Early Second Intermediate Period Egypt {1786–1667}¹

The death of queen Sobekneferu and the end of the Twelfth Dynasty in 1786 inaugurated a period with a remarkable dearth of historical sources in Egypt. Royal and noble inscriptions with information on military affairs almost entirely disappear, in favor of formulaic ritual texts with little substantive historical content. “Sources for the period include neither royal annals nor private autobiographies with information on military events” (EAE 3:395). The names of many kings ruling Egypt during this period are unknown, due to lacunae in the Turin Canon king-list, even when supplemented by scarab seals with royal names which become popular during this period.² All this means that the military historian can hope to understand only the broadest trends during this period.

The paucity of sources naturally creates uncertainty and ambiguity, leading to several different ways of understanding the history of Egypt during this period. Some scholars rightly note that there are many areas of cultural continuity between the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period. From the perspective of military history, however, the discontinuities are more significant. Among Egyptologists there are different ways of interpreting the reasons for the shift from the Middle Kingdom to the Second Intermediate Period. Some scholars include the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties {1786–1667} as part of the Middle Kingdom, with the Second Intermediate Period covering only the Fifteenth through Seventeenth Dynasties {1667–1569}. Others, whom I will follow,³ date the Second Intermediate Period from the end of the Twelfth Dynasty in 1786 to the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty and the New Kingdom period in 1569. I will use the following tentative chronology of the Second Intermediate Period (see Table 18.1).⁴

In this section I will examine only the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties, culminating in the invasion of the Hyksos and the introduction of the war-chariot into Egypt around 1667.

Thirteenth Dynasty {1786–1667} (SIP 69–93, EAE 3:394–8)

Due to the paucity of sources, the military history of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties can only be described in the broadest generalities, and this often only through inference from scanty inscriptional and archaeological remains. A basic, though fragmentary list of kings is found in the Turin King-list, which can be supplemented with scarabs and inscriptions (SIP 69–75, 94–9; CS 1:72–3). However, most of these kings remain nothing more than ephemeral names. The capital of Egypt remained at the earlier Middle Kingdom capital of Itjawy (Lisht), and there was some dynastic continuity between the Twelfth and early Thirteenth dynasties – the first two kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty were sons of Amenemhet IV of the Twelfth Dynasty (SIB 75). The major military event of the early Thirteenth Dynasty, which inaugurated the Second Intermediate Period, was the rise to independence of the rival kings of the Canaanite Fourteenth Dynasty in the eastern delta (see p. 461). This was undoubtedly accompanied by warfare, and, although we are left uninformed of the details, it is clear that the Canaanite warriors of the delta were ultimately successful in establishing their independent state. Thereafter there was at least some level of peace and accommodation between the Egyptian Thirteenth and Canaanite Fourteenth Dynasties, as indicated by trade relations and the finds of Thirteenth Dynasty seals in Fourteenth Dynasty territory.

The period as a whole was ruled by over fifty kings, generally with short reigns and few major monuments. There are no records of foreign military expeditions to the Sinai, Canaan, or Nubia, though a few inscriptions mention mining expeditions to the quarries at Wadi Hammamat in the Eastern Desert and Gebel Zeit on the Red Sea. Likewise there is inscriptional evidence mentioning a “commander” and a “lieutenant” in the western oases, indicating a Thirtheenth Dynasty military presence there (SIB 78–9). Any dynastic continuity with the rulers of the Twelfth Dynasty was ended with the rise to power of king Sobekhotpe III {1749–1747?}. He was an “elite officer”, the son of the “elite officer” Montuhotep, who rose to power under unknown circumstances; Ryholt speculates that there was some type of military coup against the weak and ineffectual kings of the early Thirteenth Dynasty (SIP 222–4, 297). However this may be, Sobekhotpe III initiated a temporary revival in Egyptian military power.

