Ägypten und Levante XVI Egypt and the Levant XVI: International Jouranl for Egyptian Archaeology and Related Disciplines

Herausgeber/Editor MANFRED BIETAK

ÄGYPTEN UND LEVANTE EGYPT AND THE LEVANT

XVI/2006

XVI 2006

Redaktion: ERNST CZERNY

KOMMISSION FÜR ÄGYPTEN UND LEVANTE DER ÖSTERREICHISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN INSTITUT FÜR ÄGYPTOLOGIE DER UNIVERSITÄT WIEN ÖSTERREICHISCHES ARCHÄOLOGISCHES INSTITUT KAIRO

Vorgelegt von w. M. MANFRED BIETAK in der Sitzung vom 13. Oktober 2006

Gedruckt mit der Unterstützung der Universität Wien und des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts

Spezialforschungsbereich (SCIEM 2000) „Die Synchronisierung der Hochkulturen im östlichen Mittelmeerraum im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.“ der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften beim Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung

Special Research Programme SCIEM 2000 “The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterrannean in the Second Millenium B.C.” of the Austrian Academy of Sciences at the Austrian Science Fund

Alle Rechte vorbehalten ISBN 978-3-7001-3797-9 ISSN 1015–5104 Copyright © 2006 by Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien Grafik, Satz, Layout: Angela Schwab Druck: Druckerei Ferdinand Berger & Söhne GesmbH, Horn http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/3797-9 http://verlag.oeaw.ac.at

Die Zeitschrift Ägypten und Levante ist Ä&L abzukürzen. The Journal Egypt and the Levant should be abbreviated E&L.

Inhaltsverzeichnis/Contents

Abkürzungen/Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Vorwort/Introduction von/by Manfred Bietak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

A. Ahrens, A Journey’s End – Two Egyptian Stone Vessels with Hieroglyphic Inscriptions from the Royal Tomb at Tell Mišrife/Qaãna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

B. Bader, Von Palmen und Vögeln – Vorschau auf die Keramik aus dem Areal H/VI östlich des Palastes G in cEzbet Helmi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

M. Bietak und I. Forstner-Müller, Eine palatiale Anlage der frühen Hyksoszeit (Areal F/II). Vorläufige Ergebnisse der Grabungskampagne 2006 in Tell el-Dabca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

I. Forstner-Müller und W. Müller, Neueste Ergebnisse des Magnetometersurveys während der Frühjahrskampagne 2006 in Tell el-Dabca/Qantir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79

J. Budka, The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83

O. Goldwasser, Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs. Horus is Hathor? – The Invention of the Alphabet in Sinai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

121

Y. Goren, N. Na’aman, H. Mommsen and I. Finkelstein, Provenance Study and Re-evaluation of the Cuneiform Documents from the Egyptian Residency at Tel Aphek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

161

R. Schiestl, The Statue of an Asiatic Man from Tell el-Dabca, Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

173

G. Vittmann, Eine spätzeitliche Schülertafel aus dem Asasif . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

187

I. Ziffer, A Seal Impressed Handle in the Collection of the Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

195

EGYPT & TIME, PROCEEDINGS OF A WORKSHOP ON PRECISION AND ACCURACY OF THE EGYPTIAN HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY V. Müller, Wie gut fixiert ist die Chronologie des Neuen Reiches wirklich? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

203

Ch. Bennett, Genealogy and the Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

231

G.P. F. Broekman, Once Again the Reign of Takeloth II; Another View on the Chronology of the mid 22nd Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

245

K. Jansen-Winkeln, The Relevance of Genealogical Information for Egyptian Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . .

257

D. Kahn, Divided Kingdom, Co-regency, or Sole Rule in the Kingdom(s) of Egypt-and-Kush? . . . . . . . . . . .

275

K.A. Kitchen, The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology – a Reconsideration . . . . . . . . . . . .

293

U. Luft, Absolute Chronology in Egypt in the First Quarter of the Second Millennium BC . . . . . . . . . . . . .

309

F. Weninger, P. Steier, W. Kutschera, E. M. Wild, The Principle of the Bayesian Method . . . . . . . . . . . .

317

M.H. Wiener, Egypt & Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

325

Abkürzungen - Abbreviations Ä&L (E&L)

Ägypten und Levante. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Archäologie und deren Nachbargebiete, Vienna ÄA Ägyptologische Abhandlungen, Wiesbaden AAAS Les Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes. Revue d’Archeologie et d’Histoire, Damascus AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Cambridge Mass. ÄAT Ägypten und Altes Testament. Studien zu Geschichte, Kultur und Religion Ägyptens und des Alten Testaments, Wiesbaden Abr-Nahrain Abr-Nahrain. An annual under the auspices of the Department of Semitic Studies, University of Melbourne, Leiden Aegyptu Aegyptus. Rivista Italiana di Egittologia e di Papirologia, Mailand AfO Archiv für Orientforschung, Berlin, Graz ÄgFo Ägyptologische Forschungen AHL Archaeology and History in Lebanon, Beirut AJA American Journal of Archaeology, New York, Baltimore, Norwood Akkadica Akkadica. Périodique bimestriel de la Fondation assyriologique Georges Dossin, Bruxelles Antiquity Antiquity: a quarterly review of archaeology, Oxford AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Kevelaer, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Münster AOF Altorientalische Forschungen, Berlin ARCE American Research Center in Egypt, Cairo Archaeology Archaeology. An Official Publication of the Archaeological Institute of America, Long Island City Archaeometry Archaeometry. The bulletin of the Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Oxford University, Oxford ASAE Annales du service des antiquites de l’Égypte, Le Caire AV Archäologische Veröffentlichungen. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo, Berlin, Mainz BA The Biblical Archaeologist. American Schools of Oriental Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan, New Haven BAfO Beiheft des Archivs für Orientforschung, Graz BAAL Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises, Beirouth BAR Intern. British Archaeology Reports, International Series, London, Oxford BAR IS see BAR Intern. BAR Biblical Archaeology Review, Boston BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Boston, New Haven BdE Bibliothèque d’étude, Institut français d’archéologie Orientale, Le Caire Berytus Berytus. Archaeological Studies, Musée d’archéologie et université américaine de Beyrouth, Beirouth BES Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar, Columbia University, Brooklyn, New York. BIFAO Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale de Caire, Le Caire BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis, Leuven

British Museum Magazine, London Bulletin of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, London BSAE British School of Archaeology in Egypt, London BSEG Bulletin Societé d’Egyptologie Genève, Geneva BSFE Bulletin de la societé française d’égyptologie, Paris BSNA Bulletin de la societé nationale des antiquairés de France, Paris CCÉ Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne, Le Caire CChEM Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean, Vienna CdE Chronique d’Égypte, Cairo, Brussels CMAO Contributi e Materiali di Archaeologia Orientale, Roma CNIP The Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Ancient Near Eastern Studies, University of Copenhagen, Museum Tusculanum Press, Copenhagen De Kêmi à Birît Nâri De Kêmi à Birît Nâri. Revue Internationale de l'Orient Ancien, Paris DFIFAO Documents de Fouilles de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire, Le Caire DÖAW Denkschriften der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl., Wien E&L Egypt & Levant. International Journal for Egyptian Archaeology and Related Disciplines, see also: Ä&L, Vienna EA Egyptian Archaeology. The Bulletin of the Egypt Exploration Society, London EEF Egypt Exploration Fund, London EES Excav.Mem. Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir, London EES Egypt Exploration Society, London Enchoria Enchoria. Zeitschrift für Demotistik und Koptologie, Wiesbaden E.P.H.E Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris ERA Egyptian Research Account, London Eretz Israel Eretz Israel. Studies in Archaeology, History and Geography, Jerusalem EVO Egitto e Vicino Oriente. Rivista della sezione di Egittologia e Scienze Storiche del Vicino Oriente, Pisa FIFAO Fouilles de l’institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire, Le Caire FoRa Forschungen in der Ramses-Stadt, Die Grabungen des Pelizäus-Museums Hildesheim in Quantir – Pi-Ramesse, hg. Von E.B. Pusch und M. Bietak, Mainz Germania Germania. Anzeiger der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Mainz GM Göttinger Miszellen. Beiträge zur ägyptologischen Diskussion, Göttingen HÄB Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge, Wiesbaden IBAES Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie IEJ Israel Exploration Journal, Jerusalem IFAO Institut français d’archéologie orientale de Caire, Le Caire JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society, New Haven, Conn. BMM BSA

10

Abkürzungen/Abbreviations

JARCE JEA JNES JSOT JSSEA Karnak KVHAA LÄ Levant

Maarav

MARI MÄS MDAIK MDOG Memnonia MIFAO MIO Mizraim

OBO SA OBO OIP OLA OMRO Or OrAn Orientalia NS PdÄ Qadmoniot QDAP RA Radiocarbon RB

Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Boston, Massachussetts, New York Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, London Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Chicago Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, London Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, Toronto Cahiers de Karnak, Centre franco-égyptien d’étude des temples de Karnak, París Kungliga Vitterhets Historie and Antikvitets Akademien Konferense, Stockholm W. HELCK und E. OTTO (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie, Wiesbaden Levant. Journal of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem and the British Institute at Amman for Archaeology and History, London Maarav. A Journal for the Study of the Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures, Rolling Hills Estates, CA MARI: annales de recherches interdisciplinaires, Paris Münchner Ägyptologische Studien, Mainz Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo, Berlin, ab 1970: Mainz Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, Berlin Memnonia. Bulletin éditè par l’association pour la souvegarde du Ramesseum, Le Caire Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire, Cairo Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung, Berlin Mizraim. Journal of Papyrology, Egyptology, History of Ancient Law and their Relations to the Civilizations of Bible Lands, London, Paris Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica, Fribourg Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Fribourg, Göttingen Oriental Institute Publications, University of Chicago, Chicago Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, Leuven Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden,Leiden Orientalia, Nova Series, Roma Oriens antiquus. Rivista del centro per le antichità e la storia del Vicino Oriente, Roma Orientalia-Nova Series, Rome Probleme der Ägyptologie, Leiden Qadmoniot.Rib’on le-’attiqot Eres-Yisra’elwearsot ham-Miqra’, Jerusalem The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine, Jerusalem, Oxford Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale, Paris Radiocarbon. An International of Cosmogenic Isotope Research, Tucson Revue biblique. École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem, Jerusalem

RDAC

Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, Nicosia RdE Revue d’Égyptologie, Paris RSO Ras Shamra-Ougarit, Paris SAGA Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens, Heidelberg SAK Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, Hamburg SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, Chicago SCCNH Studies on the Culture and Civilisation of Nuzi and the Hurrians, Bethesda -Winona Lake Serapis Serapis: The American Journal of Egyptology, Chicago SDAIK Sonderschriften des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo, Mainz SIMA Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology. A Handbook of Archaeology, Göteborg, Jonsered, Sävedalen Sitzungsberichte Wien math.-nat. Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematischnaturwissenschaftliche Klasse, Wien SJE T. SÄVE-SÖDERBERG (ed.), The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia Publications, Lund SBPAW Sitzungsberichte der (Königlich)Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Berlin SÖAW Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien SSEA Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, Toronto, Montreal and Calgary Stud.Hell. Studia Hellenistica, Leuven Syria Syria. Revue d’art Oriental et d’archéologie, Beirut, Paris Tel Aviv Tel Aviv. Journal of the Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv UF Ugarit-Forschungen. Internationales Jahrbuch für die Altertumskunde Syrien-Palästinas, Münster, Neunkirchen-Vluyn UGAÄ Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens, Leipzig, Berlin (Nachdr. Hildesheim 1964) Ugaritica Ugaritica. Études Relatives aux Découvertes de Ras Shamra, Paris Urk. Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums, ed. G. STEINDORFF, Leipzig, Berlin, 1906–1958 UZK Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts, Wien VÖAW Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien, Wien Wb Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache, im Auftr. der Deutschen Akademien hrsg. von ADOLF ERMAN und HERMANN GRAPOW, Berlin 1926ff. WdO Die Welt des Orients, Göttingen WVDOG Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, Berlin, Leipzig ZA (NF) Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie (Neue Folge), Berlin ZÄS Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, Leipzig, Berlin ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Leipzig ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Leipzig, Wiesbaden

11

Vorwort

Introduction

Von Manfred Bietak

By Manfred Bietak

Der vorliegende Band ist in zwei Sektionen geteilt. Die erste Hälfte umfasst Artikel, die das spezielle Themenspektrum der Zeitschrift abdecken, während der zweite Teil aus Beiträgen besteht, die anlässlich eines vom Spezialforschungsbereich SCIEM2000 veranstalteten Workshops zur ägyptischen Chronologie in Form von Referaten gehalten wurden.1 Damit wird die in Ä&L nun schon wohl etablierte Tradition fortgesetzt, einen Teil einzelner Hefte zur Publikation der Akten solcher kleinerer Kongresse oder Workshops zu nutzen.2 Die Veranstaltung „Egypt & Time“ war in den Räumen des VERA-Laboratoriums des Instituts für Isotopenforschung und Kernphysik in Wien abgehalten worden, wobei dem Institutsvorstand/ Dekan Walter Kutschera und seinem Team herzlich für das Engagement zur Abhaltung dieses Workshops gedankt sei. Diese Veranstaltung hatte zum erklärten Ziel, einerseits für die in der Chronologieforschung tätigen Naturwissenschaftler den aktuellen Forschungsstand, die Perspektiven und Probleme, die Grenzen, aber auch die Zuverlässigkeit der ägyptischen historischen Chronologie vor Augen zu halten. Andererseits sollten von naturwissenschaftlicher Seite gewisse, dem Nichtfachmann schwer verständliche Verfahren erläutert werden, was im vorliegenden Band in dem Artikel von Franz Weninger et al. über die Bayesische Statistik seinen Niederschlag findet. Eingeleitet wird der „Egypt & Time“-Abschnitt mit einer kritischen Bestandsaufnahme von Vera Müller zur Chronologie des Neuen Reiches, wo in überschaubarer Form die gesicherten Erkenntnisse dargelegt, potentielle Fehlerquellen diskutiert und Erkenntnislücken sowie die daraus resultierenden Unsicherheiten aufgezeigt werden. Am Ende steht dann Malcolm Wieners umfassender Beitrag, der die einzelnen Themen, die im Laufe des workshops angeschnitten wurden, ausführlich diskutiert. Dabei sei insbesondere auf jene Themen bzw. Vorträge hingewiesen, die aus verschiedenen Gründen

The present volume is divided into two sections. The first half comprises articles which canvass specific topics of this journal. The second part marshals papers which were given at a workshop on ancient Egyptian chronology organised by the SCIEM2000 special research programme,3 thereby continuing the well-established tradition of using parts of E&L volumes to publish proceedings of small-scale conferences or workshops.4 The “Egypt & Time” meeting was held at the VERA-Laboratory of the Department for Isotope Research and Nuclear Physics in Vienna. We would like to thank the Head of that Department and Dean of the Faculty of Physics, Prof. Walter Kutschera, as well as his staff for their co-operativeness and enthusiasm in hosting this workshop. The first avowed aim of the meeting was to brief scientists who work on ancient Egyptian chronology on up-to-date information on the state of research, future prospects, but also on the problems, limits and reliability of the historical chronological method. The second aim was to make scientists elucidate some of their more arcane methods to historians who are not familiar with mathematics or physics. In the present volume, this line of endeavour is reflected in the article of Franz Weninger et al. on the Bayesian statistical method. The “Egypt&Time” section is introduced by a critical review of New Kingdom chronology by Vera Müller which includes a full discussion of well-established knowledge, potential sources of error and areas lacking in evidence. At the end of the section, Malcolm Wiener’s paper gives a summing-up and detailed discussion of all topics addressed during the workshop, including those contributions which, for one reason or another, have not been reproduced in the present volume. Special attention is paid to the 14C data from Tell el-Dabca diverging by some 100 to 150

1

3

2

EGYPT & TIME, SCIEM2000 Workshop on Precision and Accuracy of the Egyptian Historical Chronology, Wien, 30. Juni–2. Juli 2005 Zuletzt: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 Late Bronze Age Conference, Ä&L 14 (2004).

4

EGYPT & TIME, SCIEM2000 Workshop on Precision and Accuracy of the Egyptian Historical Chronology, Vienna, 30 June–2 July 2005. Last: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 Late Bronze Age Conference, E&L 14 (2004).

12

Vorwort/Introduction

in die vorliegende Publikation keinen Eingang gefunden haben. Insbesondere betrifft dies die zum wiederholten Male heftig geführte Diskussion über die 14C Daten aus Tell el-Dabca, die mit den Ergebnissen der historischen Chronologie um 100 bis 150 Jahre auseinanderklaffen. Zwischen diesen programmatischen Beiträgen wird in mehreren Artikeln zu Problemen der Chronologie einzelner Epochen Stellung genommen (Zweite Zwischenzeit: Chris Bennet; Dritte Zwischenzeit: Gerardus Broekmann und Dani’il Khan), es wird die Relevanz genealogischer Studien untersucht (Karl Jansen-Winkeln), Ulrich Luft diskutiert Methodisches zur absoluten Chronologie Ägyptens, insbesondere die Bedeutung des Sothis-Zyklus unter ausführlicher Wertung der antiken Quellen, und von Kenneth Kitchen werden die Stärken und Schwächen des für Ägypten etablierten chronologischen Systems einer erneuten Prüfung unterzogen, wobei der Schwerpunkt der Untersuchung auf der Chronologie des 1. Jahrtausends liegt. Es wird aus dieser kurzen Zusammenstellung offensichtlich, dass zahlreiche Detailprobleme v.a. in der Dritten Zwischenzeit existieren. Die Chronologie des Neuen Reiches hingegen wird innerhalb enger Grenzen für weitgehend stabil gehalten. Hier muss die Forschung weiterhin darauf bedacht sein, eine Erklärung für die mangelnde Synchronisierung mit den Daten naturwissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen zu finden, wobei in der Amarnazeit eine gute Übereinstimmung herrscht, von der Tuthmosidenzeit rückwärts die Radiokarbondaten z.T. erheblich höher liegen als die historische Chronologie. Die restlichen Beiträge des Bandes setzen einen Schwerpunkt bei den Grabungsergebnissen aus Tell el-Dabca. Zentral steht hier der aktuelle Vorbericht von Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller über die Grabungskampagne des Frühjahres 2006, die zur Entdeckung einer monumentalen, offenbar palatialen Anlage der frühen Hyksoszeit führte. Damit ist erstmals ein für den Hauptstadtcharakter von Avaris zur Zeit der 15. Dynastie zentrales Gebäude aus dem Verwaltungs- oder Herrschaftsbereich archäologisch direkt nachgewiesen. Ferner gibt Bettina Bader einen Vorbericht zur Keramik des Neuen Reichs aus einem großen öffentlichen Bau östlich des großen Palastes G in cEzbet Helmi, über den Ä&L 15, 90–95, berichtet wurde. Robert Schiestl befaßt sich in einer Studie mit den Fragmenten einer höchst ungewöhnlichen Monumentalstatue eines „Asiaten“, die in der

years from the results obtained by the historical chronological method. In-between these two programmatic articles, several studies deal with chronological problems of either specific epochs (2nd IP: Chris Bennet, 3rd IP: Gerardus Broekmann, Dani’il Khan) or specific methodological aspects, such as the relevance of genealogical studies (Karl JansenWinkeln), the importance of Sothic-cycles for absolute chronology studies, including a thoroughly reconsideration of sources from antiquity (Ulrich Luft), or a critical reconsideration of the chronological system established for the 1st millennium B.C. (Kenneth Kitchen). Obviously, many questions of detail still exist for the 3rd IP. The chronology of the New Kingdom, on the other hand, seems to be well confined within narrow limits. Further research is required to explain why scientific data and those of the historical chronological method have been out of sync so far for the period prior to the Amarna period. The remaining articles of the volume concentrate on archaeology, especially at Tell elDabca. Pivotal to this is Manfred Bietak’s and Irene Forstner-Müller’s preliminary report on the 2006 spring season when a monumental – ostensibly palatial – building compound of the early Hyksos period was discovered, directly furnishing archaeological evidence for the first time of a building related to administration or governance and stemming from the 15 th dynasty when Avaris was the capital of the Hyksos kingdom. Bettina Bader’s article deals with some examples of New Kingdom pottery from a large public building east of the Great Palace G at cEzbet Helmi (see preliminary report in E&L 15, 90–95). Robert Schiestl analyses a most unusual monumental statue of an Asiatic dignitary which had already been excavated in the 80s in the necropolis of the late 12th/early 13th dynasty in area F/I (see E&L 2, 59–62, pl. 16–17). Further archaeological studies deal with the results of archaeological excavations outside Tell el-Dabca and include Alexander Ahren’s discussion of 2 Egyptian stone vessels which have been discovered as recently as 2002 at the Royal Tomb at Qatna (Syria), Julia Budka’s publication of the pottery from the Ahmose/Tetisheri complex at South-Abydos, whilst Yuval Goren et al. report on the results of petrographic investigations into the origins of 8 cuneiform tablets

Vorwort/Introduction

Nekropole der späten 12./frühen 13. Dynastie (Areal F/I) bereits in den 80er Jahren ausgegraben worden ist (vgl. Ä&L 2, 59–62, Tf. 16–17). Auch die weiteren Beiträge beschäftigen sich mit Ergebnissen archäologischer Grabungen außerhalb von Tell el-Dabca. Von Alexander Ahrens werden 2 ägyptische Steingefäße mit hieroglyphischen Inschriften aus dem erst 2002 entdeckten Königsgrab im Palast von Qatna (Syrien) vorgestellt. Julia Budka publiziert den Keramikbefund aus der Ahmose-Tetisheri Anlage in AbydosSüd, Yuval Goren et al. berichten über Ergebnisse von petrographischen Untersuchungen zur Herkunft der 8 Keilschrifttafeln aus der „Ägyptischen Residenz“ im spätbronzezeitlichen Tel Aphek, Irit Ziffer untersucht einen gestempelten Amphorenhenkel aus dem Eretz-Israel-Museum und schließlich analysiert Günther Vittmann eine spätzeitliche Schultafel der seinerzeitigen Grabungen des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 1969–1975 aus dem Asasif. Der Band enthält somit ein breites Spektrum sowohl archäologisch als auch chronologisch ausgerichteter Studien, von denen wir hoffen, dass sie von den Lesern mit Interesse aufgenommen werden mögen. Manfred Bietak

13

from the LBA “Egyptian Residence” at Tel Aphek. Irit Ziffer’s studies a stamped jar-handle from the Eretz Israel Museum. Finally, Günther Vittmann analyzes a late-period pupil’s tablet turned up by the Austrian Archaeological Institute’s past excavations at the Asasif (1969–1975). Consequently, the volume contains a wide range of studies of archaeological as well as chronological topics which the editors hope readers will find of interest. Manfred Bietak

A JOURNEY’S END – TWO EGYPTIAN STONE VESSELS WITH HIEROGLYPHIC INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE ROYAL TOMB AT TELL MIŠRIFE/QA/NA By Alexander Ahrens* Abstract Two Egyptian stone vessels bearing hieroglyphic inscriptions were discovered in the royal tomb at Tell Mišrife/Qa7na (Syria) in the campaign of 2002. The article gives a thorough presentation and examination of the two inscriptions and also aims to shed new light on the debate about the character of the relations between Egypt and the northern Levant in the 2nd millennium BC.

