who was regent for Tuthmosis II., and in the early years of Tuthmosis III. (1625-1591 B.C.), erected in the oblong court of Tuthmosis I. the two second largest obelisks known. Of these also one is still uninjured, and stands ninety feet high, the other has fallen, and lies on the ground. The inscription tells us that the queen whom Ammon himself had placed on the throne and chosen as the protectress of Egypt, had resolved in her heart to erect two great obelisks, the tops of which should reach to heaven, in honour of the god Ammon and in remembrance of her father Tuthmosis I., in order that her name might continue in the temple of Ammon for ever and ever. Each obelisk was to be of a single stone of red granite. Her holiness had commenced the work in her fifteenth year, and completed it in her sixteenth, seven months after the work was commenced in the mountain quarry.[195]

To this court Tuthmosis III. added a gateway towards the south, and surrounded the ancient sanctuary of Sesurtesen with a circle of huge buildings. These consisted of two halls, each of twelve pillars, to the right and left of the entrance, on which abut chambers, great or small as the walls which surround the old temple allow. On the walls which close these halls and chambers towards the old building, the king recorded the events of his reign from the twenty-second to the forty-second year, from which everything has already been given which up to this time can be regarded as certain. The two largest obelisks also, of which the largest is now standing in Rome before the Lateran, and the other is destroyed, were erected by Tuthmosis III., and placed, as it would seem, before the entrance into the old temple of Sesurtesen. The obelisk now at Constantinople is also a work of this prince. The inscription says that Tuthmosis III. "extended his dominion from Mount Apta (in the south) to the uttermost habitations of Mesopotamia."[196] On the east side of the enlarged temple of Sesurtesen, he built a splendid hall, the roof of which is supported by fifty-six pillars. Besides this he built additions to the temple of Ra at Heliopolis, restored the temple at Dendera, apparently after a plan sketched on a goatskin, which, belonging to the time of Chufu (p. 94 ) was rediscovered under king Phiops (p. 101 ),[197]and finally he erected shrines to the sun-god Mentu at Hermonthis, near Thebes, the god Sebek at Ombos, Chnum at Letopolis (Esneh), and on the island of Elephantine. In Nubia he erected temples at Pselchis, Korte, Amada, and Semne. The temple at Semne he consecrated to Chnum and Sesurtesen III., who extended the borders of Egypt to this point (p. 105 ), in order that "the king might live again in this memorial."[198]

Before the great sphinx, near the second pyramid, Tuthmosis IV. erected the memorial stone already mentioned (p. 94 ); it represents the king worshipping the sphinx. In the inscription the sphinx addresses the king, and says, "I, thy father Harmachu, give thee the dominion, the world in all its length and breadth, rich tribute from all nations, and a long life of many years."[199]

The buildings of Amenophis III. are not inferior to those of Tuthmosis III. in extent or magnificence. Half an hour southward of the gateways, court, and porticoes of the temple at Karnak, close on the right bank of the Nile, at the modern village of Luxor, Amenophis built a second temple to Ammon, the god of Thebes. In a court surrounded by colonnades, the "court of sacrifice" joined the antechamber of the temple, or outer temple, then came the temple with the Holy of Holies, built in the form invariably used in Egypt after the restoration.[200] Only the spacious antechamber, a hall with a roof supported on pillars and lighted by windows in the wall, or by the spaces between the front pillars, could be entered by laymen. The inner temple, reserved for the priests, to which a second gate led from the antechamber, was a smaller hall of the same kind, which received only a moderate light through openings made high up in the side walls. From this half-darkened room the Holy of Holies was again separated by a court, and the entrance was through a door. Two other doors led by means of a passage running round the Holy of Holies into the chamber surrounding it. The Holy of Holies, together with the chambers abutting upon it, was surrounded by a high wall and formed a separate temple of small dimensions. The masonry is heavy, and narrows toward the top. Here in the gloom dwelt the hidden spirit of the god. The heavy, solemn, mysterious character of the Egyptian temple naturally makes itself most strongly felt in these spaces or rooms. On the inner walls of the temple the sacrifices and worship rendered by the king are represented, on the outer walls we see his achievements in war. What still remains of the building of Amenophis—and it was subsequently enlarged—allows us only to conjecture upon the original plan. Yet about 200 pillars and shafts still rise out of the ruins. The reliefs on the outer walls of the temple, and in the chambers round the Holy of Holies, are in the best state of preservation. On the walls of one of these chambers we see the scribe of heaven, Thoth, announcing to Mutemua, the mother of Amenophis, the birth of her son. Then the ram-god and the goddess Hathor lead the queen into the lying-in chamber; another goddess supports the queen during the birth. Then four heavenly spirits, the two spirits of the south and the two spirits of the north, carry Amenophis, already grown into a youth, to a throne in the presence of Ammon Ra, who anoints him king. Then the gods promise gifts, honour, and power to the new king. They declare that the Retennu, the "nine nations," i. e. the nations bordering on Egypt, and all people, shall be subject to him.[201]

