Also known as the archaic periods. There are two of those in Egypt. One separating the Old and Middle empire, and the other separates Middle and New empire.

Now my understanding is that no major monument was built during those time period. I was wondering if there is any tomb belonging to the great men of the period. Was there any excavation and if so have they found anything interesting? A book recommendation on this would be nice.

  

Actually, there is a Third Intermediate Period---roughly 1069 to 664 BCE. The 21st-25th Dynasties. Marked by a fragmentation of the centralized govermnent, a major civil war (at the bequest of Panehsy), the continuing influence of the priests of Amon and the reign of Shishanq, who restablished the authority of the pharoah. He is the pharoah who dealt with King Solomon. He asserted presige in the Levant again, which Egypt lacked, since around the time of the Rameside rulers. Although, there are indications of the north-south divide, this probably due to the rise of Kushite rule. There were also a lot arrange marriages at this time between foreign rulers and Egyptian royalty. We are dealing with over 400 years of history, so one would have to focus how one approaches the period.

The First Intermediate Period was very brief (about 150 years), characterized by the allocation of re-structureing of love power to provinces, that is, to the nomarchs.
You are right; there wasn't major monuments constructed at that time.

The Second Intermediate period (roughly 1650-1550 BCE); however, is far more interesting because of the advent of the Hyksos, the foreign shepherd rulers who set up their capital at Avaris. There is a lot of archaelogical excavation of this city. They found Minoan art there, Sartorini ash (from the volcanic eruption), not to mention evidence the Hyksos adopted Seth as their deity, which was similiar to their Canaanite storm god, Ba'al.

I am unsure which book would help with this period; although, you might want to start studying the Hyksos and the city of Avaris. I find it rather strange that after the Ancient Egyptian "Golden Age" (the Middle Kingdom), other people could conquer Egypt so easily. Some argue it is because the Hyksos had chariots and better weopons. Whatever the case, Hyksos presence set the stage for a re-militarization of the Egpyptian empire, not to mention all the other the ambitious plans of later Dynasties.
The modern name of the city of Avaris is Tell ed-Dab'a.
Interestingly enough it is the same region as the land of Goshen. This has lead many scholars to believe that the Hyksos (or least some of them) were of Canaanite (Abrahamic origin). Debatable, of course, though certainly makes the Second Intermediate Period compelling.

Happy mining!

  

*correction: "restructuring of LOCAL power to provinces, that is, to the nomarchs." lol

  

The third interdynastic period does not have a following empire, and in fact Egypt became colonies of the Greek, Romans, and then part of a Caliphate and did not become a nation again until quite modern time. So I'd only focus on the first and the second ones. Thanks for the information. I hope I'd find a book or two before I forgot about it in my daily grind.

  

Egypt was never really an empire, if you define an empire as imperialist country conquering exhorbant ammounts of territory. How far did they really go? Down to Nubia? Up along the Mediterranean, the Levant (Syria + Palestine)?
Not much gained---despite Tutmosis III. Judged by our standards, the Egyptian military machine was not that ambitious. Consider other peoples at this time. The Ancient Near East was wide open. The Assyrians went into Egypt, so did the Chaldeans (although both overextended); then the Persian Empire ruled---and they were extremely successful. This was hundreds of years before the Alexander the Great, the Ptolomatic Period, Rome, and the Caliphate!
What happened? It boggles the mind. After 3000----plus or minus---years, since the emergence of the Egyptian state, the civilization is "subsumed" by both West and East.

Has ANY "empire" lasted that long?
Perhaps, my thesis runs as follows:
the power of Egypt's empire resides its cultural and theological mystique--

and NOT by virtue of its physical territory,
NOR its colonization by other peoples.

  

If the power of Egypt's empire resides in its cultural and theological mystique. Then it's still very much alive today as it was then. Egyptian culture never fail to impress, and Egyptian monuments are always awe-inspiring.

Egyptian state may last a lot longer than 3000 years, but it was not coherent and not necessarily always united. It's a study of fragments of the nation that survive down to us today.

I only use the world 'empire' in the sense of representing the epoch of Egyptian civilization the way it was used in every books and texts. It shouldn't be taken literally. I assume it is a conventional use of the terms.

  

And here we are. . . still sitting in the long-cast shadow of the Egyptian world.