Sobekhotpe's successor, though not his son, was Neferhotpe I {1747–1736?}, under whose rule Egypt's military prestige was somewhat restored. An inscription of Neferhotpe in northern Nubia indicates that Egypt still exercised some control of that region. On the other hand, a building inscription mentions soldiers accompanying king Neferhotpe I on a pilgrimage to Abydos (ARE 1:334, SIB 226–8), which may indicate some concern for the security of the king. Seals of Thirteenth Dynasty kings and officials have also been discovered in Canaan and Syria, indicating trade and diplomatic relations with Egypt (SIB 85). Seals of Egyptian military officers have likewise been found in the Levant, implying that some type of military escort accompanied Egyptian trading and diplomatic expeditions (SIB 86). All this implies that either the Thirteenth Dynasty kings had direct access to the Mediterranean via a western branch of the Nile, or the Canaanite kings of the Fourteenth Dynasty, who controlled at least the eastern Delta, allowed southern Egyptian trade to pass through their country. The discovery of a relief from Byblos of “governor Yantinu, son of governor Yakin” with a cartouche of Neferhotpe I {1747–1736} attests that the rulers of Byblos at least nominally acknowledged Neferhotpe as their overlord (SIB 87), and may imply that the vassal relationship between Egypt and Byblos that had existed in the Middle Kingdom continued on through the early Thirteenth Dynasty; the last indications of contact between Thirteenth Dynasty Egypt and Byblos is in the reign of Sobekhotpe IV {1734–1725} and his successor Ya'ib {1721–1712} (SIB 89–90).

This resurgence of Egyptian power was brief, however. Neferhotpe was succeeded by his two brothers, but did not create a long-lasting dynasty (SIB 225–31, 298). During the last thirty-odd years of this period, from roughly 1700 to 1667, over twenty kings seem to have ruled Egypt in the Thirteenth Dynasty, indicating a period of instability and possible collapse of royal power. The military result of this instability and weakness was successful foreign invasions by both the Kushites from the south and the Canaanite Hyksos from the north, who captured the capital at Itjawy and ended the dynasty. Resistance to both Hyksos and Nubian invaders was taken up by the regional Egyptian nomarchs of Thebes, who formed a new Egyptian-controlled government known as the Sixteenth Dynasty {1667–1602}, later succeeded by the Seventeenth Dynasty {1600–1569}, likewise based at Thebes. These two dynasties retained control of much of middle and southern Egypt for nearly a century. Building on this center of military resistance, the Eighteenth Dynasty {1569–1315} would eventually arise, which would defeat both the Hyksos and the Nubians, and reunite Egypt, creating the Egyptian empire of the New Kingdom.

Nubia, Kush, and the Thirteenth Dynasty⁵

During the Middle Kingdom the Nile flood levels were recorded each year at the Semna fortress in Nubia, providing some type of advanced notice on Nile flooding, and hence expected agricultural productivity and the expected tax returns of Egypt. The custom of marking the Nile level continued through the early Thirteenth Dynasty, indicating ongoing Egyptian control and occupation of northern Nubia. An inscription mentions “the commander of the army, Renseneb”, who was commander of the Semna fortress (ARE 1:331). A funerary inscription by a deputy treasurer at Abydos describes his mission to inspect the fortresses in Nubia, “in the surrounding foreign lands [of Kush] which rebel” against Egypt. Children of Nubian chiefs were kept and trained at the Egyptian court during this time as quasi-hostages (SIB 93). These texts demonstrate a continued Egyptian military interest in the Nubian fortresses, which is confirmed by Cemetery K at the Buhen fortress which has Egyptian-style burials during the Thirteenth Dynasty (OHAE 207). Diplomatic relations continued between Kush and Egypt; a papyrus details the allotment of provisions for two Nubian chiefs who were escorted to Egypt, perhaps being enlisted as mercenaries (SIB 92). At some point in the late Thirteenth Dynasty, however, Egyptian military dominance of Nubia began to erode. The exact time and circumstances in which the Egyptians withdrew from Nubia are uncertain, but strong Egyptian control seems to have continued through the reign of Sobekhotpe IV {1734–1725}. There may have been an Egyptian campaign to Sai Island south of Semna under Sobekhotpe IV, but the inscription is so damaged that the reading is quite uncertain (AN 119–20, disputed by SIP 90).

With the declining authority and competence of Egyptian kings during the unstable later Thirteenth Dynasty, however, the Egyptian commanders of the Nubian fortresses seem to have become increasingly autonomous, with power devolving into the hands of the garrison commanders who passed their offices and authority on from father to son. The fortresses became progressively more selfsupporting and independent, with intermarriage between Egyptian soldiers and Nubian women, and growing reliance on Nubian mercenaries, blurring the cultural and ethnic distinction between the garrison troops and the Nubians and Kushites they were meant to defend Egypt against (BI 72–6, 83–5).

