In political terms, the First Intermediate Period covers the Ninth, the Tenth, and the first half of the Eleventh Dynasty. According to Manetho, the former two originated in Herakleopolis, while the Eleventh Dynasty was a competing line of rulers from Thebes. The latter were initially not kings, but merely nomarchs responsible for the 4th Upper Egyptian nome, who gradually managed to take hold of southern Upper Egypt as far north as the 10th nome. By this time they had begun to adopt the pharaonic style, thus posing as a second royal line within Egypt. This situation endured for almost a century: during the reigns of the Theban kings Antef I, Antef II, Antef III, and the early years of Mentuhotep II, their Herakleopolitan opponents remained in power in central and northern Egypt.
The definition of the First Intermediate Period has long been based on negative criteria. The term itself suggests it was little more than an interlude between the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom. Its characteristics are often said to include phenomena such as social disruption, economic distress, environmental catastrophes like low Niles, famines, artistic decline, administrative chaos, declining royal power, and so on, but many of the alleged catastrophic elements lack any proof. The environmental explanation first ventured by Bell, popularized by Butzer, and still defended by Hasan, is undermined by recent archaeological research suggesting that Nile flood levels did not dramatically decrease in the late Old Kingdom (Moeller 2005a). Also, it now seems that, at least in parts of Egypt, the First Intermediate Period was not just an era of economic decline but perhaps rather one of a different distribution of wealth among the population (Seidlmayer 1987). It is, however, certain that, from the perspective of the central government, there was a crisis. The degree to which it had a grip on provincial areas clearly decreased markedly (Muller-Wollerman 1986: 72-98). In the absence of strong royal involvement in local administration the importance of regional chiefs increased. Some of them were simply nomarchs such as had already been in charge before the First Intermediate Period (see above, p. 76ff), but other options were also possible. Some ‘‘supernomarchs’’ might, for instance, assume responsibility for groups of nomes, while other local chiefs only led smaller entities within what had formerly been a nome. The most impressive account of this state of affairs occurs in the early First Intermediate Period tomb autobiography of Ankhtify at Moalla. A scene in the tomb contains a label mentioning a king Neferkare, but it is uncertain whether he was a First Intermediate Period king. Ankhtify was the nomarch of the 3rd Upper Egyptian nome, but he claims also to have assumed the rulership of the 1st and 2nd nomes. Moreover, he points out that the 4th and 5th nomes (Thebes and Koptos) had developed a similar form of political unity or, at least, a military alliance which waged war against him. The same texts also describe a development in the opposite direction; for the ‘‘general of Armant,’’ a city of the Theban nome with which Ankhtify was at war, is described as a more or less independent ruler opposing the Thebans. Clearly a part of the 4th nome had split itself off. Contemporary texts illustrate that the phenomenon was not confined to the area referred to by Ankhtify (Willems 2008: 36-41).
The Ankhtify texts also mention low Nile floods leading to catastrophic famines. In these conditions he intervened energetically, feeding not only the starving population of his own town but also that of neighbouring settlements. Other texts describe a similar state of affairs. This has given rise to the idea that wars, famines, political fragmentation, and the occasional growth of larger polities were a general feature of the period, but, at least to some extent, the descriptions may offer literary topoi rather than historical facts. For instance, while Ankhtify states that he had fed many towns in an extensive region, his contemporary Iti claims to have kept alive Ankhtify’s capital Hefat (stela Cairo CG 20001). It is unlikely that both texts accurately reflect the truth. Rather, they may have aimed at profiling the local ruler as a patron caring for his social environment (Franke 2006). New architectural models developed in tomb architecture, facilitating the burial of regional chiefs surrounded by their retinue, must reflect similar patron-client relationships (Seidlmayer 1990: 398-412). The fragmentation of the Old Kingdom state is, therefore, not so much symptomatic of social disintegration but rather of the emergence of a new type of society, which was as hierarchical as the Old Kingdom had been, but with the difference that the focus of attention was now the regional elite rather than the royal court. It stands to reason that this new societal model must somehow relate to the decreased penetration of central state authority in the provinces.
