centre in Egypt during the Middle Kingdom. Throughout the period, rulers undertook developmental projects turning Faiyum into an agricultural, religious, and resort-like centre. The oasis was located south-west of Memphis offering arable land centred around Lake Moeris, a natural body of water. Senusret II initiated a project to exploit the marshy region's natural resources for hunting and fishing, a project continued by his successors and which "matured" during the reign of his grandson Amenemhat III. To set off this project, Senusret II developed an irrigation system with a dyke and a network of canals which siphoned water from Lake Moeris. The land reclaimed in this project was then farmed. Cults honouring the crocodile god Sobek were prominent at the time. Activities outside Egypt Senusret II's reign ushered in a period of peace and prosperity, with no recorded military campaigns and the proliferation of trade between Egypt and the Near-East. Around the same time, parties of Western Asiatic foreigners visiting the Pharaoh with gifts are recorded, as in the tomb paintings of 12th-dynasty official Khnumhotep II, who also served under Senusret III. These foreigners, possibly Canaanites or Bedouins, are labelled as Aamu (), including the leading man with a Nubian ibex labelled as Abisha the Hyksos (𓋾𓈎𓈉 ḥḳꜣ-ḫꜣsw, Heqa-kasut for "Hyksos"), the first known instance of the name "Hyksos". Succession There is an absence of serious evidence for a co-regency between Senusret II and Senusret III. Murnane identifies that the only existing evidence for a coregency of Senusret II and III is a scarab with both kings names inscribed on it. The association can be explained as being the result of retroactive dating where Senusret II's final regnal year was absorbed into Senusret III's first one, as would be supported by contemporaneous evidence from the Turin Canon which give Senusret II a regnal duration of 19 full regnal years and a partial one. A dedicatory inscription celebrating the resumption of rituals begun by Senusret II and III, and a papyrus with entries identifying Senusret II's nineteenth regnal year and Senusret III's first regnal year are scant evidence and do not necessitate a coregency. Murnane argues that if there was a coregency, it could not have lasted more than a few months. The evidence from the papyrus document is now obviated by the fact that the document has been securely dated to Year 19 of Senusret III and Year 1 of Amenemhet