INTRODUCTION Among the numerous finds discovered by the German-Syrian expedition in the excavation campaign of 2002 within the royal tomb of Tell Mišrife/Qa7na1 were over sixty Egyptian and Egyptianizing (Egyptian-style) stone vessels. Two of these vessels also bear Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions which will be presented here for the first time.2 These two vessels from the royal tomb fall within the larger context of the various Egyptian imports found throughout the Levant. Regarding the problematic interpretation of this material, the inscriptions which are being dealt with here may possibly give an important new insight into the complex system of interconnections and exchange mechanisms and the nature of relations ∗

1

2

Department of Near Eastern Archaeology/Egyptology; University of Tübingen, Germany. For the royal tomb and its finds cf. AL-MAQDISSI et al. 2002 and PFÄLZNER 2003. This article is part of the author’s MA thesis on the Egyptian and Egyptianizing stone vessels found within the royal tomb and the palace at Tell Mišrife/Qa7na (for more details and a comprehensive presentation of all vessels cf. AHRENS 2005 and AHRENS forthc. a; b). I would like to thank G. Elsen-Novák M.A. for helping with the drawing of the vessels published here, M. Novák for useful suggestions and comments and P. Pfälzner for generously granting the permission to publish the finds (all Tübingen). For helpful discussions on Egyptian and Egyptianizing stone vessels in general I would like to thank Chr. Lilyquist (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York), R.T. Sparks and A. Bevan (both University College, London). S.P. Harvey (The Oriental Institute, Chicago) provided information and help concerning the unpublished material of the excavations at the cult complex of Ahmose. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to W. Guglielmi (Tübingen), K. Zibelius-Chen (Berlin) and

in general that existed between Egypt and the contemporary northern Levantine rulers during the second millennium BC. Although both vessels lack a secure dating in terms of stratigraphy from within the tomb – apart from the proposed period of occupation of the palace and tomb ca. 1850/1800–1340 BC3 –, the specific dates of the hieroglyphic inscriptions on the vessels can give a terminus post quem for their arrival at Qa7na (see below pg. 24 Furthermore, the specific historical implications of the inscriptions may help to evaluate and reassess certain questions pertaining to the cross-cultural exchange between these two regions. 1. The Findspots of the Vessels within the Royal Tomb The overall distribution of the Egyptian and Egyptianizing stone vessels covers all four chambers of the royal tomb. However, the findspots of the two Egyptian stone vessels with hieroglyphic inscriptions are confined to chambers 1 and 3 (see Fig. 1).5 The squat jar MSH02G-i0834 (Ahmes-Nefertari/Nefer-peret) made of calcite was found placed on a stone bench in the south-western part of chamber 1,6 whereas the drop-shaped alabas-

3

4

5

6

– last but surely not least – M. Bietak (Cairo/Vienna) for support and advice throughout the years. I would also like to thank Simon J. Northwood (Leiden) for proofreading the English manuscript. For the latest stratigraphic sequence of the palace cf. NOVÁK 2004: 314, especially fig. 13 and NOVÁK 2006: 63. The palace of Qa7na was most probably founded in the transition from Middle Bronze Age I to II, i.e. roughly contemporary with the period of the archives of Mari (18th to 17th century BC) and was most likely destroyed in the 14th century BC (ca. 1340 BC). For the date of the destruction of the palace and a new historical and chronological perspective cf. RICHTER 2002a; 2002b; 2003 and 2005. This, of course, is definitely not to say that the inscriptions on these vessels can date the precise time of their arrival in the northern Levant or at Qa7na respectively. Apart from the two stone vessels presented in this article no other Egyptian and Egyptianizing stone vessels found in the royal tomb and the palace will be dealt with here. For the findspot of the vessel cf. AL-MAQDISSI et al. 2002: 197, fig. 6 and 200, fig. 8.

16

Alexander Ahrens

Fig. 1 Sketch of the royal tomb indicating the findspots of the two Egyptian vessels with hieroglyphic inscriptions (drawing by G. Elsen-Novák)

tron MSH02G-i1632 (Amenemhat III.) made of serpentinite was discovered lying on the floor in the north-eastern part of chamber 3 among a group of 15 other Egyptian stone vessels (all of them being characteristic Middle Kingdom types).7

selves, a relatively short and basic typological and chronological description of the vessels is necessary. Note, however, that the types presented below are referred to only as “New” or “Middle Kingdom” types without any further chronological specification.

2. MATERIAL, TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY

a) MSH02G-i0834

Before dealing with the historical and archaeological implications of the inscriptions them-

The squat calcite8 jar MSH02G-i0834 (H: 12.5 cm; Wd: 19.4 cm) with a broad flat-topped rim, flat-

7

8

None of them bear hieroglyphic inscriptions. However, apart from the serpentinite drop-shaped alabastron MSH02G-i-1632 presented in this article, only one further vessel of the assemblage of stone vessels in chamber 3 is not made of calcite: it is a small bottle made of carnelian, its shape again dating to the Middle Kingdom. These vessels will be presented in detail elsewhere, cf. AHRENS forthc. a; for a first and preliminary description of the findspot and the chamber in general cf. AL-MAQDISSI et al. 2002: 198ff.; especially 199, fig. 7 and PFÄLZNER 2003. Also termed “Calcite-Alabaster”. For a general description of the material, its provenances in Egypt and the

geological terminology cf. KLEMM and KLEMM 1991; 1993: 199ff. The term “Travertine” (cf. ASTON et al. 2000: 59 f.; HARRELL 1990) is not used in this article. For the sake of completeness it should be noted that a cartouche containing the name of Queen AhmesNefertari was found in the vicinity of the calcite quarries known today as “Bosra/Bisra” in the Wadi ‘Assiuti, clearly showing the active involvement of the early 18th Dynasty in the quarrying of this stone (for the cartouche and its inscription cf. WEIGALL 1911; KLEMM and KLEMM 1993: 220 and HARVEY 1998: 67f.). For further building projects of the early 18th Dynasty see below, pg. 22.

A Journey’s End

Fig. 2 Squat calcite jar MSH02G-i0834 (photo by G. Mirsch; drawing by G. Elsen- Novák)

Fig. 3 Drop-shaped alabastron MSH02G-i1632 (photo by G. Mirsch; drawing by G. Elsen- Novák)

17

18

Alexander Ahrens

tened base and unpierced lug-handles (see Fig. 2) dates to the early 18th Dynasty, the beginning of the New Kingdom. Vessels of this specific kind are apparently already sporadically known from contexts dating to the Middle Kingdom but the type seems to appear in greater numbers only from the New Kingdom onwards.9 Obviously, the distinct shape of the vessel, including the execution and the placement of the unpierced lugged handles, clearly recalls Pre- or Early Dynastic (also Archaic) types of Egyptian stone vessels and it is because of these specific features that the character of these vessels may probably quite fittingly be termed “archaizing” or “archaic” although their manufacture must surely – in almost all cases – be dated to the 18th Dynasty or the New Kingdom in general.10 Furthermore, since genuine Archaic stone vessels, especially when made of precious raw materials, are often found reused in later contexts, it is not surprising to find both types together in archaeological contexts dating to the 2nd millennium BC.11 b) MSH02G-i1632 The drop-shaped (»ridge-necked«) alabastron

9

10

11

12

13

14

Cf. LILYQUIST 1995: 10–12 and figs. 8–9; 82; EL-KHOULI et al. 1993: cat. nos. 39 and 40. Cf. LILYQUIST 1995: 10–12; LILYQUIST 2003: 246 and 256: cat. 168; 257: fig. 200. Three Archaic Egyptian stone vessels (dating to the 1st–2nd dynasties) were found within the royal tomb, cf. AHRENS forth. a and b. For further examples of Archaic Egyptian stone vessels in the northern Levant found in archaeological contexts dating to the 2nd Millennium BC cf. MATTHIAE 1995: 446 and 475, cat.-no. 386 (Tell Mardikh/Ebla; “Tomb of the Lord of the Goats”, chamber C); FUGMANN 1958: 98, fig. 120 (Hama, level H1); CAUBET 1991: pls. I.1–2 and VIII.12 (Ras Shamra/Ugarit); EDEL 1983: 38f. and figs. 15–16, MIRON 1990: pl. 24.3, LILYQUIST 1994: 217, LILYQUIST 1996: pl. 28.1–3 (Kamid el-Loz/Kumidi) and WOOLLEY 1953 and 1955: pl. LXXXI.9 (Tell Açana/Alalakh); SPARKS 2003: 42. For a geological description of the material serpentinite and its probable provenance in Egypt (the Wadi Hammamat, Wadi ‘Atalla and Wadi Umm Esh in the Eastern Desert) cf. KLEMM and KLEMM 1993: fig. 401 and pls. 13.1–13.3; ASTON 1994: 56ff. and ASTON et al. 2000: 56 f, especially Variety 2. It is not possible to present an exhaustive list of all the examples of this type that found in Egypt, for references cf. BEN-DOR 1945; LILYQUIST 1995 and SPARKS in press. For further examples of drop-shaped alabastra and

MSH02G-i1632 (H: 21.2 cm; Wd: 12.5 cm) made of a greyish to greenish serpentinite12 (see Fig. 3) is a well-known Middle Kingdom type and has numerous chronologically attested parallels in Egypt13 and – to a certain degree – also in contexts dating to the 2nd millennium BC at various sites in the northern Levant.14 The specific type found in the royal tomb features an everted rim with three parallel grooves or ridges between the rim and the base of the neck and a typically round, slightly pointed base – hence the name »drop-shaped« for this type of vessel. 3. THE HIEROGLYPHIC INSCRIPTIONS Turning now to the inscriptions and their historical implications it should be emphasized once more that these cannot be regarded as chronological indicators for the deposition of the two vessels in the royal tomb. 3.1 Drop-shaped Alabastron MSH02G-i1632 (Amenemhat III.) The inscription is engraved on the side in the middle of the vessel and framed within a rectangular square (measurements: 7.2 × 7.4 cm). The rectangular frame itself consists of three single

other related types found in the northern Levant cf. BADRE 1997: fig. 15.1-3, fig. 18.a-b (Beirut, the so-called “Treasure Deposit”/Silo 80/300); SCANDONE MATTHIAE apud MATTHIAE 1995: 501, cat. nos. 463–464 (Tell Mardikh/Ebla, “Tomb of the Lord of the Goats”); WOOLLEY 1955: 296ff. and pls. XXI.a, LXXX.a and LXXXII.15 (Tell Açana/Alalakh, vessel AT/39/244; from the “Yarim-Lim Palace”, stratum VII); MONTET 1928: pl. CXXII.820 and .847–848 (Byblos, within the »tombeaux royales«, royal tombs I and II), SCHAEFFER 1938: pl. XXIV and CAUBET 1991: pl. I.3 (Ras Shamra/Ugarit); FUGMANN 1958: 101, fig. 124.2 (Hama, level H1, probably belonging to the final phase of MB II); DU MESNIL DU BUISSON 1928: pl. XIX.1 (from the royal palace of Qa7na, probably from the so-called “sanctuaire”; “matière calcinée”). The type is also attested in the Aegean (cf. WARREN 1969: 109ff., cat-no. P 607 and BEVAN 2003: 70ff., from the royal tomb at Isopata), Northern Mesopotamia (cf. OATES et al. 1997: 108, fig. 139 and fig. 229.103 for a vessel of this type found at Tell Brak, »Mitanni Palace«, level 5/6; cf. VON BISSING 1940 and 1942 for Egyptian stone vessels found by the German excavations at Assur and Babylon) and at numerous sites in the southern Levant, cf. SPARKS 1996: 51ff.; 2001 and especially SPARKS in press for a presentation and chronological discussion of these vessels; also cf. BEVAN in press.

A Journey’s End

lines at the bottom and at the sides but features a double line at the top.15 The hieroglyphic inscription is well preserved and consists of three vertical lines16 and one horizontal line (see Fig. 4). It can be read and translated as follows:17 1

{ sA Ra ½ Imn-m-HA.t¿ Son of Re Amenemhat,

2

{ njswt bjtj ½ Nj-mAa.t-Ra¿ King of Upper- and Lower Egypt Ni-maat-Re,

3

z mry ¤bk ¥d.tj beloved of Sobek Shedeti,

4

19

3 Dj(.w) anx mj Ra D.t given life like Re eternally.

3.1.1 The Historical Framework and Commentary King Amenemhat III. (ca. 1853–1806 BC18) of the 12th Dynasty devoted much of his energy to the area of the Fayyum and is known to have built extensively there, including the main temple of the crocodile god Sobek at Shedet (^d.t; Medinat al-Fayyum/Kîman Fáris),19 which was located close to the newly established capital JT-tA.wj (el-Lisht). The cult of the god Sobek, which was centered at Shedet, was to become the most prominent cult

Fig. 4 Hieroglyphic inscription of MSH02G-i1632 (photo by G. Mirsch; drawing by G. Elsen- Novák; copy of inscription by A. Ahrens)

15

16

17

This frame is obviously to be seen as an abstract or rather simplified depiction of the earth-line below, the sky-hieroglyph (p.t) at the top and supporting pillars at each side (normally in the form of two wAs-scepters). For examples – both elaborated and simplified – cf. FISCHER 1976: pl. XXIII, fig. 21 and LILYQUIST 1995: 85, fig. 21 and 88ff.; figs. 35–63. It is interesting to note here that the two royal cartouches with the name of the king and the name of the god are facing each other, thus creating and expressing some kind of »intimate relationship« or »intimacy« between the king and the deity. For a similar inscription on a cylinder seal found at Tell

18 19

el-Yahudiyeh in the eastern Nile Delta cf. PETRIE 1906: pl. I.12. For the chronology cf. VON BECKERATH 1997. For the very fragmented ruins of the temple at Kîman Faris and its religious importance cf. HABACHI 1937 and HIRSCH 2004: 122ff. There seems to have been a temple and a cult centered at Shedet even before the Middle Kingdom (cf. GOMAÁ 1984; 1986: 395ff.), but the main construction work apparently was commissioned under Amenemhat III. alone. Of particular interest in this respect is an inscription found in the Eastern Desert (Wadi Hammamat), dated to year 19 of the reign of Amenemhat III. The inscription mentions an expedition

20

Alexander Ahrens

under the reign of Amenemhat III.,20 so it is not surprising to find a vessel mentioning his titles and the name of the main god of that region. The inscription makes it very probable that the vessel was originally conceived and used for a religious purpose, probably – although without definite proof – within the temple of the god Sobek at Shedet.21 3.2 Squat Calcite Jar MSH02G-i0834 (AhmesNefertari/Nefer-peret) The hieroglyphic inscription is placed in the middle of the side of the jar with some slight irregularity in orientation. The inscription (measurements: 2.8 × 6.2 cm) is subdivided and marked by three vertical dividing lines (“Zeilentrenner”) in the middle and at both sides of the two columns.22 The hierogylphs within these columns are arranged facing each other; the state of preservation of the inscription is in some parts very fragmentary, and also the execution of the hieroglyphs appears to be very basic and rudimentary.23 In spite of the very bad condition of the inscription, the hieroglyphs and the content can be read and understood without any difficulties or problems (see Fig. 5): 1 z Dj(.w) m Hs(w).t n.t <xr> Hm.t nTr Hm.t njswt mw.t njswt ½IaH-mc-nfr.t-jr.j¿ anx.tj Given as a Gift of Honour by the God’s Wife, the King’s Wife, the King’s Mother, AhmesNefertari, she may live,

20

21

sent out to quarry greywacke for ten seated statues of the king dedicated to the temple of Sobek at Shedet. Apart from clearly revealing the importance of the temple at Shedet, the inscription may also show that different kinds of stone were quarried in that specific region. This may also be the case for the material serpentinite – which is known to have large and easily accessible outcrops in the Wadi Hammamat – although there is as yet no conclusive evidence for the use of these sources during the 12th dynasty. For the inscription dating to the reign of Amenemhat III. in the Wadi Hammamat cf. GOEDICKE 1964: 49, fig. 3; SEYFRIED 1981: 255ff. and HIRSCH 2004: 122. For the importance of the cult of ¤bk ^d.tj and the Fayyum in general especially under the reign of Amenemhat III. cf. HIRSCH 2004: 123; VERBOVSEK 2004: 129ff.; 2006: 87ff. As there is at the moment no direct archaeological parallel for the vessel that could hint at a better interpretation and localization of the object, the exact origin of the vessel has to remain hypothetical and unclear. It could also well be that the vessel, originating from a royal workshop, was used outside of the temple of Sobek at Shedet. For the attestation of the god Sobek outside of Shedet, cf. HIRSCH 2004: 120ff.

2

{ n (j)r(j)-pa.t HA.tj-a cmr wa.tj jmj-rA xtm.t sD.tj njswt Nfr-pr.t mAa-xrw to the Iripat (»Count«), the Hatia (»Hereditary Noble«), Sole Companion, the Chief Treasurer, the King’s Fosterling, Nefer-peret, justified.

3.2.1 The Historical Framework and Commentary Both individuals mentioned in the inscription – Queen Ahmes-Nefertari and the Chief Treasurer Nefer-peret – belong chronologically and historically to the period of the early 18th Dynasty. As both of these individuals are also attested together in other historical documents of that period, there is ample evidence to date the inscription – and therefore also the vessel – to the very beginning of the New Kingdom.24 3.2.1.1 Queen Ahmes-Nefertari The prominent historical and political role of Queen Ahmes-Nefertari (ca. 1552–1526 BC25) can be reconstructed well with the help of the monuments discovered which carry her name and titles.26 The important role of the queen is most probably also due to the strong matriarchal tendency that is observable throughout the 17th Dynasty and the early part of the 18th Dynasty.27 Ahmes-Nefertari, possibly the daughter of Seqenenre-Taco and Ahhotep of the 17th Dynasty,28 wife and also sister of King Ahmose and mother of the later King Amenhotep I., was the first royal woman

22

23

24

25 26

27

28

These dividing lines (also called »dividers«) probably also served to emphasize the relatively small inscription, for more examples cf. LILYQUIST 1995. Again this is most probably due to the very small scale of the inscription in general, which did not allow a finer execution. There is no reason to suggest that the inscription was added to the vessel at a later time. For the chronology cf. VON BECKERATH 1997. For the life, the institution of the office of the God’s Wife, and the religious and political functions of Queen Ahmes-Nefertari in general cf. GITTON 1975; 1976 and GRAEFE 1981. It is also because of her long reign from the time of Ahmose until the time of Thutmose I. (in which reign she probably died. For the reconstruction of the date of her death cf. BRADBURY 1985: 95, especially tab. 4 and KLUG 2002: 15ff.) that numerous historical documents mention the queen and portray her relationship to the early 18th Dynasty. Cf. GITTON 1975: 13f.; RYHOLT 1997: 167ff. and VANDERSLEYEN 1971: 163ff. For the genealogy cf. RYHOLT 1997: 277ff., § 3.8.4, tab. 81 and KLUG 2002: 70.

A Journey’s End

to be given the privilege of bearing the title Hm.t nTr »God’s Wife (of Amun)«, a title that indicated both religious and political functions. From the time of Ahmes-Nefertari onward an economic entity associated with the office called pr Hm.t nTr »estate of the God’s Wife« existed.29 After her death she was deified together with her son Amenhotep I. – maybe starting already in the late 18th Dynasty – and her posthumous cult is well attested, especially in the workers’ village at

21

Deir al-Medina.30 It still remains a matter of dispute where the tomb of the queen is to be located.31 The three titles of Ahmes-Nefertari given in the inscription of the vessel Hm.t nTr, Hm.t njswt and mw.t njswt fully conform with the series of titles attributed to Ahmes-Nefertari in other documents.32 However, it is only the last of these titles mw.t njswt (King’s Mother) that might help to date the inscription – and hence also the vessel – more precisely (see below, § 3.2.1.2.pg. 22).

