2 of 2

Write now Article Tools

When scholars consider the Second Intermediate Period (SIP) in Egyptian history, they usually conclude that it was a time of turmoil and rapid change. Anthony Spalinger, for example, writes that the SIP is commonly seen as a "dark age" of political instability. For sure, the period 1782-1570 BC was marked by a high turnover rate in kings, with few rulers exercising dominance over Egypt as had been the case during the Middle Kingdom. But other more interesting factors were at work, apart from power struggles between provincial lords.

Most notable was the influx of Asiatic peoples known as the Hyksos. It is commonly believed that these ethnically distinct nomads, using their superior technology and organization, were able to take control of much of lower and middle Egypt. What we know of the Egyptians suggests they were often xenophobic, so the presence of the Hyksos Empire, which stretched from 'the Euphrates to the first cataract of the Nile', is bound to have been viewed with hostility. The general sentiment appears to have been favourable for an uprising. Indeed that is precisely what occurred under local rulers Seqenenre, Kamose and Ahmose I (and particularly the latter), who across the span of decades managed to drive the Hyksos from power, and then conducted campaigns against the Nubians.

What was the impact of the Hyksos on Egyptian society and state? In this essay, I suggest that two aspects of the Hyksos legacy are particularly noteworthy. Firstly, there is their introduction of Syro-Palestinian weaponry, and especially the chariot and composite bow. Secondly, it is fascinating to observe how the expulsion of these "rulers of foreign lands" by the Seventeenth Dynasty set in motion a process that contributed to the militarization of ancient Egypt. Arguably, the strength of the Egyptian empire during the New Kingdom was due in part to this aforementioned experience.

THE IMPACT OF THE HYKSOS

During the Old Kingdom, the militaristic element in society was not as powerful as the civil bureaucracy and priesthood. As Ian Shaw points out, there was no permanent standing army, and conscription was on an ad hoc basis. Far from being centralized in the hands of a few elites, control over the military increasingly devolved to local governors, a tendency that became obvious during the unrest of the First Intermediate Period. Although the Middle Kingdom saw "a more ambitious and systematic" approach to military organization with the rise of a semi-professional

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Ancient Egypt: The history of the Second Intermediate Period and the Hyksos?
We want to hear your view. Write now!