There have been a number of suggestions concerning the cause of the Egyptian loss of the Nubian fortresses.⁶ The Nubian provinces may have been intentionally abandoned due to high costs and declining state revenues. Indeed two of the Nubian frontier fortresses – Semna South and Serra East – were abandoned during the last decades of the Middle Kingdom (SIP 91). Egyptian troops may have been withdrawn to face mounting danger from the Canaanite Hyksos in the Delta. On the other hand, Egyptian garrisons, finding themselves isolated and neglected by the kings of the collapsing Thirteenth Dynasty may have made a separate peace with the king of Kush to the south. However this may be, the Kushites captured some of the fortresses by siege or assault; Buhen, for example, was clearly burned and sacked. It is possible that the Kushite alliance and dynastic marriage with the Canaanite Thirteenth Dynasty in the delta (see pp. 462–3), which began by least 1720 and probably continued through 1680, might have strengthened the military position of the Kushite kings sufficiently to allow them to attack Egyptian Nubia. The Kushite king marked his victory with an Egyptian-style stele, depicting himself with bow, mace, and the crown of Upper Egypt (BI 84).

None of these explanations are mutually exclusive: it may well be that the garrisons were neglected and weakened during the late Thirteenth Dynasty, allowing the Kushites to capture several forts by assault after which the others surrendered on terms. It is clear from tomb inscriptions of the Sobekemhab officer family at Buhen that, after the fall of Buhen, some of the surviving former Egyptian garrison troops and officers enlisted in the army of the king of Kush, and remained on garrison duty in the partially ruined Buhen fortress, from which they undertook military operations for Nejeh {1650?–1630?}, king of Kush. The fall of the Nubian fortresses probably occurred in the 1660s – at the time of the final collapse of the Thirteenth Dynasty and the rise of the Hyksos in the Delta. Thereafter, the fortresses remained in Nubian hands until the reconquest by Kamose of Thebes {1571–1569}. Nubia thus remained part of the Kushite kingdom for nearly a century (BI 80–5).

Fourteenth (Canaanite) Dynasty {1788–1667} (SIP 94–117)

During the Twelfth Dynasty there was a slow but steady peaceful migration of Semitic peoples from Canaan into the eastern Delta. The Egyptians knew these peoples generically as ^c3mw, perhaps pronounced roughly as Amu; they are probably to be related to the contemporaneous migration of the Semitic Amorites throughout Syria, Canaan, and Mesopotamia in the nineteenth century. The exact relationship between the Canaanites and the Egyptians in the Delta are vague. Some of the Canaanites undoubtedly remained semi-nomads. Others became integrated into Egyptian society. Some seem to have served the Egyptians as mercenaries or officials. It is clear, however, that many retained their separate cultural and linguistic identity, forming a significant and growing minority in the population of the Delta (SIP 293–4).

Sometime late in the reign of Amenemhet III {1843–1797}, or during the reign of Amenemhet IV {1798–1790} or Sobekneferu {1790–1786}, the Canaanites seem to have become at least semi-autonomous, as implied by the fact that there is no evidence for Egyptian expeditions to the Sinai and Byblos during the last decades of the Middle Kingdom – a fact that could be explained by an independent state in the Delta cutting Egyptian land and sea access to the Sinai and Canaan. Exactly when and how full independence was eventually achieved remains unclear. Low Nile floods late in the Twelfth Dynasty may have contributed to economic decline and political instability (OHAE 169), which may have facilitated the rise of independence among the Delta Canaanites. It may simply have been that a Delta nomarch took charge of local affairs as the central authorities proved increasingly incapable or unwilling to deal with growing problems.

However this may be, sometime around 1788 a Canaanite leader, Yakbim {1788?–1770?},⁷ asserted full independent authority at Avaris (modern Tell el-Dab'a; EAE 1:351–4; AEA 240) in the north-eastern Delta, inaugurating the Fourteenth Dynasty {1788–1667}, the first non-Egyptian dynasty to rule in Egypt. The Canaanite origin of this dynasty is confirmed by both the Semitic names of its rulers, and the Canaanite archaeological remains in the eastern Delta during this period (SIP 99–100). Although the exact nature of this transition is uncertain, there was clearly a military component in the Dynasty's rise to independence. Fifty percent of the male burials from this period at Avaris included weapons burials, with bronze daggers of the Middle Bronze IIA style from Canaan (SIP 76, 295); since many of the tombs had been plundered; the actual number of burials with weapons was undoubtedly higher, perhaps almost universal. This clearly indicates an important military component among the Canaanite population in the Delta. These weapons burials could be explained by Canaanite mercenaries in Egyptian service who eventually usurped independent power and formed their own dynasty. On the other hand, it is also possible, if not likely, that local Canaanites living in the Delta called upon their relatives from Canaan to come to Egypt and help in their efforts at independence, creating an additional influx of Canaanite warriors into the Delta at the time the Fourteenth Dynasty rose to independence. Broadly speaking, developments in the Delta may have some parallels to the rise to power of Germanic warlords and mercenaries in fourth- and fifth-century Rome:⁸ a combination of peaceful migration, mercenary service, the rise to power of semi-independent mercenary warlords, militant migration, and finally the creation of a fully independent state controlled by the former mercenaries.