Fig. 5 Hieroglyphic inscription of MSH02G-i0834 (photo by G. Mirsch; drawing by G. Elsen- Novák; copy of inscription by A. Ahrens)

29

30

For the estate of the God’s Wife cf. GRAEFE 1981: 96. It is obvious that the prestigious title Hm.t nTr »God’s Wife (of Amun)« did not only imply religious functions but also included many political duties, cf. HARVEY 1998. This fact is also exemplified by the cartouche of the queen at the stone quarries at »Bosra« mentioned above (see pg. 16) and several other construction works carried out under her name (see pg. 22). It could well be that the village of Deir al-Medina was founded by Amenhotep I. and Ahmes-Nefertari. However, the first historical attestation of the village dates to the reign of Thutmose I., cf. GITTON 1975: 45ff.

31

32

The possible mummy of Ahmes-Nefertari was found in 1881 within the cachette DB 320 at Deir al-Bahri. For a location of her tomb at Drac Abû el-Naga cf. CARTER 1916 (AN B, Carter attributed the tomb to her son Amenhotep I.); GITTON 1975; ROMER 1976: 201; DODSON 1988: 119; cf. POLZ 1995a; 1995b: 215ff. and POLZ et al. 2003: 319ff. (tombs K93.11/12). For a detailed analysis and a comprehensive list of all the titles attested to Queen Ahmes-Nefertari cf. GITTON 1975; TROY 1986. For the title mw.t njswt cf. ROTH 2001: 254ff.; 2002.

22

Alexander Ahrens

The introductory passage of the inscription Dj(.w) m Hs(w).t n.t <xr> [½IaH-mc-nfr.t-jr.j¿] »given as a gift of honour by […] Ahmes-Nefertari« makes it obvious that the vessel was originally given to the Chief Treasurer Nefer-peret as a reward and a sign of royal privilege by Queen Ahmes-Nefertari.33 Thus it seems plausible to attribute the vessel to a royal workshop (from the pr Hm.t nTr?) or palace stock, and to think that it was commissioned for an individual person (i.e. Nefer-peret) by order of the king or – in this case – the queen. 3.2.1.2 Chief Treasurer Nefer-peret The Chief Treasurer Nefer-peret34 of the early 18th Dynasty was hitherto only known from two historical documents in Egypt. The hieroglyphic inscription on vessel MSH02G-i0834 from the royal tomb at Qa7na is thus the third attestation of Nefer-peret known so far. Nefer-peret is attested for the first time on two almost identical rock-cut stelae at the limestone quarries of el-Macâsara (south of Tura on the eastern bank of the Nile)35 in the regnal year 22 of King Ahmose and Queen Ahmes-Nefertari (stelae A and B).36 The texts of both stelae refer to the reopening of the quarries and the breaking of the limestone there for the building projects of King Ahmose after the expulsion of the Hyksos.37 Fur33

34

35 36

37

For the use of this specific passage and further references cf. PUMPENMEIER 1998: 47f.; for the term Hsw.t and its implications cf. GUKSCH 1994: 39ff. and 138ff. passim. For the name and person cf. RANKE 1935 [PN I]: 196, no. 8 and HELCK 1958: 344 and 466: 1. Helck concludes: »Weitere Denkmäler des Nfr-pr.t sind nicht erhalten, so dass wir über sein Leben nichts erfahren können« (HELCK 1958: 8). For the quarry cf. KLEMM and KLEMM 1993: 65ff. There is apparently no explanation for the existence of two almost identical stelae. As both of the stelae date to year 22 of the reign of Ahmose, a second expedition under Nefer-peret to the quarries must be excluded. Maybe unknown practical reasons (exposure to water, cracks in the rock, etc.) led to the execution of a second stela nearby. Lepsius’ drawings clearly show that the stelae – although with some mistakes concerning the hieroglyphic inscriptions – are slightly different in conception, layout and content, cf. LEPSIUS 1852 [LD III]: Abth. III. B1/3a (no. 6) and b (no. 8). However, cf. VITTMANN 1974: 250f. for an interpretation of the two stelae as signs of a possible coregency of Ahmose and Amenhotep I. An alternative view is put forward by HARVEY 1998: 33ff. For the inscription cf. URK. IV: 24f. (24–25); DARESSY 1911; VANDERSLEYEN 1971: 102f.; PM IV: 74, nos. 6 and 8; HARVEY 1998: 61ff.; ULLMANN 2002: 17–25; BEYLAGE 2002: 421ff. with other references. The date given on the stelae (year 22 of Ahmose) fits well with the date of

thermore, below the hieroglyphic inscription of stela A there is an image of three bearded asiatics and cattle pulling a sled laden with a rectangular block of limestone. The cattle are described in the text as coming from the region of Fenkhu (Fnx.w), probably in the course of the wars conducted by King Ahmose in southern Palestine.38 The text of the stelae mentions the quarrying of stone for a temple of Ptah (at Memphis?) and the temple of Amun at Thebes as well as mn.w nb.w jrj.n HmVf »all the monuments which His Majesty (Ahmose) built« (Urk. IV: 25, l. 11). With the enumeration of these important building projects in the texts of the stelae the important role of the Chief Treasurer Nefer-peret within the bureaucracy and the administration of the early 18th Dynasty is exemplified. Almost all of the titles of Chief Treasurer Nefer-peret given in the inscriptions of the two stelae at el-Ma’âsara are also attested in the inscription of the vessel from the royal tomb. Both inscriptions – at el-Macâsara as well as on the vessel from Qa7na – start with the archaic titles jrjpa.t »Count, lit.: member of the elite« and HA.tj-a »Hereditary Noble, lit.: foremost of action« which probably do not imply any specific function or office in the early 18th Dynasty but perhaps merely served as markers of the individual’s status.39

38

39

the reconquest of the delta and the expulsion of the Hyksos which apparently was not achieved before the year 18 of King Ahmose, cf. HARVEY 1998: 64 and 303ff. Cf. DARESSY 1911: 263 and VANDERSLEYEN 1971: 102ff. With regard to the findspot of vessel MSH02G-i0834 in the royal tomb it should be noted that the region known to the Egyptians of the early 18th Dynasty as Fnx.w is surely not to be equated with the toponym »Phoenicia« of the 1st millennium BC, but cf. SCHNEIDER 2002: 266ff. Additionally, there is no reason to suggest that Neferperet’s office had any relation with the northern Levant. It is generally more plausible to conclude that at least in the time of the early 18th Dynasty the territory of Fenkhu has to be located in southern Palestine. This seems also to be the case with the contemporary toponym ©Ahy »Djahi« mentioned in the tomb of Ahmose-Pennekhbet (IaH-mc Pn-Nxb.t) at el-Kab. This is probably also a region conquered by Ahmose in southern Palestine (Urk. IV: 32f., especially 36). It may therefore be located in the vicinity of Sharuhen, cf. VANDERSLEYEN 1971: 91-100; WEINSTEIN 1981: 5-8 and HOFFMEIER 2004. For the titles of Nefer-peret at el-Macâsara cf. Urk. IV: 25, l. 13ff. For the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period however – and the early 18th Dynasty might be included in this respect – GRAJETZKI 2000: 221ff. rightly concludes that the titles jrj-pa.t and HA.tj-a (»Rangtitel«), also including the title cmr wa.tj (see below), almost always appear together and that

A Journey’s End

23

The third title cmr wa.tj »Sole Companion«40 most probably also does not denote a specific office. Interestingly though, the title always seems to appear in conjunction with the titles jrj-pa.t and HA.tj-a.41 The last title sD.tj njswt »the King’s Fosterling« is unique in many ways. It is attested rather seldom and its actual meaning is not yet understood with certainty.42 It seems probable that this title refers to an early upbringing of Chief Treasurer Nefer-peret in connection or close relation with the royal court and household – maybe even together with the king.43 This may also explain the close relationship Nefer-peret seems to have had with both King Ahmose and Queen AhmesNefertari according to the historical documents discovered. However, Nefer-peret’s familiar affiliations remain unknown. It is only the following official or regular title jmj-rA xtm.t »Chief Treasurer« that defines the actual office held by Nefer-peret.44 The office of

the Chief Treasurer was without doubt one of the most important offices within the Egyptian administration from the First Intermediate Period onwards.45 The epithet mAa-xrw »justified/vindicated; lit.: true of voice« that follows Nefer-peret’s name cannot be used to prove that the Chief Treasurer already was deceased at the time when the vessel was commissioned.46 Still, as there are also numerous parallels indicating that individuals named mAaxrw were in fact deceased, there is ample evidence to conclude that Nefer-peret was actually deceased at that time. Accepting this possibility, the vessel from the royal tomb at Qa7na could then be regarded as formerly having been part of the funerary equipment of Nefer-peret’s tomb.47 The second archaeological attestation of Chief Treasurer Nefer-peret in Egypt has recently been found at Abydos by a mission of The Oriental Institute Chicago under the direction of S.P. Harvey.48 It is here, within the vicinity of the pyramid

individuals holding these titles often served as royal dignitaries of the administration. However, it is only Nefer-peret’s regular title of a jmj-rA xtm.t »Chief Treasurer« that primarily denotes his office (»Amtstitel«). For further references cf. WARD 1982: no. 364; GRAJETZKI 2000: 43ff.; QUIRKE 1986 and QUIRKE 2004: 48f. Cf. GRAJETZKI 2000: 224f., 13.4.4. It is very probable that this title only denotes a general connection with the royal administration. Towards the 13th Dynasty the title cmr wa.tj (»Rangtitel«) is almost exclusively confined to individuals holding the office of Chief Treasurer. Urk. IV: 25, l. 15 (el-Macâsara). For this specific combination or sequence of regular titles cf. FRANKE 1982: 20 and GRAJETZKI 2000: vii, 221ff. and 227ff. (i.e. Franke’s »Hofrangtitel« and Grajetzki’s »Rangtitel«). Compared to the inscriptions at el-Macâsara and the evidence drawn from other parallels only the title xtm.tj-bjtj is missing on the vessel from the royal tomb at Qa7na. The reasons for this are not clear, but chronological aspects can probably be excluded as the vessel was obviously manufactured at the same time or even shortly after the inscriptions at el-Macâsara were executed (i.e. year 22 of King Ahmose). For this title cf. WARD 1982: no. 1506 and GRAJETZKI 2000: 69, no. 59; (»Beititel«). For the differentiation of the titles known as »Beititel« cf. FRANKE 1984a: 124; GRAJETZKI 2000: 4f. This interpretation of the title sD.tj njswt has been put forward by FEUCHT 1995: 230f and GRAJETZKI 2000: 246. It is interesting to note that the aforementioned Ahmose Pennekhbet in turn is raising Hatshepsut’s daughter Nfr.w-Ra.w while holding the title jmj-rA xtm.t (»jw Sd.nVj sAVs wr.t sA.t njswt Nfr.w-Ra.w«, cf. Urk. IV, 34). One of Hatshepsut’s titles given in this context is that of a hm.t nTr »God’s Wife«, cf. HELCK 1958: 346.

This – albeit later – evidence may emphasize the close relation of the office of a Chief Treasurer with the royal family. Already in the 12th Dynasty vizier Mentuhotep (reign of Senwosret I.) is holding the title sD.tj njswt in direct connection with the regular title of a jmj-rA xtm.t »Chief Treasurer«, cf. FRANKE 1984b: dos. 262; SIMPSON 1991: 336 and VERBOVSEK 2004: 402f. For the reading of the title jmj-rA xtm.t cf. FRANKE 1984a; FISCHER 1976; QUIRKE 1990: vii; QUIRKE 1996: 118; QUIRKE 2004: 48. (Gardiner signs S 19 and S 20 are obviously interchangeable in the writing of the title). For the office of the Chief Treasurer in general cf. HELCK 1958: 77ff. and GRAJETZKI 2000: 66ff., 72ff. and 221ff.; GRAJETZKI 2001: 5–9; QUIRKE 2004: 48. The epithet apparently was also attributed to living persons. For an analysis of this epithet and its implications cf. DOXEY 1998: 90ff. and BUDKA 2001: 49ff. For the designation of On-Jmn(.w) as mAa-xrw who at that time was still alive, cf. PUMPENMEIER 1998: 55 and 75. His tomb (at Drac Abû el-Naga?), however, has not yet been found: the vessel thus could also derive from a cenotaph (maybe located at Abydos?), cf. SIMPSON 1971; 1991. It is interesting to note that a Chief Treasurer named JAmw is attested in the reign of Amenhotep I. (cf. HELCK 1958: 345). As the stelae at el-Macâsara give the title mw.t njswt »King’s Mother« for Ahmes-Nefertari it is clear that the later King Amenhotep I. was already born (for the question of a supposed coregency cf. VITTMANN 1974 and HARVEY 1998: 33ff.) and Nefer-peret still alive at that time (i.e. regnal year 22 of Ahmose). He then probably died in the reign of Amenhotep I. For the possibility of acquiring goods through tomb-robbing cf. PHILLIPS 1992: 185f. and below pg. 28. Cf. HARVEY 1994; 1998; 2003 and HARVEY forthc. for the extraordinary results obtained.

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

24

Alexander Ahrens

complex of King Ahmose,49 that several stamped mud bricks belonging to an exterior wall of a structure with cultic functions (Temple A) were found bearing the inscription of the jmj-rA xtm.t Nfr-pr.t »Chief Treasurer Nefer-peret«.50 However, the majority of stamped mudbricks recovered in the vicinity of the cult complex belong to King Ahmose and Queen Ahmes-Nefertari.51 The fact that Nefer-peret’s name is also found on the mudbricks used for the building »Temple A« within the cult complex exemplifies the extraordinary position of the Chief Treasurer within the administration and his close relationship to the king and queen. It seems likely that Nefer-peret was in charge of building these structures and thus contributed parts of the mudbricks used for construction. The active and prominent role of the Nefer-peret in the carrying out of construction works was probably due to his office as a jmj-rA xtm.t.52 Interesting and very intriguing is the possible connection between the inscriptions at the quarries of el-Macâsara and the archaeological evidence from the cult complex at Abydos. It seems very possible that the limestone which was quarried at el-Macâsara by Nefer-peret’s expedition in year 22 of Ahmose was used for the construction of the cult complex at Abydos that was being built at the same time or slightly later. Indeed, it is very likely that the stone was quarried and used for mn.w nb.w jrj.n HmVf »all the monuments which His Majesty built«.

49

50

51 52

53

The complex was already partly excavated by A.C. Mace and C.T. Currelly at the beginning of the 20th century. For the findings and results cf. MACE 1902 and CURRELLY 1904; for a summary of the old excavations cf. HARVEY 1998; 2003. For the inscription of Nefer-peret on the mudbricks and their distribution cf. HARVEY 1998: 487: types 7a and 7b; 489. It is obvious that the stamped mudbricks were not merely used for practical reasons (i.e. to indicate the institution responsible for making the mudbricks) but also served a religious purpose, especially since the “holy city” of Abydos was chosen as a building site. Could it be that Nefer-peret also built a cenotaph for himself here (see n. 47)? Cf. HARVEY 1998: 487, types 1–6; 8; HARVEY 2003: 22. Cf. HELCK 1958: 78ff. and GRAJETZKI 2000: 73 with further references. Already in the Middle Kingdom the office of the Chief Treasurer apparently included the supervision of expeditions and royal construction projects. As mentioned before (pg. 23) it is not clear whether Nefer-peret was still alive (cenotaph) or already deceased at that time and the vessel thus part of his funerary equipment (see n. 47). If Nefer-peret died

Considering the close relation of Chief Treasurer Nefer-peret to Ahmose and Ahmes-Nefertari as revealed by the the archaeological evidence at el-Macâsara and Abydos it is reasonable to suggest that the vessel discovered within the royal tomb at Qa7na was originally given to Neferperet as (part of) a reward for the royal construction projects carried out under his supervision and his achievements as jmj-rA xtm.t.53 The vessel’s hieroglyphic inscription thus adds some new information to our understanding and reconstruction of the administration of the early 18th Dynasty and the life of the Chief Treasurer Nefer-peret. 4. THE POSSIBLE DATE OF THE VESSELS’ DISPATCHMENT When discussing the vessels’ possible date of dispatchment and deposition within the royal tomb, it is necessary to recall the proposed time-span of the occupation of the palace and the royal tomb. As mentioned before, the archaeological evidence makes it clear that the foundation of the palace cannot predate the transitional phase from Middle Bronze Age I to II (i.e. the late 19th or early 18th century BC).54 The destruction of the royal palace of Qa7na – and thus the blocking of the entrance to the royal tomb by the debris – gives a secure terminus ante quem for the transfer to Qa7na and the deposition of the vessels inside the tomb at the end of the 14th century (ca. 1340 BC).55 When taking into account the historical and chronological implications of the vessels’ hiero-

54 55

early in the reign of Amenhotep I., it might be interesting to note that only the cartouche of Ahmes-Nefertari (and not the cartouche of Ahmose) was inscribed on the vessel: could it be that King Ahmose was already deceased and Ahmes-Nefertari ruling alone at the time the vessel was commissioned (Amenhotep I. at that time being still too young to rule)? However, as AhmesNefertari apparently seems to have been in charge of numerous building projects, she may also have been the one to “correspond” with the Chief Treasurer. Furthermore, it is plausible to conclude that workshops were attached to the pr Hm.t nTr »Estate of the God’s Wife«. These workshops would probably produce and distribute objects commissioned for individuals by order of the God’s Wife, and therefore named only her. Cf. NOVÁK 2004: 314. For the possible date of the destruction of the palace from a historical perspective cf. RICHTER 2002b; 2003 and 2005; NOVÁK and PFÄLZNER 2003: 162f. For an outline of the history in general cf. KLENGEL 1969; 1992: 65ff.,156ff. and 2000. There is no evidence for a later use of the palace of Qa7na until the partial reoccupation in the Iron Age, cf. NOVÁK 2004: 315.

A Journey’s End

glpyhic inscriptions as described above, it is evident that the calcite jar MSH02G-i0834 must have been deposited in the royal tomb sometime during the 18th Dynasty, possibly only during the later part of that dynasty.56 However, such a clear and precise definition in terms of chronology cannot be established for the export of the drop-shaped alabastron MSH02G-i1632. The period of time in which the vessel could have got to Qa7na and into the royal tomb is about 450 to 500 years (i.e. 12th–18th Dynasties).57 In this regard it may also prove useful to take into account the overall distribution of inscribed Egyptian objects attributed to King Amenemhat III. and the early 18th Dynasty in the northern Levant. 4.1 Objects attributed to Amenemhat III. in the Northern Levant Inscribed objects naming King Amenemhat III. have been found at various sites in the northern Levant.58 In the royal tombs I and III at Byblos one pectoral (tomb I)59 and one vessel made of obsidian (tomb III)60 carrying the throne name of Amenemhat III. have been discovered.61 At Neirab in western Syria, located some 30 km south-east of the city of Aleppo/Yamkhad, a

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

This evidence argues strongly against Helck’s rather simplistic arguments for a supposed »Statuenhandel« pursued by the Hyksos alone, cf. HELCK 1971: 68ff.; HELCK 1976. However, his chronological observations and arguments concerning most of the Middle Kingdom statuary found in the northern Levant for the larger part still seem to be valid today. As demonstrated by the date of the inscription and the destruction of the royal tomb. Thus, the supposed time-span for vessel MSH02G-i0834 is about 200 years (ca. 1530–1340 BC). Other small finds (such as scarabs and cylinder seals) naming Amenemhat III. and coming from sites in the southern Palestine have been omitted here. Cf. MONTET 1928: 162ff. and pls. XCIV, XCVII; WEIN and OPIFICUS 1963: 41, pl. 30. Cf. MONTET 1928: 155 and cat.-no. 610, pls. LXXXVIII and LXXXIX. Other small finds found at Byblos naming King Amenemhat III. include two cylindrical beads, cf. DUNAND 1928: 185f., no. 2905, pl. CXXVII and 208f., no. 3107, pl. XXXVII. Cf. HELCK 1971: 68; SCANDONE MATTHIAE 1990. The sphinx is kept in the Archaeological Museum of Aleppo today. Cf. SCHAEFFER 1939: 223 and fig. 25; HELCK 1971: 68; HELCK 1976: 104; WARD 1979: 802f. and SCANDONE MATTHIAE 1984: 182ff.; 1989: 126f; 1996; 1997 and 2000. SCHAEFFER 1939 and SCANDONE MATTHIAE 1989:

25

sphinx of Amenemhat III. was found.62 The important coastal city of Ras Shamra/Ugarit apparently yielded one fragmented sphinx of the king in the courtyard of the temple of Baal (temple 1) among other Egyptian statuary of different periods.63 At Hazor in the upper Galilee a further sphinx of Amenemhat III. – albeit fragmented – was found in a cultic building dating to the Late Bronze Age.64 Finally, a fragmentary bowl with a scarab impression on the base bearing the throne name of King Amenemhat III. (Nj-mAa.t-Ra) was recovered at Yoqne’am in northern Palestine.65 Most of these objects – if not all of them – seem to be found in contexts that cannot be attributed with certainty to the period of the 12th Dynasty, the Middle Kingdom or sometimes even the Middle Bronze Age (with the exception of Byblos). Without being able to determine an exact date of the objects’ arrival in the Levant by way of stratigraphy – and this also holds true for almost all of the royal and non-royal Middle Kingdom statuary found in the northern Levant – it is impossible to draw far reaching historical conclusions concerning Egypt’s relation with the eastern Mediterranean in the first half of the 2nd millennium BC

64

65

126; 2000: 189 both mention the existence of two sphinxes. However, HELCK 1976: 104, n. 39 apparently rightly states that only one sphinx of King Amenemhat III. was discovered in the courtyard of »temple 1« at Ras Shamra/Ugarit; the numerous fragments were obviously falsely attributed to two sphinxes at first, cf. WARD 1979: 802, n. 25 with further references. For the dating of its findspot cf. WARD 1961; HELCK 1976; WARD 1979: 802f.; HELCK 1995b. Ward’s argumentation, however, in no way convincingly proves that the objects actually reached Ugarit during the Middle Kingdom (WARD 1979: 802f.). Giveon reports a cylinder seal naming Amenemhat III. from Ugarit, cf. GIVEON 1978: 80. Furthermore, there is one cylinder seal apparently bearing the throne name of Amenemhat III. from Cyprus, cf. Giveon 1978: 80. The context of the find is not clear. Cf. BEN-TOR and RUBIATO 1999: 35f. and now BEN-TOR 2006. The context of the findspot, however, seems to be disturbed by later intrusions. I would like to thank Dr. S. Zuckerman for bringing this object to my attention and for providing the information. For the site in general and the scarab impression cf. BIETAK 2000: 112 and BEN-TOR 2005: 361f. The bowl was recovered from a locus of a Late Bronze Age level. BenTor notes that »the scarab used for the impression is significantly earlier, arguing against any association between the impressions and the 12th Dynasty king whose name it bears« (BEN-TOR 2005: 362).