The new interpretation of First Intermediate Period tomb autobiographies as writings bolstering the prestige of rural elites has added a new dimension to the way these ‘‘historical’’ documents are read. However, I believe that the sudden occurrence of themes like economic disaster, civil war, and famine is unlikely to be only a matter of literary topoi. The scale of the conditions described suggests that they cannot have been entirely fictitious (cf. Morenz 1998). Moreover, the fact that these events happened predominantly in southern Upper Egypt suggests that the situation there may have been more serious than elsewhere. This explains a number of facts that would otherwise be hard to account for (see below).
It is hardly possible to write a history of the First Intermediate Period. There are no administrative documents, hardly any letters, and very few royal historical inscriptions (only Theban). Perhaps to compensate for this dearth of evidence, two literary texts have been taken as key sources: the Admonitions of Ipuwer and the Instruction for King Merikare. The former is the most important representative of the Lamentation literary genre. In this text a man called Ipuwer complains in vivid terms that Egypt has been plunged into chaos. It has long been assumed that it reflects the situation in the First Intermediate Period, but recent scholarship agrees on a far more recent composition date not before the late Twelfth Dynasty. Also, there is no compelling reason to believe it had the intention of drawing a picture of the First Intermediate Period (Burkard, Thissen 2003: 119-31; Enmarch 2005). As regards the Instruction for Merikare, no uncertainty exists about the historical period it purports to reflect. Merikare was one of the last Herakleopolitan kings, if not the last. The text alleges that it was written by Merikare’s father who gives advice to his son on the policy to be followed with respect to the Theban kings, to Egypt’s north-eastern border where foreign nomad groups were apparently infiltrating, and to the Egyptian population. There can be no doubt that many passages contain at least kernels of historical truth, although this is no longer generally taken for granted. Quack even suggests that it was written under Senwosret I, and that it reflects political sensitivities of that time rather than the realities of the First Intermediate Period (Quack 1992), but he only offers circumstantial evidence to this effect, and others prefer to take the historical information it provides as realistic (e. g. Darnell 1997: 107; cf, in general, Burkard, Thissen 2003: 98-103).
Apart from these literary texts our written sources mainly consist of tomb inscriptions (for which see Schenkel 1965; 1976; Gabra 1976; Mostafa 1985; 1987), but the biased nature of these hardly needs to be stressed. Moreover, most are only brief, and more often than not it is impossible to reconstruct longer chains of events from them. The problem is most acute in the area ruled by the Herakleopolitans. The only significant group of texts referring to them derives from Tombs II, III, and IV at Assiut. These long inscriptions show the close ties which the nomarchs Kheti I, It-ib, and Kheti II maintained with the Herakleopolitan court. They also describe military encounters with the troops of the Theban Eleventh Dynasty, the advance of which, for a time, seems to have been stopped by these nomarchs (Kahl 2007; Zitman 2010).
Textual evidence from the Theban realm is far more extensive (for the major sources and source groups see Clere, Vandier 1948; Fischer 1964 and 1968; Vandier 1950; Fischer 1961 and Kubisch 2000; Schenkel 1976; for other sources see Schenkel 1965). Close reading of this material, coupled with the interpretation of temple reliefs from Dendera, Gebelein, and the Deir el-Bahri temple of Mentuhotep II, offers a fairly clear picture of how early First Intermediate Period Theban nomarchs first began to expand their territory northwards (5th Nome), how these conditions led to military conflict with Ankhtify of Moalla, and how the Thebans finally took the reins in what had been Ankhtify’s realm (nomes 1-3) and, in a separate move, the 6th Upper Egyptian nome. Shortly after, the Theban nomarch Antef assumed the royal style (Antef I Sehertawy). Textual evidence from the time of his successor Antef II Wahankh, who reigned 51 years, shows that the Theban kingdom gradually advanced further north as far as the 10th Upper Egyptian nome. After the brief reign of Antef III followed the 51 year rule of Mentuhotep II, who finally reunited Egypt (Gestermann 1987; Postel 2004).
