Talk:Intef I

On Intef I and Mentuhotep I

I just saw your correction to the article on Intef I and I believe that it runs in contradiction to what is reported in Darell Baker's "Encyclopedia of the Pharaohs". To be more precise, D. Baker indicates the following in the article concerning Mentuhotep I, the direct predecessor of Intef I (I quote): "Mentuhotep was almost certainly master of no more than the Theban nome and the three nomes from Thebes south to the border with Nubia at Elephantine. His power to the north stopped at the border to the Coptite nome". Now this means that Mentuhotep I had triumphed over Ankhtifi (or his successor) during his own reign since Ankhtifi controlled the nome of Nekhen, south of Thebes. This also means that Intef I ruled over these territories when he accessed to the throne and that the essential of the conflict at the time of his reign took place not with Ankhtifi to the south but with the Coptite nomarch Tjauti to the north of Thebes. Intef I's successes over Tjauti brought the border to Abydos which was then bitterly fought for by Intef II and Mentuhotep II. Could you indicate me the sources claiming that Intef I waged war to the south of Thebes ? It seems that the stele of Tjauti and the Gebel Tjauti inscription support the view that Intef I waged war to the north and thus that the south was already under his control when he accessed the throne. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Most all sources I could find place Ankhtifi as a contemporary of pharaoh Intef I Sehertawy who opposed him, but they say Sehertawy managed to get those three nomes to the south by the end of his reign. Of course Sehertawy also campaigned to the north against Tjauty. Hardly any sources put Ankhtify in the reign of "Mentuhotep I" - for whom there is no definite tangible evidence or record of any kind, so I tend to agree with those who are skeptical from the lack of evidence that "Mentuhotep I" was an actual pharaoh, and not a later invention. Since I would like to hear from anyone on the subject, can this discussion be moved to Talk:Intef I? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

We can always state the two hypotheses in the article. As for Mentuhotep I, I really do not think he was a fictional person: both Intef I and Intef II are known to have been sons of a Mentuhotep. What is clearly a later invention however is to give him a title of pharaoh since Intef I is the first ruler of the 11th dynasty to claim a Horus name. About the war with Ankhtifi, we must note that he himself says that the nomarch of Thebes (whoever that was, either Mentuhotep I or Intef I) was allied against him with the nomarch of Koptos. So the war with Ankhtifi must have taken place before that between Thebes and Koptos. Given the relatively short reign of Intef I this leaves two possibilities: 1) Mentuhotep I fought with Koptos against Ankhtifi and won territory to the south, while Intef I fought to the north; 2) Intef I fought Ankhtifi (or his successor) and won territory to the south while Intef II fought to the north against Koptos. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I read the article and I just want to make some comments. First of all, Intef I is not know for sure from any contemporary monument (!). He appears in some later inscriptions and there are some further inscriptions naming a king Intef (like the one of Tjauti), where a king Intef appears. However, it is also possible that these inscription, and the inscription of Tjauti refer to another king Intef. The reconstruction of the events, by some Egyptologists is highly speculative. Not even many Egyptologist follow these reconstructions (I do not have Baker's book here to check what he says); so I would recommend to rephrase certain points. The article has as source base some more general books, but the picture emerging in scholary works is quite different. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The evidence we have for this time period, is really only the faintest glimmer of whatever was actually going on at the time. Your theory that it was Mentuhotep I who fought with Ankhtifi is an interesting one, but I haven't seen this theory given much serious consideration by most Egyptologists, because there is really next to zero evidence that this "Mentuhotep I" ever even existed. It isn't even absolutely clear that "Intef I and Intef II are known to have been sons of a Mentuhotep" (I think "theorized" or "conjectured based on the slimmest evidence" would be more accurate here than "known"...) But the preponderance of sources I've seen infer that Ankhtify's opponent was Intef Sehertawy, so at least that can be reliably sourced, regardless of what we editors think. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I must admit that the relation of Ankhtify to one of the early 11th Dynasties kings is totally new to me. Here I just want to refer to the article on the First Intermediate period in the Oxford History of Ancient, where Seidlmayer sees a gap between Ankhtify and the early 11th Dynasty for about 3 to 4 generations (pp. 119, 128 - he does not mention any connections between these rulers, evidently because of the time gap). bw -- Udimu (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Ankhtifi is mainly known as the nomarch who united the three southernmost nomes against Thebes, so some relationship (struggle, conflict) with the Theban dynasty pharaohs is often assumed. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

