The Middle Kingdom (2055-1650 BC)
The Middle Kingdom (2055-1650 BC)
Unlike the First and Second Intermediate periods, the Middle Kingdom (2055-1650 BC) formed a political unity, the core of which comprised two political phases: the nth Dynasty ruling from the Upper
Egyptian city of Thebes, and the i2th Dynasty centred in the region of
Lisht in the Faiyum. Earlier historians considered that the nth and
12th Dynasties marked the full extent of the Middle Kingdom, but
more recent scholarship shows clearly that at least the first half of the
so-called i3th Dynasty (which apparently bears no resemblance to a
proper political dynasty) belongs unequivocally to the Middle Kingdom. There was no shift of the location of the capital or royal residence,
little diminution in the activities of the government, and no decline in
the arts of the time indeed, some of the finest works of Middle
Kingdom art and literature date from the i}th Dynasty. There was,
however, a decline in large-scale monumental building, a significant
indication that the ijth Dynasty was neither as strong nor as inspired
by the grandiose ideas that marked the reigns of the later 12th-Dynasty
rulers. Doubtless, this phenomenon was due to the brevity of reigns
for the majority of 13th-Dynasty kings, although the reasons for such
changes in the political picture are as yet unknown.
The simplest way to gain some sense of the general flavour of
Middle Kingdom history is to study the succession of kings and their
achievements, since they set the tone for the political and cultural
directions of the period. However, in pursuing this course, we are
forced to confront one of the biggest problems in our understanding of Middle Kingdom history: the issue of the 'co-regencies' of the i2th Dynasty kings. Simply put, the question is: did some of these rulers
share the throne with their successors? Crucial elements in the debate
are so-called double-dated stelae, texts incorporating the names of two
successive kings, together with different dates for each of these rulers.
These stelae have left scholars divided on the issue of whether the
records represent a sharing of power by two pharaohs or merely the
years during which the owners of the stelae held office under each of
the two kings.
The standard chronology for the i2th Dynasty has been remodelled
over the years in the light of intensive studies of dated monumental
records. Some of this new work has yielded much shorter reigns than
those suggested by the fragmentary Turin Canon and the epitomes of
Manetho. The most controversial reigns are those of Senusret II and
III, and there are wide discrepancies between the proposed chronologies of different scholars. Discoveries of certain 'hieratic control
marks' carved on the masonry of the monuments of Senusret III have
added further confusion to these chronologies, so that the dating
problems of the i2th Dynasty are still in a state of flux. Josef Wegner,
for instance, has provided very strong evidence for a reign of thirtynine years for Senusret III that together with the discovery at Lisht of
references to a 'year 30' of Senusret III and evidence for his celebration
of a serf-festival (royal jubilee) would argue for a much longer reign
by this king than most modern chronologies suggest. There are also
grounds for suspecting that the reign of Senusret II is more likely to
have lasted for nineteen years (as suggested by the papyri discovered at
the town of Lahun) rather than the shorter length of the revised chronologies, but there is some difficulty in accommodating these expanded
reigns within the absolute dates proposed by some scholars. The evidence for longer 12th-Dynasty reigns would fit in well with the coregency theory, which is based on the double-dated monuments, but
convincing arguments have also been put forward by a number of
scholars seeking to refute individual co-regencies such as those of
Amenemhat I-Senusret I, Senusret I-Amenemhat II, and Senusret
III Amenemhat III.
Since there are no true 'absolute dates' yet established in Egyptian
history (apart from the radiocarbon-based chronologies) until the late
New Kingdom at the earliest, and since argument still persists regarding the high, middle, and low dating schemes, there is room for
revision in the chronologies for all pharaonic periods. It is possible that
new archaeological material emerging from Tell el-Dabc
a (see Chapter 8) will help to solve some of the problems in Middle Kingdom chronology, but in the meantime the account given in this chapter leaves
co-regencies out of the equation, pending further proof.