26

Alexander Ahrens

based on these objects alone. The study of Egypt’s foreign relations in the period of the Middle Kingdom with the eastern Mediterranean is to a large extend still hampered by the very fragmentary nature of the evidence and our limited knowledge of the historical situation at that time.66 On the other hand, there may be reason to postulate that at least some of these objects were brought to the Levant sometime after the collapse of the Middle Kingdom.67 Much of the royal and non-royal statuary found in the Levant bear inscriptions (e.g. such as the Htp-Dj-njswt-formula or certain ambiguous epithets like nb jmAx.w68) that hint to the fact that these objects were originally conceived as being part of a typical offering

66

Numerous minor and major studies have dealt with the nature of relations between Egypt and the Levant in the first half of the 2nd millennium BC. Keep in mind that the summary given here is by no means complete. For a general overview cf. HELCK 1971 and REDFORD 1992. Evidence for Egypt’s economic relations with the Levant and even beyond – apparently also mentioning regions of Cilicia (the port of Ura »JwAj«) and Cyprus (»JAsjj«) – is found on the blocks from the temple of Ptah at Memphis that contain parts of the annals of King Amenemhat II. of the 12th Dynasty; for the inscription and its historical interpretation cf. ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991; HELCK 1989; REDFORD 1992 and also QUACK 1992 and 1996, all with further references. Additionally, in his recent study of the »Tale of Sinuhe« (dating to the time of Sesostris I. or later?) SCHNEIDER 2002 comes to a new reading and understanding of the difficult passage B 219–B 223. According to him, the passage contains the first mention of the city of Qa7na (i.e. Qa7anum) as well as an attestation of the region later known as Kizzuwatna in Cilicia. Interestingly, an Egyptian statue of the nurse ¤A.t-¤nfr.w was found at Tepebag Höyük (ancient Adana) in Cilicia, cf. ERMAN 1893 and DE VOS 2002: 46f. Although the statue was discovered in levels attributed to classical times, it probably reached Cilicia during the 2nd millennium. In Upper Egypt the socalled »Tôd Treasure« probably dating to time of King Amenemhat II. also clearly reflects the economic interaction between Egypt and the eastern Mediterranean in general, as do the corpora of texts known as »Ächtungstexte« or »Execration Texts« of the late Middle Kingdom. For the el-Tôd Treasure, cf. BISSON DE LA ROQUE 1950; BISSON DE LA ROQUE et al. 1953; PORADA 1982 and HELCK 1995a: 14f. with further references; for an analysis of the execration texts cf. HELCK 1971: 44ff. The mastaba of Khnumhotep at Dashur (dating to the reign of Sesostris III.) yielded fragments of a text that relates to a conflict between Byblos and Ullaza, thus seemingly attesting direct Egyptian influence on the political system of the northern Levant; cf. WIMMER 2005: 131 (citing results

place, cultic chapel, cenotaph (Hw.t-kA and maHa.t) or even tomb that served a funerary or religious purpose in Egypt – but surely not abroad. This, e.g., also seems to be the case with the »Sphinx of Ita« (z jrj.t-pa.t sA.t njswt mr.tVf n.t X.tVf JtA nb.t jmAx.w) – daughter of King Amenemhat II.69 – discovered within the royal palace of Qa7na.70 The sphinx made of schist was discovered broken into 400 fragments in the north-eastern part of the courtyard of the palace (the so-called »sanctuary«) which also revealed cuneiform tablets belonging to the »Inventory of the Temple of BŸlet-Ekallim«.71 Close to the findspot of the sphinx a second – albeit fragmented – statue made of calcite-alabaster, apparently that of a kneeling

67

68

69

70

71

obtained by James P. Allen). For the mace of King Hotep-ib-Re of the 13th Dynasty found in the late Middle Bronze Age »Tomb of the Lord of the Goats« (Hypogeum C) at Tell Mardikh/Ebla and other Egyptian and Egyptianizing finds cf. S CANDONE MATTHIAE 1997. For egyptianizing elements in the Middle Bronze Age glyptic of the Levant cf. TEISSIER 1996. Furthermore, the excavations carried out at Tell el-Dabca and at various sites in the eastern Delta have brought to light a wealth of information concerning the asiatic population living in Egypt, cf. BIETAK and HEIN 1994; BIETAK 1996 with further references. New evidence for the relations between Egypt and the northern Levant was recently reported coming from Tell Siyannu on the Syrian Coast. Apparently, a cuneiform tablet dating to the Middle Bronze Age (unpublished) was found which mentions trade connections between the island of Cyprus and Egypt. For the tablet cf. BRETSCHNEIDER et al. 2004: 219, n. 12; for late Middle Bronze Age wall paintings discovered at Tell Sakka cf. TARAQJI 1999. For the important new Egyptian finds at Sidon cf. FORSTNER-MÜLLER, KOPETZKY and DOUMET-SERHAL 2006; GRIFFITHS and OWNBY 2006 and DOUMET-SERHAL 2006. Cf. HELCK 1971 and 1976; BIETAK 1998; RYHOLT 1997: 139, n. 500 and 143ff. The epithet does not necessarily indicate that the person it describes was in fact deceased, cf. DOXEY 1998: 100ff. However, for the majority of the attestations this may be suggested. Cf. DU MESNIL DU BUISSON 1928: 10; FAY 1996: 44ff. and SABBAHY 2003. For the statue of Ita’s possible sister $nm.tnfr-HD.t at Ugarit cf. SCHAEFFER 1939: 20; PERDU 1977. The sphinx was found in the destruction level of the royal palace dating to the late 14th century BC. For the sphinx cf. DU MESNIL DU BUISSON 1928: 10f.; 1935b; HELCK 1976: 108f.; FAY 1996: 30ff. and pls. 58–60. The sphinx is kept in the Louvre today; Louvre AO.13075. For the German excavations cf. NOVÁK and PFÄLZNER 2000; 2001; 2002; 2003 and 2005. For the inventories roughly dating to the 15th century BC cf. BOTTÉRO 1949 and 1950.

A Journey’s End

king, was found. As the style and execution of this statue seems to be characteristic of the tradition of the Middle Kingdom, it could well be that the statue belongs to that period as well.72 Both objects, the sphinx and the statue were therefore probably displayed together and regarded by the rulers of Qa7na as »items of prestige«. The inscription placed between the paws (see above) and especially the term »nb.t jmAx.w« makes it likely that the sphinx originally derived from a funerary context. Additionally, in the years 1894/95 J. de Morgan explored the pyramid enclosure of King Amenemhat II. at Dashur and its close vicinity. Within the enclosure of the pyramid de Morgan found three tombs attributed to two princesses each, one of these tombs also belonging to princess Ita.73 The sphinx of Ita may therefore have originally come from a cultic building connected to her tomb at Dashur and then have been carried off to the Levant at a later date, although a more precise date cannot be given.74 Returning now to the possible date of depostion of vessel MSH02G-i1632, from the royal tomb it could be that it reached also Qa7na at a later date. Vast amounts of objects and monuments seem to have been looted from the main religious

72

73

74

75

For the second statue cf. DU MESNIL DU BUISSON 1928: 10 and 17; HELCK 1976. A third Egyptian statue dating to the Middle Kingdom was discovered in a disturbed context in the north-eastern part of town. On the back pillar of the statue the offering-formula Htp-Dj-njswt can be read, cf. DU MESNIL DU BUISSON 1935: 45 and pl. VI, 1–4. For other Egyptian and Egyptianizing finds at Qa7na cf. AL-MAQDISSI 2001: 151 (scarab); ROCCATI 2002 (a fragment of a stone bowl naming Senwosret I.) and AHRENS 2003 (scarabs and scarab impressions). Cf. DE MORGAN 1903: 45ff. and pl. II; HELCK 1976; JÁNOSI 1994: 94ff. While some of the tombs within the pyramid enclosure seem to postdate Amenemhat II. and must be dated to the 13th Dynasty or later, the tomb of Ita, however, can be securely dated to the reign of Amenemhat II. The archaeological evidence for later additions and thus also possible intrusions into the older tombs may explain the “acquisition” of funerary equipment. This idea was already put forward by HELCK 1971 and 1976. As mentioned before, it seems too simplistic to reduce this problematic question to the period of the Hyksos alone. Concerning the other Egyptian statues found at Qa7na no further information can be given. For the monuments attributed to King Amenemhat III. that seem to derive from Shedet and were usurped and removed from there cf. VERBOVSEK 2006: 72ff. Although a possible “connection” between these monuments and

27

center of the Fayyum, i.e. the temple of Sobek of Shedet, after the collapse of the Middle Kingdom adminstration and authority. This is exemplified by the monuments of King Amenemhat III. that were usurped and removed as early as the 15th Dynasty.75 Although there is no direct indication or proof that the vessel found in the royal tomb of Qa7na actually belongs to that group of objects, it is still a possibility not to be discarded straight away. Therefore, when trying to establish a date for the dispatchment of the vessel and its deposition within the royal tomb, a date sometime after the 12th Dynasty might seem plausible.76 This is not to rule out the possibility that the vessel was a gift presented to the ruler of Qa7na. An analysis of the objects dispatched by the Egyptians in the Amarna archives shows that Egpytian objects of a much earlier date were also being sent as gifts to the northern Levant and the kings of the so-called »Great Powers’ Club«.77 4.2 Objects of the Early 18th Dynasty in the Northern Levant So far, vessel MSH02G-i0834 from the royal tomb is the only known example of an inscribed Egpytian object found in the northern Levant that can be attributed to the early 18th Dynasty.78 Addition-

76

77

78

the objects naming Amenemhat III. found in the northern Levant (see above, p. 25) seems appealing at first sight (especially in the case of the sphinxes), there is no way to prove this. For the Hyksos Khian at Bo=azköy cf. STOCK 1962. There are signs of wear on vessel MSH02G-i1632 that might show that it had already been used for a longer period of time (see Figs. 3 and 6). These consist of a worn and roughened horizontal line around the vessel’s lower part of the body, obviously a sign of long use caused by a separate stand (without which the dropshaped alabastron could not be securely fixed). However, no stand was discovered in the royal tomb and it seems likely that these signs of wear derive from a continuous and long period of use. However, this in no way can imply that the vessel was used at Qa7na or the northern Levant for a longer period of time. For the evidence revealed in the letters of the Amarna archive cf. FORSTNER-MÜLLER et al. 2002: 156ff.; PHILLIPS 1992 and COCHAVI-RAINEY 1999. For a serpentinite vase bearing the cartouche of King Ahmose recovered from a Late Cypriote tomb at Palaepaphos-Teratsoudhia on Cyprus, cf. HARVEY 1998: 79 with further references. The context of the vessel’s findspot might well be contemporary with the 18th Dynasty, although not necessarily with the early part of that dynasty, cf. JACOBSSON 1994: 20, 79.

28

Alexander Ahrens

Fig. 6 Stone vessels MSH02G-i0834 and MSH02G-i1632 (photo by G. Mirsch)

ally, stone vessels naming non-royal individuals are extremely rare in the northern Levant.79 There is no way to say with certainty when the vessel actually reached the northern Levant and was finally deposited within the royal tomb. However, as has been argued above (see pg. 24), the vessel definitely must have reached the northern Levant in the course of the 18th Dynasty. If Chief Treasurer Nefer-peret was already deceased at the time the vessel was commissioned (and the vessel was thus part of his funerary equipment), it might be concluded that the vessel was looted from his tomb at a later time and then carried off to the Levant afterwards.80

79

80

81

Cf. EDEL 1983: 38f. and cat. no. 98 for a stone vessel from Kåmid el-Løz/Kumidi inscribed with the name of a certain HA.tj-a Ra-wsr. It is unclear when the vessel reached the city as the vessel seems to be considerably older than than the inscription itself, the context of the find dates to the Late Bronze Age, cf. LILYQUIST 1994; 1996: pl. 28, 1–3; MIRON 1990: pl. 24, 1–3; for a stone vessel naming a »priest of Nefertem«, cf. EDEL 1983: 39; LILYQUIST 1996: pl. 29. Cf. PHILLIPS 1992 who states that »undoubtly the problem [i.e. the violation of tombs] was never entirely eradicated, even in the most politically stable and controlled reigns« (pg. 185). Contra VANDERSLEYEN 1971: 90ff. However, cf. REDFORD 1979: 275f. and 1992: 148ff. and 150, fig. 16 for a possible military campaign of King Amenhotep I. into the

That the vessel might have been dispatched at a later date is is also supported by the fact that the Kings of the early 18th Dynasty (i.e. Kings Ahmose and Amenhotep I.81) most probably never really came into any direct contact with the northern Levant and its rulers but concentrated on southern Palestine trying to secure the north-eastern border of Egypt instead.82 It is only with King Thutmose I. and his intrusions into the regions under influence of the Mittani empire that the northern Levant becomes a main focus of Egyptian military and political attention again. The increased campaigns conducted in the northern Levant under King Thutmose I. and the following

82

Levant (mentioning Odm, &wnjp and +Awny). Nevertheless, it seems more plausible to attribute the blocks from the gate inscription at Karnak to the reign of King Thutmose I., cf. BRADBURY 1985: 75ff. with further references. A different interpretation of the evidence – albeit historically difficult – has been put forward by LE SAOUT 1987: 325ff. and pls. I–III. Also, several calcite fragments apparently belonging to one vessel from tomb AN B at Drac Abû el-Naga mention the toponym Qdm (bearing the cartouche of Ahmose?; cf. LILYQUIST 1995: 24; 85, fig. 23; CARTER 1916). However, cf. BRADBURY 1985: 75ff. for a different historical view (time of Thutmose I); also REDFORD 2003: 185ff. Cf. WEINSTEIN 1981: 7; and HOFFMEIER 1989: 185f.; 2004: 125ff.

A Journey’s End

kings on the other hand probably also led to a renewed interest in all things Egpytian and a growing demand for Egyptian objects among the northern levantine rulers.83 Furthermore, the growing conflict between Egypt and the empire of Mittani, beginning with King Thutmose I. may well be the reason why numerous Egyptian objects were sent to the northern Levant: as the Egyptians were trying to regain a hold of the northern Levant the deliberate dispatchment of Egyptian objects – apart from the military campaigns conducted in western Asia – also served to tie the levantine rulers to the Egyptian foreign policy.84 It thus becomes plausible to argue that vessel MSH02G-i-0834 most probably did not reach the Levant before the time of King Thutmose I., but rather at a later date in the 18th Dynasty as there is no convincing evidence for a direct contact between the early 18th Dynasty and the northern Levant so far. However, a more precise date for the vessel’s dispatchment cannot be given, since its findspot gives only a terminus ante quem for its final deposition within the tomb.85 5. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY Both vessels discovered in the royal tomb at Qa7na add to the corpus of Egyptian imports found in the northern Levant (see Fig. 6). Apart from the historical value of the inscriptions for the reconstruction of Egyptian history as outlined above, the existence of these vessels within the royal tomb at Qa7na also suggests that the vessels – including

83

84

As is evidenced in the later part of the 18th Dynasty, cf. PANAGIOTOPOULOS 2000. In addition, the Amarna letters written by King Akizzi of Qa7na (EA 51?/52–55) clearly reveal the interest of the ruler of Qa7na in objects coming from Egypt, cf. MORAN 1992: 122ff. These interesting patterns of interaction between Egypt and the northern Levant can clearly be detected in the numerous historical documents of the 2nd millennium BC, especially in the letters of the Amarna archive, cf., e.g., LIVERANI 1990; MORAN 1992; BLEIBERG 1996: 90ff. and 115ff.; COCHAVI-RAINEY 1999; COHEN and WESTBROOK 2000 and recently FELDMAN 2006. For

29

other objects of Egyptian origin – were generally highly valued by the elites in the northern Levant because of their strong »emblematic« character. The acquisition of Egyptian objects with hieroglyphic script – often also displaying royal cartouches and insignia – was a legitimate and intriguing way for levantine rulers to emphasize, accumulate and substantiate their socio-political power. A real understanding of the hieroglyphs inscribed on these objects was obviously not necessary, as can be seen by the contents, meaning and purpose of most of the hieroglyphic inscriptions (and objects) found in the northern Levant. The levantine rulers and the kings of Egypt maintained intercultural communication primarily through the mediation of »exotic« prestige goods and the exchange of correspondence. Although both vessels most probably reached the northern Levant (and Qa7na) by means of a diplomatic mission – as is evidenced and exemplified by the numerous historical documents of the 2nd millennium BC – it is almost impossible precisely to date the time of their dispatchment on the basis of the inscriptions alone. In each case the specific »history« of the object must be assessed cautiously and also contextually. This has to be kept in mind when trying to reconstruct the patterns of interaction and exchange mechanisms between Egypt and the northern Levant: the results might otherwise be misleading and heavily obscure the overall picture of the relations between Egypt and the eastern Mediterranean.

85

the distribution of Egyptian stone vessels in the Levant cf. SPARKS 2003. Also on vessel MSH02G-i0834 signs of wear are clearly detectable: the broad flat-topped rim of the vessel has been modified and altered in the way that a part of the rim – which was probable damaged or had already partly broken off – was evenly smoothed (see Figs. 2 and 6). This modification may have been done in the Levant in order to enhance the vessel’s outer appearance at the time the vessel arrived there although an earlier date is possible too.

30

Alexander Ahrens

Bibliography ADLER, W.

BEN-TOR, D.

1994

2005

Kåmid el-Løz 11. Das »Schatzhaus« im Palastbereich. Die Befunde des Königsgrabes, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 47. Bonn.

AHRENS, A. 2003

2005

Skarabäen und Skarabäenabdrücke aus Tall Mišrife/Qa7na. Einige Beobachtungen zu den interkulturellen Beziehungen zwischen Ägypten und der Levante, UF 35, 1–27. Einfluss – Übernahme – Variation: Die ägyptischen und ägyptisierenden Steingefäße aus der königlichen Grabanlage und dem Palast von Tell Mišrife/Qa7na. Eine Untersuchung zu den Beziehungen zwischen der nördlichen Levante und Ägypten im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., unpublished thesis (German). University of Tübingen.

A Scarab Impression, 361–362, in: BEN-TOR, D. BEN-AMI, D. and LIVNEH, A. (eds.), Yoqne’am III: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977–1988), Qedem Reports 7, Jerusalem.

BEVAN, A. 2003

Reconstructing the Role of Egyptian Culture in the Value Regimes of the Bronze Age Aegean: Stone Vessels and their Social Contexts, 57–73, in: R. MATTHEWS and C. ROEMER (eds.) 2003.

in press Stone Logics: Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Mediterranean, Cambridge. VON

BECKERATH, J.

1997

Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten, MÄS 46, Mainz.

forthc. a Die ägyptischen und ägyptisierenden Steingefäße aus der königlichen Grabanlage und dem Palast von Tall Mišrife/Qa7na, in: P. PFÄLZNER et al. (ed.), Endberichte der Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Komponente des internationalen Kooperationsprojektes in Tall Mišrife/ Qa7na. Die königliche Grabanlage und der Palast: Die Funde.

1999

Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen, MÄS 49, Mainz.

forthc. b Egyptian and Egyptianizing Stone Vessels from the Royal Tomb at Tall Mišrife/Qa7na – Imports and Local Imitations, in: J.M. CÓRDOBA et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (5ICAANE), April 3rd–7th, Madrid, Spain, Madrid.

1907

Steingefäße. Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire (Nos. 18065– 18793), Vienna.

1940

Ägyptische und ägyptisierende Alabastergefäße aus den Deutschen Ausgrabungen in Assur, ZA.(NF) 12, 149–182.

ALTENMÜLLER, H. and MOUSSA, A.M.

1942

Ägyptische und ägyptisierende Alabastergefäße aus den Deutschen Ausgrabungen in Babylon, ZA.(NF) 13, 27–49.

1991

BEYLAGE, P. 2002 VON

Aufbau der königlichen Stelentexte vom Beginn der 18. Dynastie bis zur Amarnazeit, ÄAT 54, Wiesbaden.

BISSING, F.W. FREIHERR

Die Inschrift Amenemhets II. aus dem Ptah-Tempel von Memphis, SAK 18, 1–48.

ASTON, B.

BIETAK, M. and HEIN, I. (eds.)

1994

1994

Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels. Materials and Forms, SAGA 5, Heidelberg.

ASTON, B., HARRELL, J. and SHAW, I. 2000

Stone, 5–77, in: P.T. NICHOLSON and I. SHAW (eds.) 2000.

