From the which their, successors destroyed their monuments and chiselled out their names. Traces
tire Twelfth^ o f t h e m , however, have been found in the vicinity of their great cities in the Delta. Thus
Dynasty to a cartouche and inscription of Apepa I were discovered in the temple at Bubastis, and
Fifteeent°hthe the name and titles of Apepa II had been inscribed on a Twelfth Dynasty statue in
(Twelfth the temple of Tanis. At Bubastis also was found the lower part of a colossal statue
2t8ob.c. to of Khyan. Of minor remains there are extant a scribe’s palette with the titles of
2560 b.c.). Apepa a table of offerings dedicated by Apepa II to Set the favourite god of the
Hyksos, and scarabs of Apepa I, Khyan, Ya-gebher and several other kings who most
probably belonged to the same line.
The period of the Twelfth to the Eighteenth Dynasties is represented by specimens
from two sites, viz. Hou and Abydos. The graves belonged not to princes like those
who were buried in the cliffs of Beni-Hasan or under the mastabas round the pyramid
of Dahshur, but to people of a rank and standing very similar to those of the Sixth to the
Twelfth Dynasties whose skeletons were found at Denderah. Structurally the tombs are
of two kinds. They are either small chambers opening out of a pit some twelve to fifteen
feet deep, or they are shallow oblong trenches. The bodies were buried at full length
without any sort of mummification. The trench-graves occurred only at Hou, where for
the first time a series of objects was brought to light which could be definitely dated to the
period between the Twelfth and Eighteenth Dynasties. It was from the evidence there
obtained that it became possible to determine the exact chronological place of the
pit-graves of Abydos. One result of this more exact knowledge has been to render
it difficult to assign any of the specimens exclusively to the Twelfth Dynasty.
The excavations at Hou proved that Twelfth Dynasty traditions were carried on
unbroken throughout the entire Hyksos period, and it is only with the full development
of the Eighteenth Dynasty culture that a marked difference can be observed. So that
while the trained eye -of the archaeologist can indeed trace the shading of the Twelfth
Dynasty into the Fourteenth, and can clearly distinguish the work of the Fourteenth
Dynasty from that of the New Empire, yet it has been practically impossible to apply such
minuteness of differentiation on an extensive scale. The whole of this series then must
be considered as belonging to a period intermediate between the Middle and the New
Empire; the upper limit being the latter part or perhaps the end of the Twelfth Dynasty,
while the lower limit falls at some point, which cannot be more precisely fixed, later than
the Fourteenth and appreciably earlier than the Eighteenth.
The -evidence of dating may be epitomized as follows. In the cemetery at Hou
scarabs were found of two Twelfth Dynasty kings, viz. Usertesen I and Amenemhat III,
while there was nothing indicative of an earlier date either in inscriptions or tomb-
furniture. This may be considered to fix the upper limit as not earlier than the Twelfth
Dynasty, though it does not amount to quite conclusive proof of actual coincidence with
the Twelfth Dynasty since fine scarabs were possibly treated as heirlooms. Twelfth
Dynasty pottery was common, and other typical products of the same dynasty occurred,
though less frequently. A certain amount of pottery was of regular Eighteenth Dynasty
forms, and various other objects showed a close affinity with Eighteenth Dynasty style.
The whole cemetery was quite homogeneous in character; and the Twelfth Dynasty
types were found in combination with those of the Eighteenth, which excludes the
hypothesis of a mere juxtaposition of Middle Empire and New Empire graves. The
final and conclusive evidence was given by the inscription on a fine dagger, which was
engraved with the cartouche of Suaz-en-R a, who is known as a king of the Fourteenth or
one of the succeeding Dynasties. That scarabs of Ya-geb-her and Shesha were found is
confirmatory of the dating assigned to the cemetery, for the place of these kings, is now
generally admitted to be between the Twelfth and Eighteenth Dynasties.
The characteristics of this intermediate time having been established by the excavations
at Hou, the tombs subsequently discovered at Abydos admitted of dating by the
evidence of pottery and small objects. Nothing was brought to light which was inconsistent
with the results obtained at Hou. One difficulty, however, presented itself which
was absent on the latter site. As the digging of pits for a sepulchral chamber was costly
and troublesome, the Middle Empire pits were often usurped by people of the Eighteenth
Dynasty. Either the new burial was merely intruded beside the old one, or the original
owner was entirely dispossessed. Consequently it was necessary to be very careful in
discriminating, and the merits of every single case were examined and discussed on the
spot. Not one specimen was accepted without a thoroughly satisfactory guarantee of
date. There are further included in the measurements a few specimens (detailed in the
Appendix) which came from a quite peculiar class of burials. These occurred at Hou and
were named, not altogether happily, ‘ Pan-graves.’ They were shallow holes, circular or
oval, and not more than two feet in depth. The bodies were laid in a semi-contracted
position or were disarticulated, and in one case the bones were wrapped in cloth and
sheepskin, as was the custom in Predynastic times. The contents of the graves consisted
partly of well-known Twelfth Dynasty vases, ring-stands, and beads, partly of such wholly
peculiar objects as the painted frontlets of animals and bracelets made of slips of shell.
With these were also bowls of an incised black ware and black-topped red pots, all of
which were similarly unknown in contemporary Egyptian manufactures. The } Pangraves
I therefore present a curious problem. Their date is fully established, but who and
what were the people to whom they belonged ? The pottery so closely resembles the
Predynastic ware in technique as to have deceived more than one museum expert. Is it
to be supposed that there was a sudden revival of the Predynastic art ? and if so, to what
cause must it be attributed ? Until further examples are discovered it is difficult to make
a definite pronouncement. Obviously the occurrence of a score of graves of a character
hitherto unknown is insufficient ground on which to base a theory of invasion, and it is
safest for the present to suppose that the ‘ Pan-grave ’ people were skilled potters who, if
they were not natives, had been imported to supply a fashionable taste; much as in
mediaeval days Byzantine mosaicists went to Cordova or Italian painters visited the
court of the Sultan.
From the contents of the tombs of the Twelfth and Fifteenth Dynasties we may
obtain an idea of the tastes and the resources of their owners. The little stone vases two
or three inches in length which were used for perfumes or for antimony, as well as the
other accessories of the toilet, are made most commonly of alabaster, though serpentine
and basalt are not unusual, and blue marble (the employment of which is peculiar to this
period) was a very favourite material. The funnel shape is almost the only type which
survives from the Sixth Dynasty, while globular and pear-shaped vases, spouted
perfume dishes, and flat-bottomed kohl-pots with swelling sides, are new and characteristic.
Beads were in general use and were manufactured of blue or green glazed frit, of
clay, carnelian and amethyst. Except for a few sporadic instances in the Archaic time, the
use of amethyst is wholly peculiar to the Twelfth and immediately succeeding Dynasties.
Some of the most beautiful glazed beads, fluted globes of as much as half an inch in
diameter and of a rich blue colour, are also only known in this period.
From the
beginning of
the Twelfth
Dynasty to
the end of the
Fifteenth
(Twelfth
Dynasty,
2780 B.C. to
2560 b.c.). ,