DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.807#0461
M. M. Ill : NORTH-WEST BAILEY AND LUSTRAL AREA 421
of the best that Egypt had to give in the way of Art. They built temples
and erected monuments in the old style, and it cannot be doubted that their
wide dominion was accompanied by a commercial revival.
The extent of Khyan's dominion in the Nile Valley is marked by
the black granite block at Gebelen, South of Thebes, and by the base
of his inscribed statue at Bubastis in the Delta.1 Another monument of
his, a lion weight of black basalt, found its way as far as Bagdad.2 The Ka
name of Khyan anq adcbu—1 embracing territories '—and his further title
' ruler of foreign Peoples ' illustrate his imperial claims. In the latter title
Hq-Jis-ivt—also borne by another Hyksos prince—a plausible derivation
for the word "Tk<t<x>s itself has been found.3
The position with regard to the Third Middle Minoan Period, now Approxi-
better ascertained, in which this relic occurred, fits in very well with a date Date for
not much later than the middle of the seventeenth century b. c. for the time ^lo^ of
of its deposit. It corresponds, as we have seen, with the mature stage Ilia,
of the earlier phase, a, of the culture of that Period. On the other hand, the
catastrophe to which the Period owed its close and to which was due
at Knossos such a wholesale covering in of M. M. Ill remains belonging to
its later phase, b, immediately preceded the earliest Late Minoan stage
which runs parallel with the beginning of the New Empire in Egypt—from
about 1580 b. c, that is, onwards.
The intermediate chronological place with which the alabastron lid K.h/^n's
. . . Lid Evi-
is thus associated by the archaeological evidence makes still less probable dence of
the conjecture that it should be taken as actual evidence that Khyan's Inter.
dominions had included Minoan Crete.4 It should rather be interpreted as coyse
T-i rather
a symptom of the renewal of peaceful intercourse between the Nile Valley than
and Crete, for some time interrupted by the break-up of Egyptian unity and Con(luest
the interposition of hostile elements in the Delta. But although it cannot
be taken as evidence of Hyksos sovereignty in the island, it may w^ell be
regarded as a token of personal relations between Khyan and the Minoan
priest-kings. It is by no means improbable indeed that already at this time
Cretan envoys to the Hyksos Court may have borne gifts—interpreted as
tribute—similar to those borne by the Keftians and their fellows to the
officers of Thothmes III. They may have taken back, too, royal presents
such as this ' alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious ' and
1 Naville, Bubastis PI. XII. 4 This is E. Meyer's view {Geschichte des
2 Now in the British Museum. Aliertums, second edition, p. 716): ' Es ist
3 W. Max Miiller ; cf. Griffith, Archaeological sehr moglich, dass das ephemere Weltreich der
Report, &c, 1900-1, p. 37. Hyksos auch Kreta umfasst hat.'
of the best that Egypt had to give in the way of Art. They built temples
and erected monuments in the old style, and it cannot be doubted that their
wide dominion was accompanied by a commercial revival.
The extent of Khyan's dominion in the Nile Valley is marked by
the black granite block at Gebelen, South of Thebes, and by the base
of his inscribed statue at Bubastis in the Delta.1 Another monument of
his, a lion weight of black basalt, found its way as far as Bagdad.2 The Ka
name of Khyan anq adcbu—1 embracing territories '—and his further title
' ruler of foreign Peoples ' illustrate his imperial claims. In the latter title
Hq-Jis-ivt—also borne by another Hyksos prince—a plausible derivation
for the word "Tk<t<x>s itself has been found.3
The position with regard to the Third Middle Minoan Period, now Approxi-
better ascertained, in which this relic occurred, fits in very well with a date Date for
not much later than the middle of the seventeenth century b. c. for the time ^lo^ of
of its deposit. It corresponds, as we have seen, with the mature stage Ilia,
of the earlier phase, a, of the culture of that Period. On the other hand, the
catastrophe to which the Period owed its close and to which was due
at Knossos such a wholesale covering in of M. M. Ill remains belonging to
its later phase, b, immediately preceded the earliest Late Minoan stage
which runs parallel with the beginning of the New Empire in Egypt—from
about 1580 b. c, that is, onwards.
The intermediate chronological place with which the alabastron lid K.h/^n's
. . . Lid Evi-
is thus associated by the archaeological evidence makes still less probable dence of
the conjecture that it should be taken as actual evidence that Khyan's Inter.
dominions had included Minoan Crete.4 It should rather be interpreted as coyse
T-i rather
a symptom of the renewal of peaceful intercourse between the Nile Valley than
and Crete, for some time interrupted by the break-up of Egyptian unity and Con(luest
the interposition of hostile elements in the Delta. But although it cannot
be taken as evidence of Hyksos sovereignty in the island, it may w^ell be
regarded as a token of personal relations between Khyan and the Minoan
priest-kings. It is by no means improbable indeed that already at this time
Cretan envoys to the Hyksos Court may have borne gifts—interpreted as
tribute—similar to those borne by the Keftians and their fellows to the
officers of Thothmes III. They may have taken back, too, royal presents
such as this ' alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious ' and
1 Naville, Bubastis PI. XII. 4 This is E. Meyer's view {Geschichte des
2 Now in the British Museum. Aliertums, second edition, p. 716): ' Es ist
3 W. Max Miiller ; cf. Griffith, Archaeological sehr moglich, dass das ephemere Weltreich der
Report, &c, 1900-1, p. 37. Hyksos auch Kreta umfasst hat.'