THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY a 415. The plan of these volumes does not include dynastic discussion, but a few reasons must nevertheless be offered for the order of the kings here adopted. Any arrangement of the Eleventh Dynasty must proceed from the fact that the war between the Heracleopolitans and Thebans was still going on in the reign of Horus-Wahenekh-Intef. Now, a great-grandson of a Thinite official of this king erected his tombstone at Abydos in the thirty-third year of Sesostris I (§§ 529 ff.). It was therefore not less than four generations from the reign of the said Intef to the thirty-third year of Sesostris I. Allowing 40 years to the generation, this period was some 160 years in length, of which 53 years fell in the Twelfth Dynasty. The close of this Intef's reign was therefore not later than about 100 years before the accession of the Twelfth Dynasty. The war between Thebes and the North, therefore, continued perhaps as late as 100 years before the accession of the Twelfth Dynasty, and WahenekhIntef's accession was not later than 150 years before the end of the Eleventh Dynasty, as we know that he reigned at least 50 years (§ 423). 416. Now, the Turin Papyrus gives 160 years as the length of the Eleventh Dynasty, which corresponds admirably with the above result, viz., that the Eleventh Dynasty must have succeeded the Heracleopolitans at the latest 150 years before the rise of the Twelfth Dynasty. The Turin Papyrus had a Other indications will be found in connection with the following translations. See also my essay, "New Light on the History of the Eleventh Dynasty," American Journal of Semitic Languages, XXI, 163 ff. bThe number is 160+x, the x not being more than 9 years, of course. That this total refers to the Eleventh Dynasty is perfectly certain; it immediately precedes the heading of the Twelfth Dynasty, and does not reach back to a beginning point behind the Eleventh Dynasty, because there is a summation preceding the seven kings of the Eleventh Dynasty. See Wilkinson, fragg. 61 and 64. seven kings in the Eleventh Dynasty, of whom NibkhrureMentuhotep, Senekhkere-Mentuhotep, and a lost name at the end were the last three. The last king, whose name is lost, was, of course, one who ruled the whole country, and whose reign shows no trace of war with the North. Among the remaining kings of the time the only one who clearly fulfils these conditions is Nibtowere-Mentuhotep. The second half of the dynasty is thus fairly certain. Working back from Nibkhrure-Mentuhotep, we find that he was suzerain of a vassal king, Intef (§ 424), giving us then an Intef and three Mentuhoteps as the order of this group, thus: Intef (other names unknown), Nibkhrure-Mentuhotep, Senekhkere-Mentuhotep, Nibtowere-Mentuhotep. a 417. The first and second of these three Mentuhoteps reigned not less than 74 years. The third had a prosperous reign, as the inscriptions of his second year in Hammamat show; so that the above three Mentuhoteps may easily have reigned in all 80 years, and the whole group more than this. Now, Horus-Wahenekh-Intef was still reigning some 100 years before the end of the dynasty. He therefore did not long precede the above group of four. But he never ruled north of Abydos, for on his tombstone in his fiftieth year he tells of having established his northern frontier there (423), and his treasurer, Thethi, corroborates this (8 423D). He must therefore have preceded NibhotepMentuhotep, who openly boasts of having gained the Two Lands by conquest. But as Wahenekh-Intef was succeeded by his son, a second Intef, both these Intefs must have preceded Nibhotep-Mentuhotep, forming a group of three which evidently immediately preceded the above group of four. The only other ruler of the period remaining is the aSee table on p. 197. nomarch Intef, who of course should head the line; a but he was not included in the Turin Papyrus. 418. We thus obtain seven names in the dynasty, as the Turin Papyrus prescribes. As four of these are Mentuhoteps, we have another proof that there were not more than three Intefs in the Eleventh Dynasty. structed, the dynasty is as follows: Horus-Wahenekh-Intef I Horus-Nakhtneb-Tepnefer-Intef II Nibhotep-Mentuhotep I Intef III (Shatt er-Regal)d Nibkhrure-Mentuhotep II Senekhkere-Mentuhotep III Thus recon Years 50° (+x) ४४ 46e (+x) As the Turin Papyrus gives at least 160 years to the dynasty, we have at least 34 years to be distributed among the seven above x's. aAs in the erratic Karnak list, Lepsius, Auswahl der wichtigsten Urkunden, I: better in Zwölfte Dynastie; Prisse, Monuments, I; Burton, Excerpta hieroglyphica, I. The publications are all very inaccurate; Prisse being probably the best. I had my own copy of the original in the Bibliothèque Nationale. That there may have been a series of Theban kings preceding the list of the dynasty as given in the Turin Papyrus, is perhaps probable, in view of the Intefs and the Mentuhotep who follow the nomarch Intef in the Karnak list. bSteindorff has shown that we have contemporary monuments from only three Intefs before the Twelfth Dynasty (besides the nomarch, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache, 1895, 77-96). No one without preconceived opinions will appeal to the Karnak list to prove that the Intefs all ruled before the Twelfth Dynasty. If we are to depend on the Karnak list, then Sesostris I ruled immediately before or after the Seventeenth Dynasty! And such absurdities abound in this list. But accepting this preposterous list as usable, we find that it puts Nb-hpr (w)-Rec, Intef either just before or just after the Seventeenth Dynasty. Hence Petrie's statement (History of Egypt, I, 5th ed., xxi) that "the