Far fewer—not more than a great heap of ruins with a few pillars and memorial stones—are the remains of a second great work of Amenophis III., which he built opposite the temple of Karnak on the west bank of the Nile not far from the modern village of Medinet Habu. We learn from Pliny that it was a temple of Serapis, i. e. of Osarhapi, Osiris-Apis.[202] We have already mentioned the shrine of the same goddess, which was situated among the tombs near Memphis (p. 67 ), and we know that in the view of the Egyptians the west belonged to the setting sun, the sun of the under world. The statement of Pliny is also confirmed by two memorial stones among the ruins, from which we gather that Osiris and Ammon Ra were the lords of the temple; and it is not strange that the tutelary god of Thebes should be associated with Osiris. Before the entrance to this sanctuary Amenophis caused two statues to be erected, which still rise like steep cliffs above the flat level of the bank by the side of a palm forest. They are two seated figures, and the inscriptions tell us that both represent Amenophis. The king is in a quiet attitude, the hands rest on the knees. The front parts of the throne are formed by statues of the mother and wife of Amenophis, which reach up to the knees of the king. The statues were chiselled out of a single block, as also the bases. The height of the whole is towards sixty feet.[203]

The power to which Tuthmosis III. and Amenophis III. exalted Egypt appears to have declined under their successors, or at least it did not advance. The monuments prove to us that Amenophis IV. (1488-1476 B.C.) began certain religious innovations. He paid excessive or exclusive reverence to the sun-god, and attempted to found a new capital in the neighbourhood of the modern Amarna, in Central Egypt, which was no doubt intended to be the centre of the new cult. If, at the same time, as the monuments show, he was able, like his predecessor, to build at Soleb, in Dongola, it follows that the supremacy of Egypt was maintained, at any rate in the south.


[179]Joseph. c. Apion 1, 14; cf. 1, 26; Afric. et Euseb. ap. Sync., p. 61, 62; Schol. Plat. 2, 424, ed. Bekker.

[180]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").

[181]Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 77.

[182]Ebers, loc. cit. s. 88, 202; Mariette, "Revue archéol." 1861, p. 337 ff.; 1862, p. 300 ff. From a memorial-stone discovered at Tanis we find that 400 years before a certain year, which is not named, in the reign of Ramses II. i. e., about 1750 B.C. (according to Lepsius's data for Ramses II.), the shepherd king Nubti held sway; that he introduced certain regulations in Egypt for the province of Tanis, the special home of the shepherds; and that Ramses II. when erecting his buildings, which in any case were sufficiently durable, at Tanis (see below), referred back to this king. Further conclusions, which have been deduced from the inscription on this stone, have been completely overthrown in my opinion by Mariette.—"Revue archéol." 1865, 11, 169 ff.

[183]De Rougé, "Athén. Franç." 1854, p. 532; Brugsch, in the "Zeitschr. d. d. M. G." 9, 200 ff.; "Hist. d'Eg." p. 78. Brugsch assumes that Ra Apepi was a later Apophis, and not the Apophis who is the fourth shepherd king in Josephus, and sixth in Africanus, for according to the inscription on the tomb of Aahmes, Amosis followed Raskenen. On the inscription Apepi on a colossus of Ramses II., cf. infra.

[184]Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 85.

[185]Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," pp. 80-90.

[186]Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 81, 87; De Rougé, "Revue archéolog." 1860, 2, 310 ff.

[187]De Rougé, "Divers Monuments de Tutmes;" "Revue archéol." 1861, 4, 196 ff. 344 ff.

[188]Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 107.

[189]De Rougé, "Revue archéolog." 1861, 1, 345.

[190]Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 111.

[191]Brugsch, loc. cit. p. 114.

