The Thirteenth Dynasty

Since very few monuments of Thirteenth Dynasty kings exist, chronological reconstructions have to rely almost entirely on the Turin Canon which lists dozens of kings, implying that one monarch followed another in rapid succession. Where reign lengths are recorded, these are usually very brief. Although much has been written about how the text should be interpreted, the first account to take into consideration the fibres of the papyrus only appeared in 1997. It showed that some fragments had hitherto been misplaced, rendering much theory-building of earlier date obsolete (Ryholt 1997: 19-33, 69-93). However, there is agreement on some points: that the high speed with which one king succeeded another contrasts sharply with the situation in the preceding centuries; that many inscriptions make clear that several kings were of non-royal descent; and that the administrative model established under Senwosret III and Amenemhet III continued to flourish in the 13th Dynasty. Thus, while the paucity of royal monuments and the rapid royal succession might suggest political problems, the sources at the same time seem to reflect administrative stability (for possible explanations of this paradox see Hayes 1955: 144-9; Quirke 1991: 123-39).

The Thirteenth Dynasty went through three successive phases. During the first 50 years or so, the country was ruled by some 25 kings (Ryholt 1997: 296). Unfortunately, informative texts are few and far between, only providing us with ‘‘snapshots’’ (see Helck 1983) so that writing the history of the period is well-nigh impossible. Matters are slightly more favorable for the next five kings (Sobkhotep III [according to Ryholt’s numbering], Neferhotep I, Sahathor, Sobkhotep IV and V) who have left behind a comparatively impressive monumental record, but, even for them, the sources are too limited to yield an overall historical picture (Ryholt 1997: 297-298). For the last thirty rulers the record is worse still, and even their names are mostly unknown. Egyptologists nowadays assume that the end of the dynasty coincided with the moment the royal court in Itjtawy was abandoned and removed once more to Thebes.

The considerations which must have led to this momentous decision are not clear, but increasing pressure exerted by non-Egyptian rulers living in the Eastern Nile Delta is likely to have played a major part. We have already seen that, as of the late Twelfth Dynasty, increasing numbers of foreigners from the Levant began to settle in Egypt (see p. 95). In the eastern Nile Delta, closest to the Levant, the impact was particularly strong. The archaeological record shows that large settlements emerged there with a predominantly un-Egyptian (although partly Egyptianized) population the largest of which, at Tell ed-Daba, was to develop during the Second Intermediate Period into the Hyksos capital of Avaris (see below, p. 94). It is clear that these Levantines gradually became politically the dominant factor in northern Egypt, posing grave threats to the Thirteenth Dynasty court at Itj-tawy, but when and how they began to assert their independence has given rise to much debate.

The chronological position of the Fourteenth Dynasty, which according to Manetho originated in the Delta town of Chois, has been a key problem in this discussion. Unfortunately Manetho does not mention any Fourteenth Dynasty king by name. The corresponding part of the Turin Canon mentions a large number of kings separating the Thirteenth Dynasty from the Hyksos, but of these, only king Nehsy is known from contemporary sources. Scarab seals and a few more monumental remains have, however, produced royal names ofSemitic origin, and some ofthese seem also to antedate the Hyksos.

Ryholt has argued for a very long Fourteenth Dynasty, which would have begun as early as the late Twelfth Dynasty. The royal succession after the demise of Amenemhet III would have given rise to political instability, enabling the foreign settlers in the eastern Nile Delta to assert their independence. Apart from infringing on Egypt’s territorial inegrity, this would also have blocked trade links with the Levant. This in its turn led to economic decline, explaining the political instability of the Thirteenth Dynasty (Ryholt 1997: 293-99). For this reason, he ranges this dynasty with the Second Intermediate Period rather than the Middle Kingdom.

The evidence is unfortunately desperately inadequate. Ryholt’s evidence effectively boils down to royal names on seal impressions from two archaeological contexts in Shiqmona and Uronarti, and his archaeological interpretations of these are very controversial (Ben-Tor, Allen, Allen 1999: 47-74). On current evidence it seems wisest to assume that the Fourteenth Dynasty did not emerge prior to the late Thirteenth Dynasty, and that this development, heralding the advent of the Hyksos, caused the end of the Middle Kingdom.

FURTHER READING

For discussions of the absolute chronology of the Middle Kingdom consult Krauss in Hornung, Krauss, Warburton 2006: 395-431 and Schneider 2008. For a compilation of (translated) autobiographical and other ‘‘historical’’ texts of the First Intermediate Period see Schenkel 1965. The basic study on the archaeological chronology of the First Intermediate Period (up to the early Twelfth Dynasty) is Seidlmayer 1990. On the basis mainly of the long typological pottery sequence of the region of Qaw-Matmar he argues for a ‘‘long’’ First Intermediate Period lasting almost two centuries, as opposed to the ‘‘short’’ First Intermediate Period (suggested by Schenkel 1962). Conclusive evidence for either of the two is lacking. For the political history of the First Intermediate Period and the early Middle Kingdom see the important studies by Gestermann 1987; 2008: 1-15; and Willems 2008. The latter volume also offers a broad perspective on the cultural history, religion, and provincial administration in the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom. There are numerous monographs on the reigns of individual Pharaohs. The most important of these are Obsomer 1995 and Tallet 2005. Apart from giving historical overviews of single reigns, these books address wider issues like the institution of the coregency. A recent general overview of the Middle Kingdom is provided by Grajetzki 2006. For the administration of the late Middle Kingdom see Quirke 2004. The best general overviews of the late Middle Kingdom can be found in Ryholt 1997.