ancient lists are entirely against" the above arrangement of the Intefs must be rejected. All the other evidence, moreover, is in favor of dividing the Intefs into two groups. CI, 423. dEduard Meyer writes me that he would not include this vassal king in the dynasty, but would gain the seven kings demanded by the Turin Papyrus, by inserting a Mentuhotep before Intef I, as in the Karnak list. This would give us five Mentuhoteps, thus: Mentuhotep I, two Intefs and four Mentuhoteps in succession; but the value of the erratic Karnak list seems to me very dubious. eTurin Stela of Meru, No. 1447, Cat. I, 117. f His highest date is the year 8; his successor celebrated a Sed Jubilee in his second year, and must therefore have been appointed crown prince 30 years earlier by Mentuhotep III, who thus reigned at least 28 years. BI, 435. THE NOMARCH, INTEF MORTUARY STELA 419. The Karnak list places as first of the Intefs a nomarch, without royal title. He is the founder of the Theban line, and is so recognized by Sesostris I, who dedicated a statue to him in Karnak with the inscription: "The king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Kheperkere (Sesostris I); he made it as his monument for his father, the hereditary prince (rpty), Intefo,. ...... born of Ikui (Ykwy)."d The following mortuary stela probably belonged to him. 420. At the top is a three-line inscription, beginning with the usual mortuary formula, for the benefit of The hereditary prince, count, great lord of the Theban nome, satisfying the king as keeper of the Doore of the South, great pillar of him,f who makes his Two Landsf to live, superior prophet,. ... Intef. a Limestone stela, discovered by Mariette, in Drah abu-'n-Neggah, now in Cairo, Cat. 20009; also published by him in Monuments Divers, 50, b, and p. 16; also Maspero, Guide, pl. and p. 34; Dawn, 115; Petrie, History of Egypt, I, 126. bLepsius, Auswahl der wichtigsten Urkunden, I. (See § 417, note.) "The family came from Hermonthis, where they were nomarchs. Inscriptions from the tomb of an Intef, one of these nomarchs, are in Copenhagen and Berlin (No 13272; see Lange, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache, 34, 25-35, and plate). dDiscovered by Legrain, in March, 1899 (Recueil, XXII, 64). The addition of o (), "great," is not found in the royal list of Karnak with the name of the Rpty Intef; but as there is only one rpety in the Karnak list, the two must be identical. eSee Piehl, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache, 1887, 35, and Brugsch, ibid., 1884, 93 f. The title continued from the Sixth Dynasty, into Saite times (IV, 995). f This participial epithet is usually applied to Intef, but this is impossible; for Intef, who acknowledges a king in the phrase, “satisfying the king," cannot speak of himself, a mere nomarch, as "making his two lands live." Nor can "two lands," so commonly in parallelism with the title "King of Upper and Lower Egypt," be made to mean the two shores of the river in Intef's nome. Compare, e. g., § 441, 1. 8. $nh-twy is an epithet, like 'mnh-sw, designating the king. It is in excellent parallelism with "king,” and indeed serves as king Senekhkere's Horus-name. This Intef therefore ruled before the rebellion against the North, and the “king” referred to is an Heracleopolitan. REIGN OF HORUS-WAHENEKH-INTEF I ROYAL TOMB STELA a 421. This is the stela referred to in the remarkable passage in the Papyrus Abbott (IV, 514), where it is described as bearing a figure of the king standing with one of his dogs. The name of the dog given in the papyrus, Behka, is still preserved on the stela. It is a Berber name, and the stela accompanies it with a translation into Egyptian. The king stands on the right with his five dogs; before him were seven columns of inscription, of which only the lower half is preserved. The first two lines were occupied with an account of the king's good works for the gods; among these we may discern the following: ...... I filled his (Amon's) temple with august vases, in order to offer libations. I built their temples, wrought their stairways, restored their gates, established their divine offerings for all eternity. I found] aLower portion of a large limestone stela, now about 80 cm. high and 130 cm. wide; now in Cairo, No. 20512. It was discovered in 1860, by Mariette, in the brick pyramid of Intef II, at Drah abu-'n-Neggah (Thebes). After making an incomplete and inaccurate copy, Mariette left the stela where he found it, to be taken by a fellah, twenty years later, and broken up for use in a sâkieh. Two years later some of the fragments were rescued with much difficulty by Maspero, and installed at Bulâq (now Cairo; cf. Guide du Visiteur, 67, and Mariette, Monuments divers, Texte, 15; Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology, IV, 193, 194). Apparently no search has ever been made on the spot for the upper portion, already lacking in Mariette's time. His copy was published in Monuments divers, 49 (p. 15 also); another copy by E. de Rougé (Inscriptions hieroglyphiques, 161, 162). I have collated these with a careful copy of the original in Schaefer's manuscript of the Cairo catalogue. bOn the Berber name of one of these dogs, see Maspero, Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology, V, 127, and Etudes de mythologie et d'archéologie, III, 331). The others also bore foreign names, and the ancient scribe has appended a translation to each. Daressy (Recueil, XI, 79, 80) found a fifth dog; Basset (Sphinx, I, 87-92) admits a second name as possibly Berber; see also Birch, Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology, IV, 172-86. Finally, Maspero explains another name as Berber (Recueil, XXI, 136). |