BADRE, L. 1997

Pharaonen und Fremde: Dynastien um Dunkel. Exhibition of the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, September 8th–October 24th 1994, Vienna.

BIETAK, M. 1996

Avaris. Capital of the Hyksos, London.

1998

Gedanken zur Ursache der ägyptisierenden Einflüsse in Nordsyrien in der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, in, 165–176: H. GUKSCH, D. POLZ (eds.), Stationen, Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens, Festschrift R. Stadelmann, Mainz.

Bey 003–Beyrut Excavations. Preliminary Report of the American University of Beirut Museum, BAAL 2, 6–94.

BEN-DOR, I.

BIETAK, M.(ed.)

1945

2000

The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Proceedings of an International Symposium at Schloß Haindorf and at the Austrian Academy, 15.–17. November 1996 and 11. –12. May 1998, CChEM 1, Vienna.

2002

The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material; Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001, CChEM 3, Vienna.

2003

The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II. Pro-

Palestinian Alabaster Vases, QDAP 11, 93–112.

BEN-TOR, A. 2006

The Sad Fate of Statues and the Mutilated Statues of Hazor, 13–23, in: S. GITIN, J.E. WRIGHT and J.P. DESSEL (eds.), Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever, Winona Lake.

BEN-TOR, A. and RUBIATO, M.T. 1999

Excavating Hazor: Did the Israelites Destroy the Canaanite City?, BAR 25/3, 22–39.

A Journey’s End

ceedings of the SCIEM 2000-EuroConference, Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, CChEM 9, Vienna.

DAVIES, V.W. and SCHOFIELD, L. (eds.) 1995

BISSON DE LA ROQUE, F. 1950

Trésor de Tôd, Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Nos. 70501– 70754. Cairo. Le Trésor de Tôd, DFIFAO 11. Cairo.

BLEIBERG, E. 1996

Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC. The Trustees of the British Museum. London.

DE VOS, J. 2002

BISSON DE LA ROQUE, F., CONTENAU, G. and CHAPOUTHIER, F. 1953

À propos des Aegyptiaca d’Asie Mineure datés du IIe millénaire av. J.-C., Hethitica 15, 43–63.

DODSON, A.M. 1988

The Official Gift in Ancient Egypt, Oklahoma.

The Tombs of the Kings of the Early Eighteenth Dynasty at Thebes, ZÄS 115, 110–123.

BOTTÉRO, J.

DOUMET-SERHAL, CL.

1949

Les inventaires de Qa7na, Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 43, 1–41 and 137–215.

2006

1950

Autres textes de Qa7na, Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 44, 105–122.

BRADBURY, L. 1985

Nefer’s Inscription: On the Death of Queen Ahmose-Nefertary and the Deed found Pleasing to the King, JARCE 22, 73–96.

Sidon: Mediterranean Contacts in the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Preliminary Report, AHL 24, 34–47.

DOXEY, D.M. 1998

Egyptian Non-Royal Epithets in the Middle Kingdom. A Social and Historical Analysis, PdÄ 12, LeidenBoston.

DUNAND, M. 1939

Fouilles de Byblos, Tome 1er. 1926–1932, Paris.

BRETSCHNEIDER, J., AL-MAQDISSI,M., VANSTEENHUYSE, K., DRIESSEN, J. and VAN LERBERGHE, K.

EDEL, E.

2004

1983

Tell Tweini, ancient Gabala, in the Bronze Age, E&L 14, 215–230.

BUDKA, J. 2001

Der König an der Haustür. Die Rolle des ägyptischen Herrschers an dekorierten Türgewänden von Beamten im Neuen Reich, Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 19, Vienna.

CARTER, H. 1916

Report on the tomb of Zeser-Ka-Ra Amenhetep I, Discovered by the Earl of Carnavon in 1914, JEA 3, 147–154.

CAUBET, A. 1991

2006

Ougarit et l’Égypte, 87–96, in : E. CZERNY et al. (eds.) 2006, Volume II.

COCHAVI-RAINEY, Z. 1999

Royal Gifts in the Late Bronze Age, Fourteent to Thirteenth Centuries B.C.E., with a Contribution by C. Lilyquist. Selected Texts Recording Gifts to Royal Personages. Studies by the Department of Bible and Ancient Near East Volume 13, Beer-Sheva.

COHEN, R. and WESTBROOK, R. (eds.) 2000

Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations, Baltimore.

CURRELLY, C.T. 1904

2006

1893

Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, Volumes I–III, OLA 149.1–3, Leuven.

Eine ägyptische Statuette, ZDMG 37, 440–442.

FAY, B. 1996

The Louvre Sphinx and Royal Sculpture from the Reign of Amenemhat II, Mainz.

FELDMAN, M.H. 2006

Diplomacy by Design. Luxury Arts and an »International Style» in the Ancient Near East, 1400–1200 BCE, Chicago.

FEUCHT, E. 1995

Das Kind im Alten Ägypten, Frankfurt.

FISCHER, H.G. 1976

Egyptian Studies I. Varia, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

1996

Egyptian Studies III. Varia Nova, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., KOPETZKY, K. and DOUMET-SERHAL, CL. 2006

Egyptian Pottery of the Late 12th and Early 13th Dynasty from Sidon, AHL 24, 52–59.

FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., MÜLLER, W. and RADNER, K. 2002

Abydos, Volume III. London.

CZERNY, E., HEIN, I., HUNGER, H., MELMAN, D. and SCHWAB, A. (eds.)

Zwei Steinschalen mit ägyptischen Inschriften aus dem Palast von Kåmid el-Løz, 38–39, in: R. HACHMANN (ed.) 1993.

ERMAN, A.

Répertoire de la Vaiselle de Pierre, Ougarit 1929–1988, 205–272, in: M. YON (ed.) 1991.

CAUBET, A. and YON, M.

31

Statuen in Verbannung: Ägyptischer Statuenexport in den Vorderen Orient unter Amenophis III. und IV, E&L 12, 155–166.

FRANKE, D. 1982

Ein bisher nicht gedeuteter Beititel der Siegelvorsteher in der 13. Dynastie: %Dmj ¥na “Richter der Arbeiter im Arbeitshaus”, GM, 15–21.

32

Alexander Ahrens

1984a Probleme der Arbeit mit altägyptischen Titeln des Mittleren Reiches, GM 83, 103–124. 1984b Personendaten aus dem Mittleren Reich (20.–16. Jahrhundert v. Chr.): Dossiers 1–796, ÄA 41, Wiesbaden.

HARVEY, S.P. 1994

Monuments of Ahmose at Abydos, EA 4, 3–5.

1998

The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos. Unpublished Ph.D-Dissertation, UMI Dissertation. Ann Arbor, University of Pennsylvania.

2003

Abydos Project (Reports): Seasons 2002–2003, The Oriental Institute 2002–2003 Annual Report, 15–26.

FUGMANN, E. 1958

Hama: Fouilles et Recherches 1931–1938. L’Architecture des Périodes Pré- Hellenistiques. Fondation Carlsberg, Copenhagen.

GITTON, M. 1975

L’Épouse du dieu Ahmes Néfertary. Documents sur sa vie et son culte posthume. Centre de Recherches D’Histoire Ancienne/CNRS, Volume 15, Paris.

1976

La résiliation d’une fonction religieuse: nouvelle interprétation de la stèle de donation d’Ahmes Néfertary, BIFAO 76, 65–89.

Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren Reiches, PdÄ 3. Leiden.

1960

Die ägyptische Verwaltung in den syrischen Besitzungen, MDOG 92, 1–13.

1971

Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.2, Wiesbaden.

1976

Ägyptische Statuen im Ausland – Ein chronologisches Problem, UF 8, 101–115.

Der Krokodilgott Sobek und seine Kultorte im Mittleren Reich, 787–803, in: F. JUNGE (ed.), Studien zu Sprache und Religion Ägyptens II: Religion (Festschrift zu Ehren W. Westendorf überreicht von seinen Freunden und Schülern). Göttingen.

1989

Ein Ausgreifen des Mittleren Reiches in den zypriotischen Raum?, GM 109, 27–30.

Die Besiedlung Ägyptens während des Mittleren Reiches, Band 1: Oberägypten und das Fayyum, TAVO B. Wiesbaden.

1995b Die Beziehungen Ägypten – Ugarit, 87–94, in: M. DIETRICH and O. LORETZ (eds.), Ugarit. Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient, Volume I: Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt, Münster.

The Impact of Egypt on Canaan, OBO 20. Göttingen, Fribourg.

GOMAÁ, F. 1984

1986

GRAEFE, E. 1981

HELCK, W. 1958

GIVEON, R. 1978

forthc. The Monumental Complex of King Ahmose at Abydos, Volume I. The Pyramid Temple of Ahmose and its Environs: Architecture and Decoration, The Oriental Institute, Chicago.

Untersuchungen zur Verwaltung und Geschichte der Institution der Gottesgemahlin des Amun vom Beginn des Neuen Reiches bis zur Spätzeit, Vols. I–II, ÄA 37. Wiesbaden.

1995a Die Beziehungen Ägyptens und Vorderasiens zur Ägäis bis ins 7. Jh. v. Chr.2 Darmstadt.

HIRSCH, E. 2004

Kultpolitik und Tempelbauprogramme der 12. Dynastie. Untersuchungen zu den Göttertempeln im Alten Ägypten, Berlin.

GRAJETZKI, W.

HOFFMEIER, J.K.

2000

1989

Reconsidering Egypt’s Part in the Termination of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine, Levant 21, 182–193.

2004

Aspects of Foreign Policy in the 18th Dynasty in Western Asia and Nubia, 121–141, in: G.N. KNOPPERS and A. HIRSCH (eds.), Egypt, Israel, and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Studies in Honour of Donald B. Redford, Leiden.

2001

Die höchsten Beamten der ägyptischen Zentralverwaltung des Mittleren Reiches. Prosographie, Titel und Titelreihen, Achet, Schriften zur Ägyptologie A2. Berlin. Two Treasurers of the Late Middle Kindom, BAR IS 1007, Oxford.

GRIFFITHS, D. and OWNBY, M. 2006

Assessing the Occurrence of Marl C Ceramics in Middle Bronze Age Sidon, AHL 24, 63–77.

GUKSCH, H. 1994

Königsdienst: Zur Selbstdarstellung der Beamten in der 18. Dynastie, SAGA 11. Heidelberg.

HABACHI, L. 1937

1994

Frühe Phöniker im Libanon. 20 Jahre deutsche Ausgrabungen im Libanon, Mainz.

1994

Misuse of the Term »Alabaster« in Egyptology, GM 119, 37–42.

Keminub – eine Prinzessin Amenemhets II.?, 94–101, in: M. BIETAK, J. HOLAUBEK, H. MUKAROVSKY and H. SATZINGER (eds.), Zwischen den beiden Ewigkeiten: Festschrift Gertrud Thausing, Wien.

EL-KHOULI, A.A.R.H, HOLTHOER, R., HOPE, C.A. and KAPER, O.E. 1993

HARRELL, J.A. 1990

Aegyptiaca from Late Bronze Age Cyprus, SIMA 62, Jonsered.

JÁNOSI, P.

Une »vaste salle« d’Amenemhat III à Kiman-Farès (Fayoum), ASAE 37, 85–95.

HACHMANN, R. (ed.) 1983

JACOBSSON, I.

Stone Vessels, Pottery and Sealings from the Tomb of Tutcankham¥n, Oxford.

KLEMM, R. and KLEMM, D.D. 1991

Calcit-Alabaster oder Travertin? Zu Sinn und

A Journey’s End

Unsinn petrographischer Bezeichnungen in der Ägyptologie, GM 122, 57–75. 1993

Steine und Steinbrüche im Alten Ägypten. Berlin, Heidelberg.

ber–Dezember 2002, MDOG 135, 189–218. AL-MAQDISSI, M., LUCIANI, M., MORANDI, D., NOVÁK, M. and PFÄLZNER, P. (eds.) 2002

KLENGEL, H. 1969

Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z., Volume II: Mittel- und Südsyrien, Berlin.

1992

Syria, 3000 to 300 B.C. – A Handbook of Political History, Berlin.

2000

Qa7na – Ein historischer Überblick, MDOG 132, 239–252.

KLUG, A. 2002

Excavating Qatna I. Preliminary Report on the 1999 and 2000 Campaigns of the Joint Syrian-Italian-German Archaeological Research Project at Tall Mishrife; Documents d’Archéologie Syrienne 4, Damascus.

MATTHEWS, R. and ROEMER, C. (eds.) 2003

Ancient Perspectives on Egypt. Series Encounters with Ancient Egypt, London.

MATTHIAE, P. (ed.) 1995

Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, Monumenta Aegyptiaca, Vol. VIII, Turnhout.

Ebla: Alle origini della civiltà urbana. Trent’ anni di scavi in Siria dell’ Università di Roma »La Sapienza«, Milano.

LE SAOUT, F.

DU MESNIL DU BUISSON, R.

1987

1926

Un magasin à onguents de Karnak et la problème du nom de Tyr: Mise au point, Karnak 8, 325–338.

LEPSIUS, C.R. 1852

[LD III], Denkmæler aus Ægypten und Æthiopien, Volume III; Königlich-Preussische-Expedition der Jahre 1839–1842. Berlin.

33

Les ruines d’el-Mishrifé au Nord-Est de Homs (Émèse), Syria 7, 289–325.

1927a Les ruines d’el-Mishrifé au Nord-Est de Homs (Émèse) ; 2e article, Syria 8, 13–33.

LILYQUIST, C.

1927b L’ancienne Qa7na ot les ruines d’el-Mishrifé au N.-E. de Homs (Émèse). Deuxième campagne de fouilles 1927, Syria 8, 227–301.

1994

Objects Attributable to Kåmid el-Løz, and Comments on the Date of Some Objects in the »Schatzhaus«, 207–220, in: W. ADLER 1994.

1928

1995

Egyptian Stone Vessels: Khian through Tuthmosis IV. With an Appendix by E.W. Castle. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York.

L’ancienne Qa7na ot les ruines d’el-Mishrifé au N.-E. de Homs (Émèse). Deuxième campagne de fouilles (1927); 2e et 3e article, Syria 9, 6–24 and 81–89.

1930

Compte rendu de la quatrième campagne de fouilles a Mishrifé-Qa7na, Syria 11, 146–163.

1996

2003

Stone Vessels at Kåmid el-Løz, Lebanon: Egyptian, Egyptianizing, or non-Egyptian? A Question at Sites from the Sudan to Iraq to the Greek Mainland, 134–173, in: R. HACHMANN (ed.), Kåmid elLøz 16, »Schatzhaus-Studien«. Bonn.

1935a Le site archéologique de Mishrifé-Qatna. Paris.

The Tomb of Three Foreign Wives of Tuthmosis III. With contributions by James E. HOCH and A.J. PEDEN. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. New Haven, London.

1990

LIVERANI, M. 1990

Prestige and Interest. International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600–1100 B.C. History of the Ancient Near East, Studies 1, Padova.

1935b Le sphinx de Qatna, in: Bulletin de la Societé Nationale des Antiquaires de France (BSNA), 126–131. MIRON, R. Kåmid el-Løz 10. Das »Schatzhaus« im Palastbereich. Die Funde, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 46, Bonn.

MONTET, P. 1928/29 Byblos et l’Égypte. Quatre Campagnes de Fouilles à Gebeil 1921–1992–1923–1924, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 11, Paris. MORAN, W.L.

MACE, A.C.

1992

1902

DE MORGAN, J.

El-Amrah and Abydos, 1899–1901. The Egypt Exploration Fund, London.

AL-MAQDISSI, M.

1903

The Amarna Letters, Baltimore, London. Fouilles à Dahchour en 1894–1895, Vienna.

NICHOLSON, P.T. and SHAW, I. (eds.)

2000

Kurzbericht über die syrischen Ausgrabungen in Mišrife/Qa7na, MDOG 133, 141–155.

2000

2003

Ergebnisse der siebten und achten syrischen Grabungskampagne 2001 und 2002 in MišrifeQa7na, MDOG 135, 219–245.

NOVÁK, M.

AL-MAQDISSI, M., DOHMANN-PFÄLZNER, H., PFÄLZNER, P. and SULEIMAN, A. 2003

Das köngiliche Hypogäum von Qa7na. Bericht über die syrisch-deutsche Ausgrabung im Novem-

Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge.

2004

The Chronology of the Royal Palace of Qa7na, E&L 14, 299–317.

2006

Fundamentierungstechniken im Palast von Qa7na, 63–71, in: E. CZERNY et al. (eds.) 2006, Volume III.

34

Alexander Ahrens

in press Mittani Empire and the Question of Absolute Chronology. Some Archaeological Considerations, in: M. BIETAK, E. CZERNY (eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May–1st of June 2003, CChEM 9, Vienna. NOVÁK, M. and PFÄLZNER, P. 2000

Ausgrabungen in Tall Mišrife/Qa7na 1999 – Vorberichte der deutschen Komponente des internationalen Projektes, MDOG 132, 253–296.

2001

Ausgrabungen in Tall Mišrife/Qa7na 2000 – Vorberichte der deutschen Komponente des internationalen Projektes, MDOG 133, 157–198.

2002

Ausgrabungen in Tall Mišrife/Qa7na 2001 – Vorberichte der deutschen Komponente des internationalen Projektes, MDOG 134, 207–246.

2003

Ausgrabungen im bronzezeitlichen Palast von Tall Mišrife/Qa7na 2002 – Vorberichte der deutschen Komponente des internationalen Projektes, MDOG 135, 131–165.

2005

Ausgrabungen in Tall Mišrife/Qa7na 2003 – Vorberichte der deutschen Komponente des internationalen Projektes, MDOG 137, 57–79.

1995b Bericht über die 4. und 5. Grabungskampagne in der Nekropole von Drac Abu el-Naga/ThebenWest, MDAIK 51, 207–225. POLZ, D., MÄHLITZ, E., RUMMEL, U. and SEILER, A. 2003

PORADA, E. 1982

Excavations at Tell Brak, Vol. I: The Mitanni and Old Babylonian Periods. McDonald Institute Monographs, British School of Archaeology in Iraq, Oxford.

Remarks on the Tôd Treasure in Egypt, 285–303, in: A. DANDAMAYEV (ed.), Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East, Studies in Honour of I.M. Diakonoff, Warminster.

PORTER, R. and MOSS, B. 1934

[PM IV], Topographical Bibiliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, Volume IV: Lower and Middle Egypt, Oxford.

1952

[PM VII], Topographical Bibiliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, Volume VII: Nubia, The Deserts, And Outside Egypt, Oxford.

PUMPENMEIER, F. 1998

OATES, D., OATES, J. and MCDONALD, H. 1997

Bericht über die 9. bis 12. Grabungskampgane in der Nekropole von Drac Abu el-Naga/ThebenWest, MDAIK 58, 317–388.

Eine Gunstgabe von seiten des Königs. Ein extrasepulkrales Schabtidepot Qen-Amuns in Abydos, SAGA 19, Heidelberg.

QUACK, J.F. 1992

Eine Erwähnung des Reiches von Aleppo in den Ächtungstexten?, GM 130, 75–78.

1996

kftAw und iAcy, E&L 6, 75–81.

PANAGIOTOPOULOS, D.

QUIRKE, S.

2000

1986

The Regular Titles of the Late Middle Kingdom, CdE 37, 107–130.

1990

The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom: The Hieratic Documents, Malden.

2004

Titles and bureaux of Egypt 1850–1700 BC, London.

Tributabgaben und Huldigungsgeschenke aus der Levante. Die ägyptische Nordexpansion in der 18. Dynastie aus strukturgeschichtlicher Sicht, E&L 10, 139–158.

PERDU, O. 1977

Khenemet-nefer-hedjet: Une Princesse et deux Reines de Moyen Empire, RdE 29, 68–85.

PETRIE, W.M.F. 1906

Hyksos and Israelite Cities. British School of Archaeology in Egypt, and Egyptian Research Account Twelfth Year, 1906, London.

RANKE, H. 1935

REDFORD, D.B. 1979

A Gate Inscription from Karnak and Egyptian Involvement in Western Asia During the Early 18th Dynasty, JAOS 49, 265–280.

1993

Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton.

2003

The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 16, Leiden.

PFÄLZNER, P. 2003

Die Politik und der Tod. Die Entdeckung eines Archivs und königlicher Grüfte in einem bronzezeitlichen Palast Syriens, Nürnberger Blätter zur Archäologie 19, 85– 102.

PHILLIPS, J.S. 1992

Tomb-robbers and Their Booty in Ancient Egypt, 153–188, in: S.E. OREL (ed.), Death and Taxes in the Ancient Near East, Lewiston.

POLZ, D. 1995a The Location of the Tomb of Amenhotep I.: A Reconsideration, 8–21, in: R. WIKINSON (ed.), Valley of the Sun Kings: New Explorations in the tombs of the Pharaohs, Tucson.

[PN], Die ägyptischen Personennamen, Band I, Glückstadt.

RICHTER, TH. 2002a Bericht über die 2001 in Qa7na gemachten Inschriftenfunde, MDOG 134, 247–256. 2002b Der »einjährige Feldzug« Šuppiluliumas I. von Hatti in Syrien nach den Textfunden des Jahres 2002 in Mišrife/Qa7na, UF 34, 603– 618. 2003

Das „Archiv des Idanda”. Bericht über die

A Journey’s End

Inschriftenfunde der Grabungskampagne 2002 in Mišrife/Qa7na, MDOG 135, 167–188. 2005

Qa7na in the Late Bronze Age. Preliminary Remarks, Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 15, 109–126.