The late Old Kingdom kings had transformed provincial rule (see above, p. 76ff) by creating a new class of regional administrators, i. e. the nomarchs (hry-tp n spAt / NAME OF NOME). Although these functionaries are not attested everywhere, they existed in most Upper Egyptian provinces and continue to appear throughout Upper Egypt in early First Intermediate Period documents. However, in the areas conquered by the Theban rulers in the early First Intermediate the evidence for their existence gradually stops. No such development is observed in the Herakleopolitan realm, where the nomarch title continues to appear on tomb walls in provincial cemeteries. Gestermann is doubtless right that this reflects a dramatic change in administrative policy by the Thebans.
It is not hard to see what may have motivated this step. As we have seen, early First Intermediate Period texts from southern Egypt frequently refer to warlike encounters between neighbouring nomes. By curbing the power of local chiefs in the newly conquered areas the fledgling Theban state created a centralized administrative system, a process which is still reflected in the huge royal cemetery at el-Tarif in northern Thebes. The kings built here gigantic saff-tombs for themselves which consisted of a facade made up of a row (Arabic saff) of pillars with a large courtyard in front. These complexes include dozens of tombs of courtiers besides that of the king. In this manner, the saff-tombs are the typically Theban version of the First Intermediate Period hierarchical tombs mentioned above (see p. 83). Surrounding the royal tombs there are many smaller, but still monumental, saff-tombs that belonged to important state officials (Petrie 1909; Arnold 1976a). Conversely, elite cemeteries elsewhere in southern Egypt seem almost to disappear. This suggests that the elite lost its regional roots, being concentrated in Thebes, probably in order to bring strife between regional chiefs to a halt (Willems 2008: 36-65).
Textual evidence allows us to draw some of the broad historical outlines of the First Intermediate Period, but it is clear that the picture is both incomplete and misleading. It is, therefore, vital that archaeological sources are analysed in conjunction with the texts. However, archaeological finds are often used merely to underpin impressions already gained from the texts, e. g. the emergence of a large amount of vast First Intermediate Period cemeteries has been related to the conflicts so frequently mentioned in the texts (O’Connor 1972; 1974, but see Seidlmayer 1987). Of course, this is methodologically ill-founded. If the people had not died as a result of warfare, they would have died of natural causes somewhat later, and the time-lag cannot, in view of their low life expectancy, have been long enough to be visible in the archaeological record. Likewise, weaponry found in tombs of men is often explained against the background of the warlike conditions that would have prevailed, but it is more realistic to assume that the tomb assemblages reflect living conditions in far more indirect ways. Several tomb scenes depicting burial rituals show how funerary equipment was brought to the tomb (Willems 1988: 200-6). The selection of objects clearly follows a ritual paradigm rather than directly reflecting the occupational activities of the deceased. In poor tombs, the ritual was simplified, no doubt for economic reasons, but the selection of objects still seems to have been paradigmatic and not to have directly reflected the life of the deceased. Men usually received weapons, women cosmetic items. According to Seidlmayer this prescribed selection corresponds to the way owners of First Intermediate Period elite tombs are usually depicted: men are portrayed through their weaponry as persons of authority, the women by their luxury dress and cosmetic equipment as ladies (2001b: 231-40). These are the social roles the deceased aspired to play in the hereafter.
Archaeological remains also suggest that we should not overrate our knowledge of First Intermediate Period history. For instance, at Dara, 20 km north of Assiut, there is a mysterious cemetery whose main structures date to the early First Intermediate (Weill 1958). The huge superstructure M there is of truly ‘‘royal’’ size, and it occupies a commanding position overlooking the entire floodplain in this part of Egypt. This building must have belonged to a person of great authority, but we have no idea where to locate him in the political spectrum of his time. An inscription mentioning a king Khui was purportedly found at the site, and he has been argued to be the owner of tomb M, but the evidence is flimsy. The fact that even some political main actors elude us should warn against placing too much confidence in our historical reconstructions. Dara lies in the heartland of the Herakleopolitan kingdom, and this raises questions about the extent to which the Herakleoplitans had a firm grip even on Middle Egypt in the early First Intermediate.
Figure 5.1 Stela of the general Djari, from the Eleventh Dynasty cemetery of el-Tarif at Thebes. The stela illustrates the southern Egyptian relief style of the First Intermediate Period. The autobiographical text speaks of a war waged by the Theban king Antef II against the Herakleopolitans. After W. M. F. Petrie, Qurneh (BSE 16: London, 1909), pl. II.
World History