Within a few years the first king of the Fourteenth Dynasty, Yakbim, had conquered or otherwise come to dominate the entire eastern Delta, and possibly some of the western Delta as well. The precise boundaries of the Fourteenth Dynasty kingdom cannot be determined with certainty due to the scarcity of monuments and contemporary documents. Their control over the eastern Delta is clear from Canaanite archaeological remains. The minimalist interpretation maintains that this was the full extent of their domain. The maximalist view, however, asserts that they might also have held some type of hegemony over much of the western Delta and southern Canaan (SIP 77, 103). Yakbim's first three successors are little more than names: Ya'ammu, Qareh and ’Ammu, ruling from perhaps 1770 to 1740.

The tomb of the Deputy Treasurer of the Fourteenth Dynasty, Aamu, at the Dynasty's capital of Avaris, reflects the military culture of the age. The tomb included the sacrificial burial of five donkeys and three humans (I = OHAE 191). A bronze dagger and battle-axe were also discovered in the tomb, emphasizing the martial interests of the rulers. The burial with the ruler of donkeys rather than horses probably indicates that the horse-drawn war-chariot had not yet been introduced into Egypt in the early eighteenth century (SIP 104–5).

The discovery of dozens of scarab seals with the names of Fourteenth Dynasty rulers and officials provides insight into their foreign relations. Seal discoveries range from Nubia and Egypt to northern Canaan and Syria, and are thought to indicate the range of diplomatic and trade relationships (SIP 105–12). The connection with the kingdom of Kush in the central Sudan was important. Numerous Fourteenth Dynasty seals have been discovered at the Kushite capital of Kerma, indicating ongoing trading and diplomatic relations, perhaps by river with the permission of the Thirteenth Dynasty, or perhaps over the difficult desert trails via the western oases. It seems likely that the Canaanite kings of the Fourteenth Dynasty and the kings of Kush established a long-term alliance against the Egyptian Thirteenth Dynasty, as we find better documented in the later Hyksos period (ANET 232, 555). When – or even if – this alliance resorted to war with the Thirteenth Dynasty of Egypt is uncertain. The alliance was cemented by at least one dynastic marriage, that of king Sheshi {1730?–1710?} to the Kushite queen Tati (SIP 114–15, 252–4). Sheshi's successor, his son by this Kushite queen, was named Nehsy – “the Nubian” (SIP 115), who came to the throne around 1710. Diplomatic relations, and perhaps a military alliance, between Kush and the Canaanite Fourteenth Dynasty continued at least through the reign of Ya'qub-Har {1680s?}, whose seals have been found in Kush (SIB 300). After around 1710 the Thirteenth Dynasty was plagued by several decades of ephemeral kings with short reigns. The brief rule might indicate some type of rotating kingship, co-regency, or political instability with frequent coups. There is also evidence, however, for famine and mass burials from this period – perhaps the victims of plagues or war – which might indicate that the frequent change in kingship and brief reigns was due to an epidemic (SIP 300–1). At any rate, the dynasty was seriously weakened by 1667 when it was overthrown by rival Canaanites known as the Hyksos, who formed the Fifteenth Dynasty {1667–1558}.

The establishment of Hyksos hegemony {1667}⁹

This study comes to a close with the Hyksos invasion of the Delta and conquest of Avaris and Memphis around 1667. This date is chosen because it is generally assumed that the horse and the war-chariot were introduced into Egypt by the Hyksos, though the introduction could have occurred somewhat earlier under the Canaanite kings of the Fourteenth Dynasty (LA 6:1130–5). The introduction of the horse and the war-chariot created a military revolution in Egypt and throughout the Near East, which I hope will be the subject of a future study.