CRISIS AND RESTRUCTURING OF THE STATE: FROM THE SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD TO THE ADVENT OF THE RAMESSES JJ Shirley Introduction The period under consideration here encompasses the Second Inter- mediate Period through the formation of the New Kingdom during the 18th Dynasty. There are diverging opinions regarding how exactly to divide and classify the beginning of the Second Intermediate Period and the nature of its relationship with the end of the Middle Kingdom. This is aptly brought out in the Foreword and articles that comprise the volume The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties).1 For this discussion of Second Intermediate Period admin- istration I adhere to the political reconstruction provided by Ryholt,2 and further refined by Allen3 and Polz,4 describing overlap between the Egyptian 13th Dynasty at Lisht/Itjtawy and the Canaanite 14th Dynasty in the Delta, the latter of which most likely came to an end with the rise of the Hyksos 15th Dynasty at Avaris. Concomitantly in Thebes there arose the 16th Dynasty, which likely overlapped with the 13th Dynasty before succeeding it. The 16th Dynasty was then itself succeeded by the 17th Dynasty, also based in Thebes.5 New evidence 1 M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynas- ties): Current Research, Future Prospects (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, 2010). 2 K.S.B. Ryholt, The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period c. 1800–1550 B.C. (Copenhagen, 1997). 3 J.P. Allen, “The Second Intermediate Period in the Turin King-List”, in: The Sec- ond Intermediate Period, M. Marée, ed., 1–10 and J.P. Allen, “The Turin Kinglist”, in: “Seals and Kings. The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period c. 1800–1550 B.C. by K.S.B. Ryholt”, review by D. Ben-Tor, S.J. Allen, J.P. Allen, BASOR 315 (1999), 47–74, esp. 48–53. 4 D. Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches. Zur Vorgeschichte einer Zeitenwende (Berlin/New York, 2007). 5 Note that I do not follow Ryholt’s (The Political Situation in Egypt, 163–66) sug- gestion of an “Abydos Dynasty” that ruled concurrently, and perhaps in occasional conflict, with the 16th Theban Dynasty. 522 jj shirley from Edfu6 suggests that there may have been overlap between the late 13th and early 15th Dynasties, or at the very least that the chronologi- cal placement of the 14th and 15th Dynasty kings should be revisited. However, if accurate, then by extrapolation this may provide support for Ryholt’s suggestion that the 14th Dynasty co-existed with the ear- lier 13th and perhaps even part of the 12th Dynasty. Thus, despite the cultural continuity present between the 12th and 13th Dynasties, the clear changes in political power, the diminished resources and short- ened reigns of many of the 13th Dynasty kings, and the rise of both foreign and southern Egyptian dynasties during this period seem to this author to indicate that the entire 13th Dynasty should be consid- ered as part of the Second Intermediate Period. There is no doubt that from the 13th through the 17th Dynasties a wide range of social, political and military changes occurred that had a significant effect on how the fragmented state of Egypt was governed. However, our ability to discuss the nature of the administration for each of the Dynasties in the north and the south is limited. In the broadest sense there seems to be a degree of continuity between late 13th Dynasty administration and both the northern 14th and southern 16th Dynasties. This appears to shift with the rise of the Hyksos 15th Dynasty at Avaris and 17th Dynasty at Thebes, when we can begin to detect new policies influenced by changing socio-political circum- stances and, for the Hyksos, by their Canaanite cultural origin. As the 18th Dynasty solidifies under kings ruling a unified Egypt certain trends seen in the Middle Kingdom are revived, policies established by the 17th Dynasty kings are continued or expanded—at least initially— and new strategies are put in place. Indeed, the administrative structure of the 18th Dynasty could perhaps best be thought of as developing in four broad phases: early 18th Dynasty through Thutmose II, mid-18th Dynasty from Hatshepsut through Amenhotep III, Amarna Period, and post-Amarna Period/late 18th Dynasty. This is not to imply that during each “phase” the administration was static. Quite the contrary. In fact, the types of officials who gained royal favor changed with each reign, as new favorites emerged and different positions increased or decreased in relative power. 6 N. Moeller, “Discussion of late Middle Kingdom and early Second Intermediate Period history and chronology in relation to the Khayan sealings discovered at Tell Edfu”, ÄuL 21 (2012), forthcoming. I would like to thank Nadine for sharing her article with me prior to publication..