DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6640#0032
18
BUBASTIS.
Whenever the Hyksos are spoken of it is
not by their name, they are described in vague
words or even abusive epithets. They are the
J ^ fg^5f Asiatic shepherds, or 'j ^ j
the Aamu, the nomads of the East,
^> jjj*^ the shepherds, or even tj'^'^^ | the
plague or the pestilence. If therefore they had
been a distinct nation or a confederacy such as
Rameses II. had to fight, it would be strange
that no specific name should be applied to them,
and that nothing should connect them with a
definite country known to the Egyptians. We
are compelled to admit that they were an
uncivilized multitude, under the command of
chiefs, called in Egyptian jzi Kik. They did
not belong to the Semitic or to the Turanian
stock alone ; to class them exclusively in one of
these two races seems to me an error; they
must be considered as a crowd of mixed origin,
in which the two elements may be recognized.
Their inroad into Egypt was probably not
spontaneous, they were driven to the valley of
the Nile by great events which took place in
eastern Asia and led to the conquest of Egypt.
It is in eastern Asia that we must look for the
cause of the invasion of the Hyksos, and on this
obscure point an unexpected light has been
thrown by Assyriology.
The Assyriologists agree in stating that, from
a remote epoch, Chaldasa received in succession
and retained on her productive soil ethnical
elements of various origins,0 which in the end
were mingled together. Semites, Kuschites or
Kossasans have met in this region ; they
quarrelled for the dominion ; each in turn
reigned over the other ; and at last they formed
a population of a mixed character. It is a
matter of discussion which of the races has
been the oldest, and which has brought the
civilization to the other. The question has
not yet been solved ; but the fact is undisputed
that Chaldasa is one of the countries where the
different races have been fused together at the
earliest epoch.
There is a remarkable coincidence between
the events which took place in Mesopotamia
and the invasion of the Hyksos. In the year
2280, the King of the Elamites, Khudur
Nakhunta, over-ran Chalda?a, which he con-
quered and pillaged. As a trophy of his
victory, he carried to his capital the statue of
Nana, the goddess of the city of Urukb. To
this act of sacrilegious robbery we are indebted
for the knowledge of the campaign of Khudur
Nakhunta. For, 1635 years later, Assurbanipal
conquered Susa, and restored the statue to the
temple from which it had been taken. It must
have been one of the high deeds of the campaign
in which Assurbanipal took pride, for in the in-
scription which relates the defeat of Elam, he
twicerefers to the sacrilege of Khudur Nakhunta,
" who did not worship the great gods, and who
in his wickedness trusted to his own strength." 7
We see here, what we shall notice also in reference
to the Hyksos, that the chief cause of hatred and
antipathy between the two nations was diversity
of religion. They did not worship the same
gods ; it was enough to make them enemies,
and more than 1600 years afterwards, the people
of Accacl had not lost the tradition of the mis-
deeds of the Elamites against their gods.
If Mesopotamia was twenty-two centuries
B.C. the scene of great wars and bloody
invasions, it is not unreasonable to suppose
that the effect was felt as far as the banks of
the Nile. The waves raised by the storm
which came from Elam overflooded Egypt. In
Mesopotamia there have always been nomads
as well as a settled population. From there a
multitude, not much advanced in civilization,
and of mixed origin, thus justifying to a certain
degree the predicate of " ignoble " given them by
c Perrot et Chipiez, Assyrie, p. 17.
7 Lenormant, Hist. anc. iv. 92.
BUBASTIS.
Whenever the Hyksos are spoken of it is
not by their name, they are described in vague
words or even abusive epithets. They are the
J ^ fg^5f Asiatic shepherds, or 'j ^ j
the Aamu, the nomads of the East,
^> jjj*^ the shepherds, or even tj'^'^^ | the
plague or the pestilence. If therefore they had
been a distinct nation or a confederacy such as
Rameses II. had to fight, it would be strange
that no specific name should be applied to them,
and that nothing should connect them with a
definite country known to the Egyptians. We
are compelled to admit that they were an
uncivilized multitude, under the command of
chiefs, called in Egyptian jzi Kik. They did
not belong to the Semitic or to the Turanian
stock alone ; to class them exclusively in one of
these two races seems to me an error; they
must be considered as a crowd of mixed origin,
in which the two elements may be recognized.
Their inroad into Egypt was probably not
spontaneous, they were driven to the valley of
the Nile by great events which took place in
eastern Asia and led to the conquest of Egypt.
It is in eastern Asia that we must look for the
cause of the invasion of the Hyksos, and on this
obscure point an unexpected light has been
thrown by Assyriology.
The Assyriologists agree in stating that, from
a remote epoch, Chaldasa received in succession
and retained on her productive soil ethnical
elements of various origins,0 which in the end
were mingled together. Semites, Kuschites or
Kossasans have met in this region ; they
quarrelled for the dominion ; each in turn
reigned over the other ; and at last they formed
a population of a mixed character. It is a
matter of discussion which of the races has
been the oldest, and which has brought the
civilization to the other. The question has
not yet been solved ; but the fact is undisputed
that Chaldasa is one of the countries where the
different races have been fused together at the
earliest epoch.
There is a remarkable coincidence between
the events which took place in Mesopotamia
and the invasion of the Hyksos. In the year
2280, the King of the Elamites, Khudur
Nakhunta, over-ran Chalda?a, which he con-
quered and pillaged. As a trophy of his
victory, he carried to his capital the statue of
Nana, the goddess of the city of Urukb. To
this act of sacrilegious robbery we are indebted
for the knowledge of the campaign of Khudur
Nakhunta. For, 1635 years later, Assurbanipal
conquered Susa, and restored the statue to the
temple from which it had been taken. It must
have been one of the high deeds of the campaign
in which Assurbanipal took pride, for in the in-
scription which relates the defeat of Elam, he
twicerefers to the sacrilege of Khudur Nakhunta,
" who did not worship the great gods, and who
in his wickedness trusted to his own strength." 7
We see here, what we shall notice also in reference
to the Hyksos, that the chief cause of hatred and
antipathy between the two nations was diversity
of religion. They did not worship the same
gods ; it was enough to make them enemies,
and more than 1600 years afterwards, the people
of Accacl had not lost the tradition of the mis-
deeds of the Elamites against their gods.
If Mesopotamia was twenty-two centuries
B.C. the scene of great wars and bloody
invasions, it is not unreasonable to suppose
that the effect was felt as far as the banks of
the Nile. The waves raised by the storm
which came from Elam overflooded Egypt. In
Mesopotamia there have always been nomads
as well as a settled population. From there a
multitude, not much advanced in civilization,
and of mixed origin, thus justifying to a certain
degree the predicate of " ignoble " given them by
c Perrot et Chipiez, Assyrie, p. 17.
7 Lenormant, Hist. anc. iv. 92.