ROCCATI, A. 2002

A Stone Fragment Inscribed with Names of Sesostris I Discovered at Qatna, 173–175, in: ALMAQDISSI et al. (eds.) 2002, Excavating Qatna I.

ROMER, J. 1976

SEYFRIED, K.J. 1981

ROTH, S. Die Königsmütter des Alten Reiches von der Frühzeit bis zum Ende der 12. Dynastie, ÄAT 46, Wiesbaden.

2002

Gebieterin aller Länder. Die Rolle der königlichen Frauen in der fiktiven und realen Aussenpolitik des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches, OBO 185, Fribourg, Göttingen.

2001

SIMPSON, W.K. The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos: The Offering Chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13, Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt. New Haven, Philadelphia.

1991

Mentuhotep, Vizier of Sesostris I, Patron of Art and Architecture, MDAIK 47, Festschrift Werner Kaiser, 331–340.

SPARKS, R.T. 1996

Egyptian Stone Vessels in Syro-Palestine during the Second Millennium B.C. and their Impact on the Local Stone Vessel Industry, 51–66, in: G. BUNNENS (ed.), Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Near East. Papers Read at a Symposium Held at the University of Melbourne, Department of Classics and Archaeology (29–30 September 1994), Abu-Nahrain Supplement Series 5, Leuven.

2001

Stone Vessel Workshops in the Levant: Luxury Products of a Cosmopolitan Age, 93–112, in: A.J. SHORTLAND (ed.) 2001.

2003

Egyptian Stone Vessels and the Politics of Exchange (2617–1070 BC), 39–56, in: R. MATTHEWS and C. ROEMER (eds.), Ancient Perspectives on Egypt. Encounters with Ancient Egypt, London.

The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, ca. 1800–1550 B.C., with an appendix by A. BÜLOW-JACOBSON. The Carsten Niebuhr Insitute Publications 20, Copenhagen.

SABBAHY, L.K. 2003

The Female Family of Amenemhat II: A Review of the Evidence, 239–244, in: N. GRIMAL, A. KAMEL and C. MAY-SHEIKHOLSLAMI (eds.), Hommages à Fayza Haikal, BdE 138, Cairo.

SCANDONE MATTHIAE, G. 1984

La statuaria regale egiziana del medio regno in Siria: Motivi du una presenza, UF 16, 181–188.

1989

Un sphinx d’Amenemhet III au musée d’Alep, RdE 40, 125–129.

in press Stone Vessels in the Levant during the Second Millennium BC, London. STOCK, H.

1996

A Cylinder Seal in the Hyksos Style (MB II) from Ebla, CMAO 6, 181–190.

1997

The Relations Between Ebla and Egypt, 415–428, in: E.D. OREN (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. University of Pennsylvania, University Museum Monograph 96 (= University Museum Symposium Series 8), Philadelphia.

1999

Art et politique: les images de Pharaon à létranger, E&L 10, 187–193.

1986

2000

SCHAEFFER, C.F.-A. 1939

Ugaritica I: Études relatives aux découvertes des Ras Shamra, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 31, Paris.

Social Context of Technological Change: Egypt and the Near East, 1650–1150 BC. Proceedings of a Conference Held at St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, 12–14 September 2000, Oxford.

1971

RYHOLT, K. 1997

Beiträge zu den Expeditionen des Mittleren Reiches in die Ost-Wüste, HÄB 15, Wiesbaden.

SHORTLAND, A.J. (ed.)

Royal Tombs of the Early Eighteenth Dynasty, MDAIK 32, 191–206.

2001

1963

Der Hyksos Chian in Bogazköy, MDOG 94, 73–80.

TARAQJI, A. Nouvelles Découvertes sur les Relations avec l’Égypte à Tell Sakka et à Keswe, dans la région de Damas, BSFE 144, 27–43.

TROY, L. Patterns of Queenship in Ancient Egyptian Myth and History, Acta Universitaris Upsalienis, Boreas 14, Uppsala.

TEISSIER, B. 1996

Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age, OBO SA 11, Fribourg, Göttingen.

SCHNEIDER, TH.

ULLMANN, M.

2002

2002

Sinuhes Notiz über die Könige. Syrisch-anatolische Herrschertitel in ägyptischer Überlieferung, E&L 12, 257–272.

König für die Ewigkeit – Die Häuser der Millionen von Jahren: Eine Untersuchung zu Königskult und Tempeltypologie in Ägypten, ÄAT 51, Wiesbaden.

SETHE, K.

VANDERSLEYEN, C.

1906

1971

[Urk. IV], Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. HistorischBiographische Urkunden, Leipzig.

35

Le guerres d’Ahmosis, fondateur de la XVIIIe dynastie, Brussels.

36

Alexander Ahrens

VERBOVSEK, A.

WEIN, E.J. and OPIFICIUS, R.

2004

1963

2006

“Als Gunsterweis des Königs in den Tempel gegeben…”: Private Tempelstatuen des Alten und Mittleren Reiches, ÄAT 63, Wiesbaden. Die sogenannten Hyksosmonumente: Eine archäologische Standortbestimmmung, Göttinger Orientforschungen IV, Reihe Ägypen 46, Wiesbaden.

7000 Jahre Byblos, Nürnberg.

WEINSTEIN, J.M. 1975

Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the Middle Kingdom, BASOR 217, 1–16.

1981

The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: a Reassessment, BASOR 242, 1–28.

VITTMANN, G.

WIMMER, S.

1974

2005

Was there a coregency of Ahmose and Amenophis I?, JEA 60, 250–251.

Byblos vs. Ugarit: The Alalakh Seal Impression 194 Once Again, Levant 37, 127–132.

WARD, W.A.

WOOLLEY, C.L.

1969

1953

A Forgotten Kingdom, London.

1955

Alalakh. The Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–1949. Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 18, Oxford.

Egypt and the East Mediterranean in the Early Second Millennium B.C., Orientalia NS 30, 22–45 and 129–155.

1971

Egypt and the East Mediterranean World 2200–1900 B.C.- Beirut.

1979

Remarks on Some Middle Kingdom Statuary Found at Ugarit, UF 11 (Festschrift C.F.A. Schaeffer), 799–806.

1991

Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom, Beirut.

1983

Patterns of Mobility among Ancient Near Eastern Craftsmen, JNES 42, 245–264.

1986

Aspects of Ceremonial Exchange in the Near East During the Late Second Millennium BC, 57–65, in: M.J. ROWLANDS et al. (eds.) 1986.

2000

The Interdependence of the Great Powers, 141– 153, in: R. COHEN and R. WESTBROOK (eds.) 2000.

1982

WEIGALL, M.A. 1911

Minoan Stone Vases, Cambridge.

Arts et Industries de la Pierre, RSO 6, Paris.

ZACCAGNINI, C.

Miscellanous Notes, ASAE 11, 170–176.

WARREN, P. 1969

YON, M.

VON PALMEN UND VÖGELN – VORSCHAU AUF DIE KERAMIK AUS DEM AREAL H/VI ÖSTLICH DES PALASTES G IN cEZBET HELMI Von Bettina Bader

1. EINLEITUNG In diesem Artikel sollen einige wenige der bereits rekonstruierten und aufgenommenen Gefäße aus dem Ausgrabungsareal H/VI, das östlich des großen Palastes G liegt, mit ihrer vorläufigen Datierung einem breiteren Publikum vorgestellt werden. Der archäologische Vorbericht zur Ausgrabung von Manfred Bietak und Irene ForstnerMüller1 bildet den dazugehörenden Rahmen und gibt weitere Details zu den Fundumständen und -kontexten der Gefäße. Die Ausgrabung des Gebietes, dessen Material der Autorin zur Bearbeitung anvertraut wurde,2 fand in den Saisonen Herbst 2004, sowie Frühjahr und Herbst 2005 statt. Die Stratigraphie konnte bereits teils an jene des weiter westlich gelegenen Palastbezirkes angeschlossen werden, der bereits ausführlicher beschrieben wurde.3 Gefäße mit vollständig oder nahezu vollständig rekonstruierbarem Profil des Stratums b/1 (ramessidisch), c–d (Thutmosidenzeit) und der „Schicht 5“ (diese lokale relative Schicht entspricht Stratum e/1 bis e/2, dem Übergang von spätester Hyksoszeit zum frühen Neuen Reich)4 werden an dieser Stelle vorgestellt werden, um einen ersten Eindruck des jüngst ausgegrabenen Materials zu vermitteln. Die jüngsten Gefäße dieses Areals stammen

1

2 3

4 5

6 7

M. BIETAK, I. FORSTNER-MÜLLER, Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Thutmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/ Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht für Herbst 2004 und Frühjahr 2005, Ä&L 15 (2006), 65–100. Dafür danke ich M. Bietak und I. Forstner-Müller. M. BIETAK, J. DORNER, P. JÁNOSI, Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris. Vorbericht Tell el-Dabca/cEzbet Helmi 1993–2000, Ä&L 14 (2004), 27–119. Vgl. M. BIETAK, I. FORSTNER-MÜLLER, Ä&L 15 (2005), 68. M. BIETAK, et al., Ä&L 11 (2001), 32–36. Die erste Datierung bei der Ausgrabung dieses Materials erfolgte durch David A. Aston, dem ich hier ebenfalls sehr herzlich danken möchte. M. BIETAK, I. FORSTNER-MÜLLER, Ä&L 15 (2005), 95–98. Eine einzelne perserzeitliche Scherbe, die bei der

aus Stratum b/1 und können in die Ramessidenzeit datiert werden.5 Die großen Vorratsgefäße (2.1.a–b, s.u.) stammen hauptsächlich von einem dicht belegten Friedhof direkt unter der modernen Oberfläche des Areals.6 Als mindestens ramessidisch in der Zeitstellung7 muß die große Zerstörungs- und Verbruchschicht L6168 betrachtet werden, die sich in einem großen Teil des Areals nachweisen ließ. Diese Schicht, die mit vielen Kalksteinsplittern und -trümmern durchsetzt war, kennzeichnet die Zerstörung des Gebäudes L, dessen Nutzungsphasen, die Straten c und d, vermutlich in die Thutmosidenzeit datieren, wobei ein Zeitraum von Thutmosis I. bis Thutmosis III. möglich scheint.8 Aus der Zeit der Belegung und Benutzung des Gebäudes L (rel. Stratum c und d) kommen einige sehr interessante Befunde, darunter ein Bad, L 6194,9 und einige Vorratsräume, die noch einiges vom originalen Inhalt zu beinhalten schienen. Besonders bemerkenswert sind dabei die drei zyprischen bichromen Krüge (Bichrome Wheel-made ware), die sich aus Fragmenten von verschiedenen Fundplätzen zusammensetzen ließen (s.u.). Unterhalb des Gebäudes L schließlich, in hohe Sandaufschüttungen einschneidend, befanden sich einige Opfergruben. Dieses Stratum

8

9

ersten Durchsicht dieses Materials auffiel, bekräftigt den stark durchgemischten Charakter dieser Schicht. Für eine differenziertere Datierung von L6168 muß die Betrachtung des gesamten Materials, das immens ist, abgewartet werden. Vgl. M. BIETAK, I. FORSTNER-MÜLLER, Ä&L 15 (2006), 68 und Anm. 13, 92. D. ASTON, Kom Rabica, cEzbet Helmi, and Saqqara NK 3507. A Study in Cross-Dating, in: M. BIETAK, E. CZERNY (Hrsg.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 Euro Conference, Vienna, 28th of May to 1st of June 2003, im Druck. M. BIETAK, I. FORSTNER-MÜLLER, Ä&L 15 (2005), fig. 22 und 92–93.

38

Bettina Bader

wird im Moment noch als lokale „Schicht 5“ bezeichnet. Diese entspricht den Straten e/1 oder e/2 (späte Hyksoszeit oder frühes Neues Reich), eine genaue stratigraphische Zuordnung und Unterscheidung der Straten in diesem Bereich muß jedoch noch erfolgen. Hier handelt es sich um Locus 6382, und einige weitere. Worauf sich diese, teilweise sehr großen und tiefen, Opfergruben bezogen, bleibt zur Zeit ungeklärt. Es steht keine entsprechende Struktur als Bezugspunkt in unmittelbarer Nähe zur Verfügung.10 Zunächst wird ein Katalog mit der Beschreibung der einzelnen Gefäße vorangestellt, danach folgt ein weiterer Abschnitt mit Anmerkungen, Parallelen und vorläufiger Datierung, die sich aus der Keramik ergibt. 2. KATALOG DER KERAMIK11 2.1. Ramessidisches Stratum b/1 a) 8977 Y – Amphore, Boden und Körper, Mündung abgeschlagen, (TD), 104/2005.12 Abb. 1.a) H/VI-r/26, pl. 3, L6350, h= 4,12m, Amphorenbestattung. rel. Str. b/1. GP

II-d

f.–s.f.

W+H

H

ox

b) 8979 B – Vorratsgefäß, vollständiges Profil, fragm., (TD), ZN 18/2005. Abb. 1.b) H/VI-r/26, pl. 0-1, L6236. Leere Pithosbestattung, h= 4,64–4,36m. rel. Str. b/1.

10

11

I-e-4

f.–m.

W1

W

ox

c) 8977 V – Vorratsgefäß, vollständiges Profil, fragm., (TD), ZN 101/2005. Abb. 2.a) H/VI-r/25, pl. 4, L6354, FN 1. Am Kopfende des Sarges L6354, h= 4,46–4,18m. rel. Str. b/1. TG

3

Für die Diskussion des Grabungsbefundes danke ich I. Forstner-Müller. Die Beschreibung der Keramik richtet sich nach M. BIETAK, Tell el-Dabca V. Ein Friedhofsbezirk der Mittleren Bronzezeitkultur mit Totentempel und Siedlungsschichten, UZK 8, Wien 1991, Anhang, 318–333. S. dort für die relevanten Abkürzungen. Die Tonbestimmungen der Niltone entsprechen der dem Neuen Reich angeglichenen Fassung. Vgl. I. HEIN, Vorläufige Bilanz und Untersuchungen zur Keramik aus cEzbet Helmi, speziell Areal H/V, Ä&L 11 (2001), Tabelle 2.

I-e-4

f.–m.

W1

W

ox

2–3

Md.= 12,8; gr.D.= 16,0; Wd.= 0,7; H1= 44,1; OFL natürlich: 2.5 YR 6/6 hellrot; Bruch: grauer Kern, rote und braune Oxidationszonen; rauhe Oberfläche. VI 36,5 d) 8979 H – Vase mit Trichterhals, vollständiges Profil, fragm., (TD), ZN 24/2005. Abb. 2.b) H/VI-r/24, pl. 2, L6225, FN 4. Aus Verbruchschicht, auf Mauer 4095. Koordinaten: 5,35m/W, 7,0 m/S, h= 4,53–4,38m. rel. Str. b. GP

4

Hd.= 17,0; gr.D.= 32,5; Wd.= 1,0; H1= 63,2 + x; OFL natürlich: 2.5 Y 8/1 weiß, innen: 2.5 YR 6/8 hellrot; Bruch: grauer Kern, braune Oxidationszonen; Strichpolitur nicht erhalten. Topfmarke wurde nach der Aufbringung des Farbbades, aber noch vor dem Brand angebracht. Drei kurze parallele Linien, darunter eine gebogene Linie.

WFTG

Md.= 31,8; gr.D.= 41,6; Wd.= 1,2; H1= 76,8; OFL natürlich: 10 R 6/6 hellrot; WF: 2.5 Y 8/2 blaß gelb; Bruch: breiter grauer Kern, hellrote Oxidationszonen; mäßig scheibengeglättet; Innen zwei Nahtstellen vom Zusammensetzen sicht- und fühlbar, d.h. das Gefäß wurde aus drei Teilen hergestellt. VI 54,2.

II-d

f.–m.

W1–2

W

ox

3–4

Md.= 10,5; Hd.= 9,8; gr.D.= 16,5; Wd.= 0,5; H1= 23,6; OFL GP: 5 Y 8/2 blaß gelb; Bruch: durchgehend dunkelgrau/violett (10 R 5/2 schwach rot). Quarz: wenig, fein; Kalk: mittel bis viel; fein bis s. fein; Oberfläche gut poliert (auf der Scheibe). Die Strichpolitur verläuft vertikal und horizontal. Eine Topfmarke wurde nach der Aufbringung des Farbbades, aber noch vor dem Brand angebracht. Es handelt sich um ein anx-Zeichen. VI 69,9. e) 8979 M – Vase mit kurzem Hals („Bierflasche“ mit Wackelboden“),13 vollständiges Profil, fragm., (TD), ZN 26/2005. Abb. 2.c) H/VI-r/24, pl. 2, L6221, FN 6. Aus Grube von der

12

13

Für Tuschzeichnungen und Arrangement der Abbildungen möchte ich E. Dobretsberger und N. Math sehr herzlich danken. Nach Holthoer Funnel necked jars with short neck FU 2. Vgl. R. HOLTHOER, New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites, The Pottery, The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, Part 5:1, Lund 1977, 148, pl. 33. und D. ASTON, Die Keramik des Grabungsplatzes Q1, Teil 1 Corpus of Fabrics, Wares and Shapes, FoRa 1, Mainz 1998, 182.

Von Palmen und Vögeln

39

Abb. 1 Gefäße aus Stratum b/1

Oberfläche, h= 4,43–4,38m. rel. Str. a. TG

I-e-4

m.

W1

W geschl.

ox

2–3

Md.= 9,8; Hd.= 9,7; gr.D.= 16,5; Wd.= 0,5–1; H1= 25,7; OFL natürlich: 5 YR 7/6 rötlich gelb; RF: 10 R 4/8 rot; Bruch: dünner roter Kern, hellbraune Oxidationszonen; mäßig scheibengeglättet. Rote Farbflecken außen und innen an der Mündung. VI 64,2. f) 9076 O – Modellvase mit Trichterhals, vollständiges Profil, fragm., (TD), ZN 27/2005. Abb. 2.d) H/VI-p/23, pl. 1–2, L6168. Aus Verbruch- und Zerstörungsschicht, h= 4,80–4,70m. rel. Str. a–b. RF

I-e-4

f.–m.

W1

geschl.

ox

3

Md.= 5,0–5,2; Hd.= 4,9; gr.D.= 7,6; Wd.= 0,6; H1= 11,1;

OFL natürlich: 10 R 6/8 hellrot; RF: 2.5 YR 5/8 rot; Bruch: durchgehend rötlich violett; mäßig scheibengeglättet. VI 68,5. g) 9076 P – Modellschale mit Wellenrand, vollständiges Profil, fragm., (TD), ZN 27/2005. Abb. 2.e) H/VI-p/23, pl. 1–2, L6168. Aus Verbruchs- und Zerstörungsschicht, h= 4,80–4,70m. rel. Str. a–b. #) H/VI-r/23, pl. 0–1, L6168. Aus Verbruchs- und Zerstörungsschicht, h= 5,11–4,80m. rel. Str. a–b. TG

I-e-4

f.–m.

W1

gesp.

ox

2–3

Md.= 10,2–10,6; Bd.= 5,4; Wd.= 0,5; H1= 3,5; OFL natürlich: 5 YR 6/6 rötlich gelb; Bruch: roter Kern, rötlich gelbe Oxidationszonen; gut scheibengeglättet. 8 Wellen am Rand mit Fingern nach innen gedrückt. VI 302,9.

40

Bettina Bader

Abb. 2 a)–c) Gefäße aus Stratum b/1 und d)–e) Verbruchschicht L6168

Von Palmen und Vögeln

2.2. Stratum c–d, frühe 18. Dynastie (ca. Thutmosis I. bis Thutmosis III.) (evtl. bis Amenophis II.)14 a) 8980 A – Amphore, Körper, Mündung und Boden fehlen, (TD), ZN 206/2005. Abb. 3) H/VI-s/26, pl. 2, L6301. H= 4,37m. rel. Str. c. RF

VIII15

m.–r.

W1–2

–

ox

3–4

Hd.= 10,2; gr.D.= 38,6; Wd.= 1,4; H1= 54,0 + x; OFL natürlich: 2.5 YR 5/6 rot; RF: 10 R 5/4 schwach rot; Bruch: grauer Kern, rötlich braune Oxidationszonen; Rotes Farbbad innen am Hals Tropfspuren laufen im Inneren nach unten. b) 8979 P – Schale mit Standfläche, vollständiges Profil, (TD), ZN 27/2005. Abb. 4.a) H/VI-r/26, pl. 2, L6312, FN 3a. Schale als Verschluß von Vorratsgefäß 8979 Y, h= 4,40m. rel. Str. c. TG

I-e-4

f.–m.

W1

abg.

ox

2–3

Md.= 14,8; Wd.= 0,5; Bd.= 6,0; H1= 3,3–4,5;

41

OFL natürlich: 5 YR 7/6 rötlich gelb; Bruch: roter Kern, rötlich gelbe Oxidationszonen; gut scheibengeglättet. Gefäß asymmetrisch. Boden mit Schnur abgeschnitten und sehr roh gelassen. VI 328–448,5. c) 8979 Y – Vorratsgefäß, Oberteil, Boden fehlt, (TD), ZN 35/2005. Abb. 4.b) H/VI-r/26, pl. 2, L6312, FN 3. Aus Ansammlung, h= 4,40m. Verschlossen mit 8979 P. rel. Str. c. TG

II-f

m.–r.

