Naville, Edouard: Bubastis: (1887 - 1889) (London, 1891)

THE EIGHTE]

Mesopotamia, and that the conquest of Egypt
by the Shepherds was the consequence of the
inroads of the Elamites into the valley of the
Tigris and the Euphrates.

THE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY.

It is undoubtedly to the kings of the eighteenth
dynasty that we must give the credit of having
begun the war against the Hyksos, and having
embarked in a struggle which ended in the
deliverance of the country from the yoke of the
foreign dynasty. However, notwithstanding
their great and persevering efforts, Ahmes and
Sekenen-Ra did not succeed in achieving this
arduous task. The invaders were finally driven
out by the kings who followed, and who were
not their immediate successors. The writers
who have discussed this subject seem to me
to have attached too much importance to the
campaign related in the famous inscription of
Ahmes. The general tells us that under King
Ahmes I. the city of Avaris was besieged and
conquered, and that the expedition was pushed
as far as Sharohan, on the frontier of Palestine.
This narrative, engraved in his tomb, has often
been considered as describing the final deliver-
ance of Egypt, which, however, does not seem to
have been realized as early as the seventeenth
dynasty. It is probable that if the Delta had
been occupied in a stable and permanent manner
by the kings of the seventeenth dynasty, and by
the first sovereign of the eighteenth, some
traces of their dominion would have remained in
the country, whereas, on the contrary, it is a
remarkable fact that, before the excavations at
Bubastis, no monument of their time had been
discovered in the Delta. In every place where
excavations have been made, either by our
predecessors or by ourselves, if not statues or
larger monuments, at least names have been
discovered of the twelfth dynasty, of the
thirteenth, or even of much more ancient kings

TTH DYNASTY. 29

belonging to the fourth or the fifth; but nothing
whatever of the seventeenth or of the eighteenth.
Except the serpent of Benha, now in the
museum of Ghizeh, and which dates from
Amenophis III., before our discoveries at Bubas-
tis no monument of the Delta could be attributed
with certainty to those princes. It would be
extraordinary, however, that wherever an ex-
cavation has been made, at Tanis, Pithom,
Nebesheh, Tell Mokdam, Khataanab, Tell el
Yahoodieh, Saft el Henneb, especially in the
localities where ancient monuments have
been discovered, precisely those of the seven-
teenth and eighteenth dynasties should have
disappeared. But we have discovered at Bu-
bastis AmenopMs II., and two of his successors ;
and at the same time the fellaheen unearthed
at Samanood a large tablet bearing the names
of Amenophis IV. and. Horemheb.

The explanation of these facts seems to me
quite natural. In an inscription at Stabl Antar,
which describes her high deeds, the queen
Hashepsu, the sister and guardian of the
younger brother, Thothmes III., speaks in this
way :1 I restored what was in ruins, and I built
up again ivhat had remained {uncompleted) when
the Aamu were in the midst of Egypt of the
North, and in the city of Hauar, and when the

Shepherds^^Jp'1^^^^ ^jkamong them had

destroyed the {ancient) worlcs. They reigned ig-
noring Ba, and disobeying his divine commands,
until I sat doivn on the throne of Ba. Making
allowance for the exaggeration which is usual
in an Egyptian inscription, the passage seems to
establish that order was far from being restored
in theDeltawhen the queen ascended the throne;
the edifices ruined by the Aamu, the subjects of
Apepi, had not yet been rebuilt, and probably
an administrative organization could hardly be
said to exist. However, before her reign,
Ahmes, Amenophis I., Thothmes I., had carried

1 Golenischeff, Eecueil de Travaux, vol. iii. p. 2, vol. vi. 1.
36 et suiv. De Cara, Hyksos, p. 271.