[192]Lepsius, "Briefe aus Ægypten," s. 216; Brugsch, loc. cit. p. 118.

[193]Brugsch, loc. cit. p. 114.

[194]Rosellini, "Monumenti Storici," 3, 1, 29, 114 ff.

[195]Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," pp. 92, 93: cf. Rosellini, "Monumenti Storici," 3, 1, 332, 146, and Lepsius, "Königsbuch," s. 38.

[196]Brugsch, loc cit. pp. 108, 109.

[197]Dümichen, "Bauurkunde von Dendera;" Chabas in "Zeitschr. für ægypt. Sprache," 1865, s. 91 ff.

[198]Lepsius, "Briefe aus Ægypten," s. 113; Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," pp. 65, 66.

[199]Brugsch, loc. cit. p. 113.

[200]De Rougé, "Revue archéolog." 1865, 11, 354 ff.; Dümichen, "Bauurkunde von Edfu;" Brugsch, "Bau und Masse des Tempels von Edfu;" "Zeitschr. für ægypt. Sprache," 1870, s. 153 ff; 1871, s. 25, 32 ff.

[201]Champollion, "Lettres," p. 210; Rosell. M. St. 1, 219, 223, 236, 248.

[202]"Hist. Nat." 35, 11.

[203]Rosell. loc. cit. 3, 1, 216. The Greeks regarded the northern colossus as the statue of Memnon. The ruins of this temple, and other buildings on the west bank of the Nile, were called by them "Memnoneia."—Diod. 1, 47; Strabo, pp. 813, 816. The name is strictly limited to the temples and palaces on the west bank. Yet even the fortress of Susa is called "the Memnonia."—Herod. 5, 53, 7, 151; Strabo, p. 728; Diod. 2, 22; Paus. 10, 31. The name as applied to the Egyptian monuments may be a corruption of Amenophis, so that the name of the buildings of Amenophis has given the analogy for other similar structures. Still, it is more probable that the connection of these buildings with the divinity of the under world, and the death of Osiris, to which the death of Memnon was compared, is at the root of this nomenclature of the Greeks. The story of the Ethiopian Memnon, the son of the Morning, i. e. of the East, who came to aid the Trojans and found an early death before Troy, is known to the Odyssey (11, 522, 4, 187), the Homeric hymns ("In Ven." 219-239) and the Theogony (l. 984), and was treated in detail by Arktinus of Miletus about 750 B.C. In Homer's view the Ethiopians dwell in the far East, at the rising of the sun, beyond the Amazons, whose abode was on the Thermodon. Hence the ancient Susa, far in the East, the subsequent capital of the Achæmenids, might have been the dwelling of the son of the East. When it was known that the Ethiopians inhabited the Upper Nile, and the name Memnon was found in Egypt, the Greeks, after the time of Herodotus, began to search for the Homeric Ethiopians and Memnon, in and above Egypt. That the name is given to the northern colossus only is due to the following reasons. In the year 27 B.C. an earthquake broke this northern colossus and threw the upper parts to the ground. Then the pedestal and trunk occasionally gave forth a metallic sound at sunrise.—Tac. "Annal." 2, 61. This, in the poetic minds of the Greeks, was the greeting of the son to his divine mother, the Morning, while she in her sorrow for the early death of her son moistened the statue every morning with tears of dew. Greek inscriptions on the pedestal from the time of Nero give the names of witnesses who had heard the sound. Pausanias, who was of this date, tells us, loc. cit.—"At Thebes, in Egypt, is the sounding statue of a seated man, whom most authorities call Memnon, and say that he forced his way from Ethiopia to Egypt and Susa. The inhabitants of Thebes, however, deny that it is Memnon. They regard it as the statue of Phamenoph, a native Egyptian." Ph-Amenoph is Amenophis with the Egyptian article. The sounding statue was long regarded as a fable, until the savans  of the French expedition, in the early morning, when the hot sunbeams followed on the cool of the night, as is usual in the climate of Africa, perceived in the great Egyptian buildings a small whispering, or singing tone, which must be due to those physical influences. This phenomenon may have been especially striking in the mutilated statue of Amenophis. In the time of Septimius Severus, when the colossus was restored—the upper parts are now composed of four pieces—the inscriptions and the marvel came to an end. The new weight placed upon the pedestal appears to have checked the vibrations. At present no sound is heard.—Letronne, "La Statue vocal de Memnon."