Ha2

–

ox

3–4

Md.= 17,0; Hd.= 13,3; gr.D.= 33,5 + x; Wd.= 0,5–2,0; H1= 29,6 + x; OFL natürlich: 5 YR 7/6 rötlich gelb; Bruch: roter Kern, rötlich gelbe Oxidationszonen; Bes. Einschlüsse: Quarz, 0,3–1 mm, viel; rote Partikel, ca. 0,5 mm, wenig; Kalk, ca. 0,5 mm, wenig; mäßig handgeglättet. Die Schale saß mit dem Boden nach unten in der Mündungsöffnung. d) 9076 A – Vorratsgefäß mit schlankem Hals, Oberteil, Boden fehlt, (TD), ZN 12/2005. Abb. 4.c) H/VI-r/23, pl. 1, L6105A, FN 1. In Verfüllung des Raumes; Koordinaten: 3m/N, 3,5 m/O, h ca. 4,67m. Wandfragmente aus L 6107 passen an. rel. Str. d. TG

II-c-3

m.

Ha2

–

ox

3

Md.= 15,4; Hd.= 16,8; gr.D.= 26,0 + x; Wd.= 0,8; H1= 26,0 + x; OFL natürlich: 2.5 YR 6/6 hellrot; Bruch: hellgrauer Kern, fast vollständig oxidiert (10 R 4-5/8 rot); Bes. Einschlüsse: Quarz: 0,3–1mm, sehr viel; dunkle Sande, mittel; Kalk: 0,5–1mm, wenig; Mergeleinschlüsse; mäßig handgeglättet.

Abb. 3 Amphore aus Oasenton, Stratum c–d

14 15

Vgl. D. ASTON, Cross-Dating, passim. Oasenton. C.A. HOPE, Oases Amphorae of the New Kingdom, contribution by M. Eccleston, 106–109, Taf. 69–71.

e) 8985Y – Bichromer Krug, vollständiges Profil, Teil des Henkels fehlt, Mündung paßt nicht direkt an, (TD), ZN 99/2005.16 Abb. 5.a) #) H/VI-s/25 West, pl. 3-4, L6168. Aus Verbruchund Zerstörungsschicht, h= 4,20–4,15m. rel. Str. c oder jünger. #) H/VI-q/25, pl. 1–2, L6168? Auf Pflaster L6486, FN 2, h= 4,42m, (Koordinaten –489,294/432,582. Verbruch von rel. Str. c. #) H/VI-q/25, unter pl. 2. Unter Pflaster L6486, 3,30–3,40 m/West; 6,20–6,30m/S; h= 4,37m. rel. Str. unter c. (Mündung)

16

Für die Zeichnungen der bichromen Krüge bin ich D. Aston sehr zu Dank verpflichtet.

42

Bettina Bader

Abb. 4 Gefäße aus Stratum c–d

Von Palmen und Vögeln

43

Abb. 5 Bichrome Krüge aus Stratum c–d

GPBI

VI

sf.

W2

W gef. ox

3

1B

Md.= 8,7; Hd.= 3,7; gr.D.= 16,0; Wd.= 0,5; Bd.= 5,5; H1= 22,7; Henkeld.= 2,4 × 0,9; OFL natürlich: 2.5 Y 8/3 blaß gelb; Politur: 2.5 Y 7/4 blaß gelb; RF: 10 R 5/8 rot; SF: 2.5 YR 2.5/2 sehr dkl. rot. Bruch: durchgehend 2.5 Y 7/3 blaß gelb; an anderen Stellen 2.5 Y 7/4 blaß gelb. Bruchquerschnitt sehr dicht und kompakt; Bes. Einschlüsse: rote Partikel, 0,3–1 mm, wenig; Kalk, um 0,1 mm, sehr wenig; Vertikale Politurstriche

auf dem Körper – einige horizontal, am Hals vermutlich vertikal – sehr schlecht erhalten, Bemalung darüber. VI 70,5. Dekoration: Der Körper des Kruges wird durch vier vertikale Streifen (1,8 cm) in vier Felder geteilt. Diese etwas breiteren Musterstreifen bestehen aus je fünf dünneren Streifen in der folgenden Reihenfolge: SF-RF-SF-RF-SF. Dabei ist der mittlere SF-Streifen am breitesten. Die dazwischen liegenden Segmente werden durch jeweils zwei sich kreuzende Musterstreifen in Rauten

44

Bettina Bader

geteilt. Die einzelnen Streifen werden durch vier dünne parallele SF-Streifen gebildet, die im spitzen Winkel in die breiten, vertikalen Musterstreifen einlaufen. Der Kreuzungspunkt liegt jeweils ca. am größten Durchmesser. In den beiden erhalten gebliebenen Feldern finden sich ein Vogel (vertikal orientiert) und ein „Malteser Kreuz“ förmiges Motiv. Das Kreuz wurde in schwarzer Farbe gehalten, während die Details in roter Farbe ausgeführt wurden. Zwei rote Kreise befinden sich in den unteren Segmenten. Am Hals wurde drei Gruppen von umlaufenden, horizontalen Streifen angebracht (ca. 1 cm breit), die aus dünnen SF-RF-SF Streifen bestehen. Auf der Innenseite der Mündung verläuft eine horizontale schwarze Linie. Am Henkel befinden sich 9 kurze horizontale schwarze Linien, zwischen der fünften und sechsten Linie wurden zwei gekreuzte Linien aufgemalt. f) 8985 Z – Bichromer Krug, vollständiges Profil, (TD), ZN 211/06. Abb. 5.b) Verschiedene Fundplätze, der einzelnen Fragmente, aber alle zum gleichen Locus gehörend (L6194, ein verfüllter Raum): #) H/VI-s/24, pl. 2, L6194. Unter FN 27 Opferplatte, auf dem Estrichboden, Koordinaten: 0,1 m/Ost, 0,1m/N, h= 3,81m, FN 29. rel. Str. c, Boden, Körper und Mündung. #) H/VI-s/25W, pl. 5, L6194. Auf Stuckboden, FN 44, bichrome Scherbe, Koordinaten: 5,96m/S; 1,60m/W, h= 3,72m, rel. Str. c-d. #) H/VI-s/25W, pl. 5, L6194. Auf verputztem Boden, h= 3,88–3,76m, rel. Str. c-d. Bichrome Scherbe. #) H/VI-s/24-25, pl. 6, L6194. Auf verputztem Boden, h= 3,80m. Bichrome Scherbe. #) H/VI-s/24, pl. 2, L6194. Auf Kalkboden, h ca. 3,80m, FN 23, rel. c. GPBI

VI

sf.

W2

W gef. ox

3

1B

Md.= 7,1; Hd.= 3,4; gr.D.= 19,1; Wd.= 0,55; Bd.= 7,7; H1= 25,2; Henkeld.= 2,5 × 1,0; OFL natürlich: 2.5 Y 7/3 blaß gelb; Politur: 2.5 Y 7/2–3 hellgrau bis blaß gelb; RF: 10 R 3/6 dunkelrot; SF: 5 YR 3/1 sehr dunkel grau. Bruch: durchgehend 2.5 Y 7/3 blaß gelb; Bruchquerschnitt sehr dicht und kompakt; Bes. Einschlüsse: rote Partikel, bis zu 1mm, wenig; Kalk bis zu 1 mm, wenig; Vertikale und horizontale Politurstriche am Körper und am Hals unterhalb der Bemalung. VI 75,8. Dekoration: Die Oberfläche des Körpers wird durch vertikale, breite Musterstreifen (SF-RF-SF-

RF-SF, 2,5 cm) in vier Segmente geteilt. Die Segmente werden wiederum jeweils durch zwei diagonal verlaufende sich kreuzende Musterstreifen (je drei, schwarz, 0,3 cm breit mit Abstand von ca. 0,2 cm) in rautenförmige Felder geteilt. In den beiden oberen erhaltenen Segmenten befinden sich die Reste eines Kreises (?) und eines Vogels (?), während in einem anderen eine vertikale Wellenlinie zu erkennen ist. Der Henkel weist 13 horizontale kurze, schwarze Linien auf, die letzten beiden befinden sich bereits auf dem Krugkörper. Zwischen der sechsten und siebenten Linie befinden sich zwei gekreuzte Linien, 2,2 cm hoch. Der Hals wird durch zwei horizontale Musterstreifen von SF-RF-SF Linien verziert, 1,3–1,5 cm breit. Darüber, direkt unterhalb der Mündung, befindet sich ein Musterstreifen bestehend aus insgesamt fünf Linien (SF-RF-SF-RF-SF), wobei die roten dünner sind (0,3 cm) als die schwarzen (0,5 cm), wie es gewöhnlich der Fall ist. Innen an der Mündung, unmittelbar unterhalb davon, befindet sich eine horizontale SF Linie. Manche der Musterstreifen wurden nicht sehr exakt ausgeführt, sodaß mitunter die polierte Oberfläche des Kruges zu sehen ist. D.h., die Politur des Kruges erfolgte vor der Bemalung. g) 9076 S – Großer Bichromer Krug, Oberteil, (TD), ZN 122/2005. Abb. 6) H/VI-r/23, pl. 1, L6105a. Aus Verfüllung des Raumes L6106, Koordinaten: 3,75–3,80 m/N, 5,0– 6,0 m/West. rel. Str. d. #) weitere einzelne Scherben aus: H/VI-r/23, pl. 1, L6106. Auf dem Boden des Gebäudes östlich des Palastes, h= 4,50 m, rel. Str. c–d. GPBI

VI

sf.

W2

–

ox

3

1B

Md.= 10,3, Hd.= 5,4; gr.D.= 28,7; Wd.= 0,6; H1= 26,6 + x; Henkeld. 3,0 × 1,3; OFL natürlich: 5 Y 8/2 weiß; Politur: 2.5 Y 7/4 blaß gelb; RF: 10 R 4/6 rot; SF: 10 YR 3/2 sehr dunkel gräulich braun. Bruch: durchgehend 5 Y 8/2 weiß; an anderen Stellen 2.5 Y 7/4 blaß gelb. Bruchquerschnitt sehr dicht und kompakt; Bes. Einschlüsse: rote Partikel, bis zu 1mm, wenig; Kalk bis zu 1 mm, wenig; Vertikale und horizontale Strichpolitur auf dem Körper und dem Hals, vor der Bemalung. Dekoration: Auf der Innenseite der Mündung befindet sich ein SF-Streifen, der 1 cm breit ist. Der Henkel wurde mit 10 horizontalen, schwarzen Linien von unregelmäßiger Breite (0,4–0,8 cm) in unregelmäßigem Abstand (0,1 cm–0,6 cm) dekoriert. Zwischen der zehnten und elften Linie befin-

Von Palmen und Vögeln

Abb. 6 Bichromer Krug aus Stratum c–d

45

46

Bettina Bader

den sich zwei gekreuzte Linien (3,8 cm hohes Kreuz), und darunter weitere 8 schwarze, horizontale Linien (ca. 4,6 cm lang), die sich auf dem Krugkörper fortsetzen. Am Hals befinden sich vier Musterstreifen, die durch je drei SF-RF-SF Linien gebildet werden. Die schwarzen Linien sind 0,9 cm breit, die roten mit ca. 0,2 cm sehr dünn (gemeinsam ergibt sich ein Musterstreifen von einer Breite von ca. 2 cm. Am größten Durchmesser befinden sich zwei horizontale Musterstreifen (SF-RF-SF) von ca. 2,5 cm Breite in einem Abstand von ca. 2,2 cm. Die Schulterpartie des Gefäßes wird durch vier vertikale Bänder weiter unterteilt, die im Rechten Winkel auf die horizontalen Streifen treffen. Diese ca. 5,3 cm breiten Bänder werden von je einer SFRF-SF Linie links und rechts eingerahmt und durch horizontale SF-RF-SF Linien in Quadrate oder Metopen geteilt. In diesen Metopen befinden sich Sterne („spoked wheel“ Motiv), und zwar insgesamt vier von jenem Punkt, wo der Hals in den Körper des Kruges mündet, bis zur ersten horizontalen Linie. Diese vertikalen Bänder teilen den Gefäßkörper in trapezförmige Segmente, zwei davon blieben erhalten. In einem Segment befindet sich ein dreiblättriger Baum, dessen Blätter mit Querlinien in schwarzer Farbe ausgefüllt wurden, während in einem weiteren Segment die Reste einer floralen Verzierung oder eines Vogels zu sehen sind. Erhalten blieb ein Blatt oder Vogelkörper in schwarzer Farbe mit roter Innenzeichnung, die mit schwarzer Farbe gefüllt wurde. 2.3. „Schicht 5“ (Stratum e/1 oder e/2, Übergang von spätester Hyksoszeit zum frühen Neuen Reich) Die hier gezeigte Keramik bildet lediglich einen sehr geringen Prozentsatz des Inventars der Opfergrube L6382, die in die lokale Schicht 5 datiert. Das Material wird hier vorgestellt, um einen Eindruck desselben zu vermitteln. Insgesamt wurden 92 Gefäße mit vollständigem Profil gefunden, sowie weitere 39, die zum Großteil rekonstruierbar sind. Das Scherbenmaterial, das nicht mit den vorhandenen Gefäßfragmenten verbunden werden konnte, steht noch zur Bearbeitung an, bevor eine quantitative Analyse unter verschiedenen Aspekten unternommen werden kann. Weitere Gefäßformen, die in dieser Opfergrube vorkommen, sind: Schalen mit Standfläche, Schalen mit Ringboden, Kiel-Schüsseln, Modellschalen, Bechervasen, eine große Vase und Ringständer. a) 9095 – Napf mit Rundboden, vollständiges Profil, fragm., (TD), ZN 34/2005. Abb.7.a)

H/VI-p/24, pl. 5, L6382, Opfergrube. Str. rel. e/1–e/2 RF?

I-b-2

f.–m.

W1

gesp.g.

ox

2

Md.= 8,3; gr.D.= 9,0; Wd.= 0,4; H1= 10,0; OFL natürlich: 5 YR 6/6 rötlich gelb; RF: 10 R 6/8 hellrot; Bruch: dünner violetter Kern, rote und rötlich gelbe Oxidationszonen; gut scheibengeglättet. Oberfläche erodiert. VI 90. b) 9096 – Napf mit Standfläche, vollständiges Profil, fragm., (TD), ZN 34/2005. Abb. 7.b) H/VI-p/24, pl. 5, L6382, Opfergrube, FN 26, h= 3,89. Str. rel. e/1–e/2. RF

I-e-4

f.–m.

W1

abg.

ox

2–3

Md.= 8,0; gr.D.= 8,3; Bd.= 3,6; Wd.= 0,5; H1= 9,3–9,5; OFL natürlich: 7.5 YR 6/6 rötlich gelb; RF: 10 R 6/6 hellrot; Bruch: nicht sichtbar; mäßig scheibengeglättet. Oberfläche erodiert. VI 87,4 c) 9131S – Napf mit Standfläche, vollständiges Profil, fragm., (TD), ZN 167/2005. Abb. 7.c) H/VI-p/24, pl. 5, L6382, Opfergrube, FN 30, h= 3,84m. Str. rel. e/1–e/2. RFTG

I-e-4

m.

W1

abg.g.

ox

1–2

Md.= 9,0–10,0; gr.D.= 11,0; Bd. = 4,4; Wd.= 0,5–0,8; H1= 11,7–11,9; OFL natürlich: 7.5 YR 6/6 rötlich gelb; RF: 10 R 5/6 rot; Bruch: dünner roter Kern, rötlich gelbe Oxidationszonen; mäßig scheibengeglättet. VI 92,4. d) 9100 – Ausgußvase, vollständiges Profil, fragm., (TD), ZN 39/2005. Abb. 7.d) H/VI-p/24, pl. 5, L6382, Opfergrube, FN 34, h= 3,84m. Str. rel. e/1–e/2. RF

I-b-2

f.–m.

W1

gesp.

ox

2–3

Md.= 8,0–9,5; gr.D.= 14,1; Wd.= 0,5; H1= 25,0; OFL natürlich: 5 YR 7/6 rötlich gelb; RF: 10 R 6/6 hellrot; Bruch: grauer Kern, rote und rötlich gelbe Oxidationszonen; gut scheibengeglättet. VI 56,4 e) 9101 – Schöpfkanne, vollständiges Profil, fast ganz erhalten, (TD), ZN 38/2005. Abb. 7.e) H/VI-p/24, pl. 5, L6382, Opfergrube, FN 8, h= 3,89m. Str. rel. e/1–e/2. RP

I-b-2

f.–m.

W2

W

ox

3

1R

Von Palmen und Vögeln

Abb. 7 Keramik aus Stratum e/2

47

Bettina Bader

48

Md.= 5,3, (oval); Hd.= 4,2; gr.D.= 8,1; Wd.= 0,6; H1= 19,2; Henkeld. = 1,3 × 1,2; RP: 10 R 5/6 rot; Bruch: grauer Kern, rote und braune Oxidationszonen; Polierrichtung nicht eindeutig feststellbar, weil die Oberfläche erodiert ist, vermutlich jedoch vertikal. VI 42,2. f) 9102 – Schöpfkanne, vollständiges Profil, fragm., (TD), ZN 40/2005. Abb. 7.f) H/VI-p/24, pl. 5, L6382, Opfergrube, FN 14, h= 3,93m. Str. rel. e/1–e/2. RP

I-b-2/I-e-4

f.–m.

W2

W

ox

3

g) 9119 – Kochtopf, Oberteil, Boden fehlt, fragm., (TD), ZN 110/2005. Abb. 7.g) H/VI-p/24, pl. 5, L6382, Opfergrube, Situation 4, aus FN 13 (h= 3,70m), FN 52 (h= 3,80m), FN 59 (h= 3,70m) und FN 74 (h= 3,80m) zusammengesetzt. Str. rel. e/1–e/2. I-e1

m.

Ha2

M?

ox

2–3

Md.= 24,2; gr.D.= 33,8; Wd.= 0,3–0,8; H1= 18,7 + x; OFL natürlich: 5 YR 6/4 hell rötlich braun; RFStreifen: 2.5 YR 6/6 hellrot; Bruch: breiter grauer Kern, dünne rote Oxidationszonen; mäßig scheibengeglättet; außen in Bodennähe angeschmaucht. h) 9094 – Untersatz, vollständiges Profil, fragm., (TD), ZN 33/2005. Abb. 7.h) H/VI-p/24, pl. 5, L6382, Opfergrube, FN 2, h= 3,95–3,80m.

17

18

19

20

TG

I-b-2

m.

W1

W+H

ox

3

Md.= 20,0; gr.D.= 21,4; Bd.= 21,0; Wd.= 0,9; H1= 8,3; OFL natürlich: 7.5 YR 6/4 hellbraun; Bruch: schwarzer Kern, rote und braune Oxidationszonen; gut scheibengeglättet. 3. BEMERKUNGEN, PARALLELEN UND DATIERUNG 3.1. Stratum b/1

1R

Md.= 4,7 (oval); Hd.= 3,6; gr.D.= 7,7; Wd.= 0,5; H1= 18,7; Henkeld. 1,4 × 1,3; RP: 10 R 6/6 hellrot; Bruch: roter Kern, braune Oxidationszonen; außen grau verkrustet, vermutlich vertikal poliert. VI 41,2.

TG

Str. rel. e/1–e/2.

D. ASTON, Amphorae in New Kingdom Egypt, Ä&L 14 (2004), 191–193, Abb. 8.a. Das Exemplar aus dem Grab des Iurudef hat sogar eine Topfmarke an der gleichen Stelle wie das vorliegende Gefäß aus cEzbet Helmi. Die drei Kerben befinden sich jedoch unterhalb der längeren Linie, die gerade verläuft und nicht gebogen. D. ASTON, The Pottery, in: M.J. Raven, The Tomb of Iurudef, A Memphite Official in the Reign of Ramesses II, London 1991, 47, 52 und pl. 51.58. Zur Datierung s. ibidem, 1–3. D. ASTON, The Pottery, in: G.T. MARTIN, The Tomb of Tia and Tia. A Royal Monument of the Ramesside Period in the Memphite Necropolis, London 1997, 92, pl. 120.162. Zur Datierung s. ibidem 2, 83–84.

ad 2.1.a) 8977Y. Amphore aus Mergel D Die Amphore (8977Y) ist Astons Typ B217 zuzuweisen, der in die Regierungszeit von Ramses II. datiert. Die Datierung dieses Typs in die Regierungszeit von Ramses II. dürfte mit dem Fund von exakten Parallelen18 aus den Gräbern von Iurudef19 und Tia und Tia20 in Saqqara gesichert sein. Eine spätere Deponierung des Gefäßes aus cEzbet Helmi ist jedoch immerhin möglich, zumal der Hals desselben abgeschlagen war, um einer Bestattung darin Raum zu geben. Die deutlich karinierte Form des Bodens ist indikativ für die 19. Dynastie, während gerundete Amphorenböden erst in der 20. Dynastie aufkommen.21 Eine weitere, gut datierte Parallele fand sich in Qantir, die ebenfalls nicht später als in die frühe Regierungszeit von Ramses II. zu setzen ist.22 Derartige Amphoren aus Mergel D-Ton sind auch an den Plätzen Gurob, Riqqeh, Harageh und Deir el-Medineh zu finden, die jedoch keine unabhängige Datierung liefern können.23 ad 2.1.b) 8979B. Vorratsgefäß aus Nilton E In Gurob, in Grab 424, fand sich ein Gefäß von ähnlicher Form auch wenn der Boden etwas ausladender gestaltet wurde.24 Vgl. auch eine Rekon-

21

22

23

24

Vgl. D. ASTON, Die Keramik des Grabungsplatzes Q1, 472, 474-475, Kat.Nr. 1786–1791. M. MARTIN, Egyptian and Egyptianized Pottery in Late Bronze Age Canaan, Ä&L 14 (2004), Abb. 4. D. ASTON, E. PUSCH, The Pottery from the Royal Horse Stud and its Stratigraphy, Ä&L 9 (1999), 52, Kat.Nr. 87. S. Referenzen bei ASTON, Ä&L 14 (2004), 191, Anm. 162–165. G. BRUNTON, R. ENGELBACH, Gurob, BSAE 41, London 1927, pl. 36.40A. Aber mit rotem Farbbad. Der Beschreibung nach waren zwei Gefäße mit Lehm „head on“ zusammengefügt worden. Da außer diesen nur Perlen im Grab gefunden wurden, ist eine genauere Datierung schwierig.