yes, yes, no problem with that. But Ankhtify might have still lived some time before the first king of the 11th Dynasty. His enemy in Thebes was perhaps another nomarch in Thebes, one ruling there before the 11th Dynasty (and not yet known by name or at least not identified, if Seidlmayer is correct with his dating of Ankhtify some generations before the start of the 11th Dynasty). best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well well, D. Baker never claims that Mentuhotep I fought Ankhtifi, he could have been fighting against a successor of Ankhtifi and thus could have lived several generations removed from him. As for denying the existence of Mentuhotep I by stating that most egyptologists are against it, I would prove that this is not so, not only by reading direct sources (such as D. Baker's book which there is no reason to discard) but more simply by noting that Nebhepetre Mentuhotep is universally known as Mentuhotep II and therefore, it is universally acknowledged that there was a Mentuhotep I. I do not have the right (being a humble editor) to decide whether it is Mentuhotep I or Intef I who won against the nomarch of Nekhen but it is still important to give place in the article to both hypotheses. For I do not see why D. Bakers' hypothesis would be much more wrong that the hypothesis that Intef I won the war to the south. Indeed, neither hypotheses have much supporting evidence. The only thing known for sure (from the Gebel Tjauti inscription and the stele of Tjauti) is that either Intef I or Intef II fought the Coptite nomarch. Also by the end of Intef II's reign the border was near Abydos as attested by stela dating from Mentuhotep II's reign who fought his first war there. About the filiation of Intef I and II with respect to Mentuhotep I, D. Baker states that Mentuhotep I most probably (I quote) fathered the two with queen Neferu. This he says because on a later stele, Mentuhotep is called father of the gods, meaning that (in the view of the authors of the stela) is fathered at least two kings without himself be recognized as a king. I note also that the article on Neferu, Intef I and Intef II all stated that Neferu and Mentuhotep where their parents before I started editing these articles so I suppose that this is supported in the citations put in place by the previous editors who worked on these articles. In particular, the article on Neferu refers to Dodson, A., Hilton, D., The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt, Thames & Hudson, 2004, for this filiation. So we have at least two sources for it. I suspect the filiation is also attested in Grimal's book but this remains a conjecture as I do not own it and cannot verify. Iry-Hor (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have one general point to make. In Egyptology, there are two types of history writing. One group of Egyptologist is rather cautious with the limited number of sources we have and just provide the data we have (example: Seidlmayer in the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt). The other group tries to reconstruct events from the limited data available (Baker seems to be one example - I don't have the book here). They try to provide a more traditional, narrative history writing. In the moment, I see on Wikipedia the latter type of history writing is taking over (kings X fought against king Y; providing precise dates and so on). Especially with kings like Intef I, we should be very cautious. Intef I is not known for sure from any contemporary documents (!!!). All reconstructions of events are highly hypothetical; the same applies to Mentuhotep I (therefore some Egyptologists even think the latter is a fictional king). The events reconstructed by some researches provide one scenario out of hundred possible scenarios. I am a little bit frightened that readers not knowing much about ancient Egypt and these kings will take many of these as proven data. But they are not proven at all. When I talk about sources, I mean ancient sources, not modern Egyptological books. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I must say Intef I's rule over Thebes as Pharaoh is a little better attested than "Mentuhotep I", at least his Horus name Sehertawy is certain, as seen in the near-contemporary serekh pictured. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anybody doubts that Intef I reigned over a part of Egypt. My problem is the reconstruction of an events history by some Egyptologists, based on very thin ground. -- Udimu (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

As an important reliable source, note that the Turin canon mention both Intef and his predecessor as Mentuhotep and give a combined reign length of 16 years. This further establishes the existence of Mentuhotep I as a real person. I agree that strictly speaking we cannot say who conquered the south (against Ankhtifi's successor) and the north (against Tjauti) although it is seems highly improbable that one of the two rulers (Mentuhotep or Intef) did both in less than 16 years. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is 16 years an "improbable" amount of time for one pharaoh to defeat his enemies both to the north and south? It could have been done in far less time, or far longer time depending on the circumstances, of which we know little enough as it is. 16 years to me would sound like a very reasonable amount of time to expect for this. But more importantly, have any sources opined on this, and speaking of "based on very thin ground", (where I agree totally with Udimu) how solid would their rationale be? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, not to contradict you, but it appears if the article Turin Canon is accurate, that any 11th d names before Nebhepetre can't fully be made out on the actual copy, what's there is actually "... ...Wah... ... ...n... ... Nebhepetre ..." from which some egyptologists have extracted "Mentuhotep I" in addition to the Intefs. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Turin Canon: both names (Mentuhotep I and Intef I) are lost and their names are reconstructed too. Anyway, I just wanted to announce a problem with the ancient sources and the modern (highly speculative) history writing. I might add a paragraph in the Intef I article, just listing the sources, so the reader knows on what source base (= ancient documents) the article is based. -- Udimu (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok but for the moment the article clearly takes position in favor of the hypothesis of Intef I winning to the south since we can read "On his accession to the Theban throne, Intef probably ruled only the Theban (fourth) nome, but it is conjectured that after defeating Ankhtifi's party, Intef acquired the three nomes to the south of Thebes, down to Elephantine, and to the north all territories south of the border with the Coptite nome." This is not based on any more solid ground that the hypothesis that Mentuhotep I is the one who won the war to the south. Thus the article must at least cite both hypotheses (with relevant sources, Baker's book being the one supporting the Mentuhotep hypothesis). Furthermore, I agree with both of you that everything is largely conjectural and I propose that this should be stated as well. Similarly, the article says "In any case, the subsequent defeat of Tjauti ultimately put Koptos ....". I propose to clarify this sentence, adding that "Whoever won the war to the north (Intef I or Intef II) the defeat of Tjauti ultimately put Koptos ....". About the 16 years, I realize now that you are completely right !!! Iry-Hor (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intef I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131201042406/http://www.yale.edu/egyptology/ae_theban.htm to http://www.yale.edu/egyptology/ae_theban.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)