First Intermediate Period of Egypt

The fall of the Old Kingdom is often described as a period of chaos and disorder by some literature in the First Intermediate Period, but mostly by the literature of successive eras of ancient Egyptian history. The causes that brought about the downfall of the Old Kingdom are numerous, but some are merely hypothetical. One reason that is often quoted is the extremely long reign of Pepi II, the last major pharaoh of the 6th Dynasty. He ruled from his childhood until he was very elderly, possibly in his 90s, but the length of his reign is uncertain. He outlived many of his anticipated heirs, thereby creating problems with succession.[6] Thus, the regime of the Old Kingdom disintegrated amidst this disorganization.[7][8] Another major problem was the rise in power of the provincial nomarchs. Towards the end of the Old Kingdom the positions of the nomarchs had become hereditary, so families often held onto the position of power in their respective provinces. As these nomarchs grew increasingly powerful and influential, they became more independent from the king.[9] They erected tombs in their own domains and often raised armies. The rise of these numerous nomarchs inevitably created conflicts between neighboring provinces, often resulting in intense rivalries and warfare between them. A third reason for the dissolution of centralized kingship that is mentioned was the low levels of the Nile inundation which may have been caused by a drier climate, resulting in lower crop yields bringing about famine across ancient Egypt;[10] see 4.2 kiloyear event. There is however no consensus on this subject. According to Manning, there is no relationship with low Nile floods. "State collapse was complicated, but unrelated to Nile flooding history."[11]

The Seventh and Eighth Dynasties are often overlooked because very little is known about the rulers of these two periods. Manetho, a historian and priest from the Ptolemaic era, describes 70 kings who ruled for 70 days.[12] This is almost certainly an exaggeration meant to describe the disorganization of the kingship during this time period. The Seventh Dynasty may have been an oligarchy comprising powerful officials of the Sixth Dynasty based in Memphis who attempted to retain control of the country.[13] The Eighth dynasty rulers, claiming to be the descendants of the Sixth Dynasty kings, also ruled from Memphis.[14] Little is known about these two dynasties since very little textual or architectural evidence survives to describe the period. However, a few artifacts have been found, including scarabs that have been attributed to king Neferkare II of the Seventh Dynasty, as well as a green jasper cylinder of Syrian influence which has been credited to the Eighth Dynasty.[15] Also, a small pyramid believed to have been constructed by King Ibi of the Eighth Dynasty has been identified at Saqqara.[16] Several kings, such as Iytjenu, are only attested once and their position remains unknown.

Sometime after the obscure reign of the Seventh and Eighth Dynasty kings a group of rulers arose in Heracleopolis in Lower Egypt.[12] These kings comprise the Ninth and Tenth Dynasties, each with nineteen listed rulers. The Heracleopolitan kings are conjectured to have overwhelmed the weak Memphite rulers to create the Ninth Dynasty, but there is virtually no archaeology elucidating the transition, which seems to have involved a drastic reduction in population in the Nile Valley.

The founder of the Ninth Dynasty, Akhthoes or Akhtoy, is often described as an evil and violent ruler, most notably in Manetho's writing. Possibly the same as Wahkare Khety I, Akhthoes was described as a king who caused much harm to the inhabitants of Egypt, was seized with madness, and was eventually killed by a crocodile.[17] This may have been a fanciful tale, but Wahkare is listed as a king in the Turin Canon. Kheti I was succeeded by Kheti II, also known as Meryibre. Little is certain of his reign, but a few artifacts bearing his name survive. It may have been his successor, Kheti III, who would bring some degree of order to the Delta, though the power and influence of these Ninth Dynasty kings was seemingly insignificant compared to the Old Kingdom pharaohs.[18]

A distinguished line of nomarchs arose in Siut (or Asyut), a powerful and wealthy province in the south of the Heracleopolitan kingdom. These warrior princes maintained a close relationship with the kings of the Heracleopolitan royal household, as evidenced by the inscriptions in their tombs. These inscriptions provide a glimpse at the political situation that was present during their reigns. They describe the Siut nomarchs digging canals, reducing taxation, reaping rich harvests, raising cattle herds, and maintaining an army and fleet.[17] The Siut province acted as a buffer state between the northern and southern rulers, and the Siut princes would bear the brunt of the attacks from the Theban kings.

The South was dominated by warlords, the best-known of whom is Ankhtifi, whose tomb was discovered in 1928 at Mo’alla, 30 km south of Luxor. He was a nomarch or provincial governor of the nome based at Hierakonpolis, but he then expanded to the south and conquered a second nome centred on Edfu. He then tried to expand to the north to conquer the nome centred on Thebes, but was unsuccessful, as they refused to come out and fight.

His tomb is highly decorated and contains an extremely informative autobiography in which he paints a picture of Egypt riven by hunger and famine from which he, the great Ankhtifi, had rescued them. ‘I gave bread to the hungry and did not allow anyone to die’. This economic disaster is much debated by modern commentators: it seems that every ruler made similar claims. But it seems clear that for all practical purposes, Ankhtifi was the ruler and there was no higher power to whom he owed allegiance. The unity of Egypt had broken down.

It has been suggested that an invasion of Upper Egypt occurred contemporaneously with the founding of the Heracleopolitan kingdom, which would establish the Theban line of kings, constituting the Eleventh and Twelfth Dynasties.[19] This line of kings is believed to have been descendants of Intef, who was the nomarch of Thebes, often called the "keeper of the Door of the South".[20] He is credited for organizing Upper Egypt into an independent ruling body in the south, although he himself did not appear to have tried to claim the title of king. However, his successors in the Eleventh and Twelfth Dynasties would later do so for him.[21] One of them, Intef II, begins the assault on the north, particularly at Abydos.

By around 2060 BC, Intef II had defeated the governor of Nekhen, allowing further expansion south, toward Elephantine. His successor, Intef III, completed the conquest of Abydos, moving into Middle Egypt against the Heracleopolitan kings.[22] The first three kings of the Eleventh Dynasty (all named Intef) were, therefore, also the last three kings of the First Intermediate Period and would be succeeded by a line of kings who were all called Mentuhotep. Mentuhotep II, also known as Nebhepetra, would eventually defeat the Heracleopolitan kings around 2033 BC and unify the country to continue the Eleventh Dynasty, bringing Egypt into the Middle Kingdom.[22]