Von Palmen und Vögeln

struktion anhand des Gefäßes aus Gurob in Qantir.25 Die Verwendung eines weißen Farbbades könnte evtl. mit dem Totenkult in Zusammenhang stehen.26 ad 2.1.c) 8977V. Vorratsgefäß aus Nilton E Eine Parallele für dieses Vorratsgefäß findet sich ebenfalls in Qantir, in einem Kontext, der in die Regierungszeit von Ramses II. datiert werden kann, und zwar vergemeinschaftet mit einem Kindergrab.27 ad 2.1.d) 8979H. Vase aus Mergel D Für dieses Gefäß fand sich bisher keine exakte Parallele, lediglich ein Gefäß von ähnlicher Form aus Mischton, mit Strichpolitur, das jedoch kleiner ist.28 Daher kann dieser Vergleich für Datierungszwecke nicht herangezogen werden. ad 2.1.e) 8979M. Vorratsgefäß (“Bierflasche mit Wackelboden”) aus Nilton E Diese Gefäßform wurde von Holthoer Funnelneck Jar genannt, wobei er zwei Varianten unterscheidet, mit langem Hals und mit kurzem Hals.29 Dieser Typ, Holthoers FU 2 „short-necked“, enthält zwei Beispiele, von denen der jüngere aus Fadrus, Phase IIIb, unserem Beispiel ähnlicher ist (185:460:1).30 Anhand einer Korrespondenz-Analyse des Friedhofs in Fadrus konnte festgestellt werden, daß das betreffende Beispiel aus Phase IIIb in die späte 18. Dynastie gehört.31 In einem Friedhof in Nubien wurde eine weitere Parallele, die vermutlich nach der Amarnazeit datiert, gefunden.32

25

26

27 28

29

30

31 32

D. ASTON, Die Keramik des Grabungsplatzes Q/1, op. cit., 312–313, Kat.Nr. 1014, Ramses II. Vgl. A. SEILER, Tradition und Wandel, Die Keramik als Spiegel der Kulturentwicklung Thebens in der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, Mainz 2005, SDAIK 32, 115–117. D. ASTON, E. PUSCH, Ä&L 9 (1999), 51–52; Kat.Nr. 81. Vgl. D. ASTON, E. PUSCH, Ä&L 9 (1999), Kat.Nr. 46, Stratum Bb, Sethos II. R. HOLTHOER, New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites, The Pottery, 149, pl. 33. T. SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH, L. TROY, New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites. The Finds and the Sites, SJE to Sudanese Nubia, Part 5:2, Uppsala 1991, 25. T. SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH, L. TROY, SJE 5:2, 44, 51, 278. B.B. WILLIAMS, New Kingdom Remains from Cemeteries R, V, S and W, at Qustul and Cemetery K at Adindan, The Univ. of Chicago OI Expedition VI, Chicago 1992, fig. 112c, Type CJ 8a aus Grab V 48, vgl. Table 3 und 4.

49

Vielleicht handelt es sich bei den Typen XXVIII/ 194 und XLVIII/47 aus Amarna ebenfalls Parallelen, die in die späte 18. Dynastie datieren.33 Vermutlich aus der 18. Dynastie stammt ein ähnliches Gefäß aus Deir el-Medineh, Grab 1137,34 ebenso wie ein Beispiel aus Saqqara.35 Eine gut datierte Parallele aus der späten 18./frühen 19. Dynastie, wurde aus Qantir, aus den Stallanlagen, bekannt,36 wie auch mindestens zwei sehr ähnliche Gefäß aus Qantir, vom Grabungsplatz Q1. Beide werden in die Zeit von Ramses II. datiert.37 Der Verlauf der Kontur des Körpers ist bei 8979M jedoch etwas schlanker. Für die „Dekoration“ (?) mit roter Farbe konnte keine Parallele gefunden werden. ad 2.1.f) 9076O. Modellvase aus Nilton E Für dieses Modellgefäß einer „Funnelneck Jar“ konnte nur bedingt ein Vergleichsstück gefunden werden, und zwar in Gurob, Grab 273, Typ 41x. Das Grab enthielt außer diesem Gefäß und einer Dumfrucht nichts, das zu einer Datierung beitragen könnte.38 ad 2.1.g) 9076P. Schale mit Wellenrand aus Nilton E Eine blau bemalte Schale mit Wellenrand wurde aus Quantir bekannt, die jedoch Normalgröße zeigt und darüber hinaus einen Rundboden aufweist. Sie datiert in die Regierungszeit von Ramses II.39 Ein besser entsprechendes Vergleichsstück stammt aus Deir el-Medineh, Grab 1164, das in die Regierungszeit von Ramses II. datiert werden kann.40 Es zeigt die gleiche flache Form und

33

34

35

36 37

38 39

40

Die Zeichnungen sind leider sehr schematisch. T.E. PEET, C.L. WOOLLEY, The City of Akhenaten, part 1, EES Memoir 38, London 1923, 139, pl. 50 und 52. G. NAGEL, La Céramique du Nouvel Empire à Deir el-Médineh, FIFAO 10, Kairo 1938, 56, Abb. 37.7. Die Zeichnung des Gefäßes ist sehr summarisch, weshalb eine eindeutige Identifikation als Parallelfund schwierig ist. N. KANAWATI, et al., Excavations at Saqqara, Sydney 1984, 75, Taf. 46, S84:203. D. ASTON, E. PUSCH, Ä&L 11 (1998), 53; Kat.Nr. 91, Str. C. D. ASTON, Die Keramik des Grabungsplatzes Q1, 182, Kat.Nr. 520, tongrundig, und 273–274, Kat.Nr. 906 mit rotem Farbbad. G. BRUNTON, R. ENGELBACH, Gurob, pl. 37.41x. Vgl. D. ASTON, Die Keramik des Grabungsplatzes Q1, 36667, Kat.Nr. 1298. D. ASTON, Die Keramik des Grabungsplatzes Q1, 115.

50

Bettina Bader

besteht aus „terre brune“ mit rotem Farbbad innen und außen.41

gefäßen angewandt,44 die jedoch meist einen kleineren Md als knapp 15,0 cm aufweisen.

3.2. Stratum rel. c–d

ad 2.2.c) 8979Y. Vorratsgefäß aus Mergelton F

ad 2.2.a) 8980A. Amphore aus Oasenton

An dieser Schale, trotz deren einfacher Form bisher keine exakte Parallel zu finden war, scheint ungewöhnlich zu sein, daß ihr Boden mit einer Schnur sehr grob abgeschnitten wurde, um danach nahezu völlig unverändert zur Verwendung zu gelangen. Könnte dies ein Hinweis darauf sein, daß der Zweck dieser Schale als Verschluß, mit dem Boden ins Innere des Gefäßes zeigend, bereits bei seiner Produktion feststand? Diese Bodentechnik wurde gewöhnlich v.a. bei Modellschalen und anderen Modell-

Die vollständige Form des Vorratsgefäßes ist vermutlich anhand eines Exemplars aus dem Areal A/V aus Phase D/2 (späte Hyksoszeit) zu rekonstruieren,45 auch wenn das vorliegende mit der Reg.Nr. 8979Y eine bauchigere Kontur aufzuweisen scheint. Darüber hinaus zeigt es eine Vertiefung an der Außenkante der Mündung, die wohl durch ein Abstreichen mit einem Spatel erzeugt wurde. Eine ähnliche Mündung stammt aus dem Areal H/III und datiert in die frühe 18. Dynastie.46 Aus diesen beiden Parallelen ergibt sich die Mindestlaufzeit dieses Typs von Vorratsgefäß, der seine Wurzeln in einer Entwicklungsreihe von Mergel C-Ton Vorratsgefäßen zu haben scheint,47 wobei das Aussehen des letzten Typs (7 bzw. 9) in seinen Varianten durch die Ausgrabungen von cEzbet Helmi immer besser bekannt wird.48 Seit Phase D/2 werden solche Gefäße in Tell el-Dabca parallel aus Mergel C2-Ton und aus Mergel F-Ton hergestellt (s.o.). Das Auftreten dieser Gefäße setzt sich auch im frühen Neuen Reich fort. Wie lange dieser Gefäßtyp in Gebrauch bleibt, muß die Bearbeitung des gesamten Materials erweisen, ebenso wie die Variantenbreite in Material und Körperform. Erwähnenswert erscheint hier ebenfalls, daß seit der späten Zweiten Zwischenzeit49 bis in die 18. Dynastie50 hinein Gefäße von ähnlicher Form und Funktion aus Nil-51 bzw. Mischton hergestellt wurden, die in der gleichen Herstellungstechnik (Boden in Model hergestellt, Körper

41

47

Astons Amphorentyp H42 wurde den Amphoren aus den Oasen zugedacht, und zu diesem Typ gehört auch das vorliegende, leider unvollständige, Gefäß, das außen mit einem roten Farbbad ausgestattet worden war. Die Farbe lief deutlich unregelmäßig am Inneren des Halses hinunter. Auffallend sind weiters der relativ hohe Grat um den Hals des Gefäßes und die etwas plump wirkenden Henkel, die verglichen mit kanaanäischen oder ägyptischen Amphoren, relativ weit nach unten gezogen wurden. Bisher wurde kein sicher datiertes Exemplar aus der Regierungszeit von Thutmosis III. gefunden, das früheste Beispiel dieser Art datiert in die Regierungszeit von Amenophis II., dessen mittlerer Teil dem vorliegenden Stück ganz gut entspricht. Eine ähnliche Körperform zeigen Amphoren aus Dachla.43 ad 2.2.b) 8979P. Schale mit Standfläche aus Nilton E

42 43

44

45 46

G. NAGEL, La Céramique, 75, Abb. 57.154. D. ASTON, Ä&L 14 (2004), 200–203, Abb. 17. C.A. HOPE, Oases Amphorae, Abb. 2.d, 2. Hälfte der 18. Dynastie. S. MARCHAND, P. TALLET, Ayn Asil et l’Oasis de Dakhla au Nouvel Empire, BIFAO 99 (1999), Abb. 12.a, 13.a–b, Neues Reich. P. FUSCALDO, Preliminary Report on the 18th Dynasty Pottery from cEzbet Helmi, Area H/III-t-u/17 (The Bathroom), Ä&L 11 (2001), Kat.Nr. 32–33, 160, Abb. 5.b–c. Vgl. I. HEIN, cEzbet Helmi – Tell el-Dabca: Chronological Aspects of Pottery, 554, fig. 2. Reg.Nr. 8156E, ca. 12 cm Md. Datiert in die erste Hälfte der 18. Dynastie. I. HEIN, P. JÁNOSI, Tell el-Dabca XI, 84, Abb. 57. P. FUSCALDO, The Bathroom, Ä&L 11 (2001), fig. 4.h.

48

49

50

51

M. BIETAK, Egypt and Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age, BASOR 281 (1991), Abb. 9. B. BADER, Tell el-Dabca XIII, Abb. 43. Das in der Typologie B. BADER, Tell el-Dabca XIII, Abb. 43, gegebene Beispiel aus Memphis kann jetzt bereits durch ein passenderes Exemplar aus Mergel C2 ersetzt werden: Reg.Nr. 8987D. Vgl. A. SEILER, Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine 25./26./27. Grabungsbericht, MDAIK 55 (1999), 216–219. Z.B. Aus der Regierungszeit von Thutmosis IV: A. und A. BRACK, Das Grab des Tjanuni, Theben Nr. 74, AV 19, Mainz 1977, Tafel 63. 1/43. Auch in Tell el-Dabca.

Von Palmen und Vögeln

ebenfalls handgemacht, Mündung auf der Scheibe nachgedreht) erzeugt wurden. Deren Typologie scheint jedoch anders zu verlaufen und muß im Detail noch studiert werden. Generell ist es schwierig zu entscheiden, ab wann die Mündungen großer Vorratsgefäße, die – abgeschlagen – gerne sekundär als Untersätze verwendet wurden,52 als alt in ihrer Schicht zu betrachten sind. Mittlerweile gibt es zumindest bis in die rel. Straten c-d genügend Hinweise auf vollständiger erhaltene Keramik dieser Art, sodaß sie nicht mehr alle als residual zu bewerten sind. Die beiden hier gezeigten Gefäße (s. auch Reg.Nr. 9076A) sollen nur als Beispiel dienen. In der Zwischenzeit wurden einige weitere, gut erhaltene Vorratsgefäße aus Mergel F bzw. C2 oder C2/F in den relativen Straten c–d aufgenommen.53 ad 2.2.d) 9076A. Vorratsgefäß aus Mergelton C2/F Ein gut vergleichbares Gefäß mit sehr ähnlicher Kontur aus Mergelton F findet sich im Areal H/III, das aus Stratum d von cEzbet Helmi stammt54 und das in die frühe 18. Dynastie gesetzt wird.55 Ein vollständiges ähnliches Gefäß aus Stratum c besteht ebenfalls aus Mergel F.56 Das Gefäß mit der Reg.Nr. 9076A besteht aus einem Tonmaterial, das sich der eindeutigen Zuordnung zu Mergelton C2 (= Tell el-Dabca IIc-3) oder Mergelton F (II-f), wie sie in Tell elDabca57 bzw. im „Wiener System“ definiert sind58, bislang entzieht. Einige Bemerkungen zu den sich ergebenden Schwierigkeiten in der Identifi-

52

53

54 55 56 57

58

59

Zwei Beispiele dafür: I. HEIN, Erste Beobachtungen zur Keramik aus cEzbet Helmi, Ä&L 4 (1994), 40, Abb. 11.g, h. Im Areal H/VI östlich des Palastes und die Gefäße s. Anm. 54 und 56. P. FUSCALDO, Ä&L 11 (2001), fig. 4.g. M. BIETAK, et al., Ä&L 11, 36–38. D. ASTON, Cross-Dating, Abb. 4.f. M. BIETAK, Tell el-Dabca V, 327–328. B. BADER, Tell elDabca XIII, 36–40. J. BOURRIAU, H.-Å. NORDSTRÖM, Ceramic Technology: Clays and Fabrics, in: DO. ARNOLD, J. BOURRIAU, An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery, SDAIK 17, Mainz 1993, 179–180. Dies bedeutet aber nicht, daß ein Mergel C2 überhaupt keine Kalkpartikel enthalten dürfe, sondern die Quarzpartikel überwiegen weitgehend und dominieren das Bruchbild. Tonmaterial, auf das diese Beschreibung

51

kation des Materials scheinen deshalb an dieser Stelle angebracht. Das Unterscheidungskriterium zwischen Mergel C1 und C2 ist das Verhältnis von Quarz- und Kalkpartikeln im gebrannten Material. Überwiegen die Kalkpartikel handelt es sich um Mergel C1, überwiegen die Quarzpartikel handelt es sich um Mergel C2.59 Im Bruchquerschnitt des Mergelton F hingegen, sind nahezu ausschließlich Quarzpartikel verschiedener Größe sichtbar, sodaß bei ähnlicher Farbgebung des Bruchquerschnittes durch den Brand beider Materialien eine Unterscheidung oft schwerfällt, sofern nicht einige Kalk- und Tonsteinpartikel auf Mergelton C2 hinweisen. Beide Materialien werden für Vorratsgefäße und Kielschüsseln verwendet (auch noch in der 18. Dynastie), während kleinere Schalen und Vasen in der frühen 18. Dynastie v.a. aus Mergelton F zu bestehen scheinen.60 Dieser Mangel, das Material eindeutig zu bestimmen, beeinflußt die Interpretation des Befundes stark, da die Herkunft des Mergel C bisher stets in der Memphis Fayum-Region vermutet wurde61 und die des Mergel F im Ostdelta oder im Sinaigebiet.62 Offensichtlich ergibt sich aus dieser Unsicherheit auch das Unvermögen die „Handels“routen eindeutiger zu rekonstruieren, sodaß nicht klar gesagt werden kann, ob Güter, transportiert in diesen Gefäßen, aus der Memphis-Fayum Region oder aus dem Ostdelta/Sinaigebiet nach Auaris gelangten. Dieses Wissen wäre jedoch für eine (quantitative) Rekonstruktion der Wirtschaftsgeschichte ebenso wichtig, wie für eine

60

61

62

paßt, tritt bereits vor der Hyksoszeit (Tell el-Dabca Phasen E/2–D/2) in Erscheinung, auch wenn er später weitaus häufiger und sogar noch quarzhältiger wird. Es könnte aus Gründen der Klarheit in Erwägung gezogen werden diesen extrem quarzhältigen Mergel C, der tatsächlich nur in der Hyksoszeit und später vorkommt, eine eigene Bezeichnung zuzuweisen, die dann aber kein Gegenstück im Wiener System hätte. Diese Aussage beruht auf der ersten Durchsicht des Materials im Areal, das östlich des Palastes G liegt, v.a. auf L 6194. Do. ARNOLD, Mergeltone (“Wüstentone”) und die Herkunft einer Mergeltonware des Mittleren Reiches aus der Gegend von Memphis, in: DO. ARNOLD (Hrsg.), Studien zur altägyptischen Keramik, Mainz 1981, 181–182, 188–190. B. BADER, Tell el-Dabca XIII, 34–36. M. BIETAK, Tell el-Dabca V, 328. D. ASTON, Tell el-Dabca XII, 35.

52

Bettina Bader

Analyse der Kontakte von Auaris nach außen. Daraus ergibt sich auch die Frage, welche Güter hätten in Keramikgefäßen aus dem Sinaigebiet oder dem Ostdelta kommen können? Belege für Wein aus dem Ostdelta datieren größtenteils später und bisher fanden sich die Aufschriften auf anderen Gefäßtypen.62a ad 2.2.e) 8985Y. Bichromer Krug – zyprischer Import (Bichrome Wheel-made Ware) An dieser Stelle sollen lediglich einige allgemeine Bemerkungen über Natur und Problematiken dieser Ware gegeben werden, ohne einen Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit zu erheben, da Typologie, Chronologie und Herkunft dieser Ware fortgesetzt Gegenstand der Forschung sind.63 Eines der Hauptprobleme ist von chronologischer Natur, nämlich ob diese Ware nicht schon in der späten Mittleren Bronzezeit auf Zypern und in Syrien/Palästina auftreten könnte.64 Während der Beginn der Herstellung dieser Ware in Zypern meist zu Beginn der LC I A1 vermutet wird, hat sich die Erkenntnis durchgesetzt, daß Bichrome Wheel-made Ware sowohl auf Zypern als auch in Israel/Palästina hergestellt wurde,65 wobei der eigentliche Ursprung dieser Keramik aber vermutlich in Zypern liegt,66 auch wenn es Einflüsse

62a 63

64

65

66

67 68

D. ASTON, Ä&L 14 (2004), 206–207, mit Literaturliste. Einen Überblick über die Forschungsgeschichte bietet V. KARAGEORGHIS, Bichrome Wheel-made Ware: Still a Problem? 143–155, in: P. ASTRÖM, The Chronology of BaseRing Ware and Bichrome Wheel-made Ware, Proceedings of a Colloquium held in the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm, KVHAA54, Stockholm 2001. Forschungsprojekt von I. Hein, Cyprus, SCIEM 2000. Pro: z.B. S. MANNING, A Test of Time, 98, 122–123, 360–363. Contra: P. ASTRÖM, Bichrome Hand- and Wheelmade Ware on Cyprus, in: P. ASTRÖM, op. cit., 135, 138–139. P. ASTRÖM, Bichrome, 131–136. C. EPSTEIN, Palestinian Bichrome Ware, Leiden 1966, passim. I. HEIN, On Bichrome and Base Ring Ware from Several Excavation Areas at cEzbet Helmi, in: P. ASTÖM, op. cit., 243 – 245. M. ARTZY, A Study of the Cypriote Bichrome Ware: Past, Present and Future, in: P. ASTRÖM, op. cit., 157–174. S. dort zitierte Literatur. V. KARAGEORGHIS, Still a Problem?, 153. R. MERRILLEES, Evidence for the Bichrome Wheel-made Ware in Egypt, Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 1/3 (1970), 10, 11–12. I. HEIN, Bichrome and Base Ring, in: P. ASTRÖM, op. cit., 245. Zwei bichrome Krüge

von außen gegeben haben mag.67 In der Zwischenzeit zeichnet sich die Möglichkeit ab, daß solche Keramik ebenfalls in Ägypten hergestellt wurde.68 Keramik dieser Art ist aus cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca bereits seit der späten Hyksoszeit (Phase D/2) bekannt.69 Weitere Beispiele stammen aus den Straten c–d und d in cEzbet Helmi, die in der allgemeinen Stratigraphie des Platzes Phase C zuzuordnen sind.70 Die Klassifikation der Dekoration folgt Epsteins Arbeit, die dafür nach wie vor am besten geeignet erscheint.71 Der vorliegende Krug wurde im sog. „Cross Line style“ bemalt, wobei die vertikalen Musterstreifen, die den Krugkörper in Segmente teilen, der Mustervariante A entsprechen, die schrägen Linien passen ins Schema von Muster I.72 In den Segmenten befinden sich die Figur eines einzelnen Vogels, der am ehesten Kategorie 1B entspricht,73 sowie ein Malteserkreuz mit Innenzeichnung von abwechselnd roten und schwarzen Streifen,74 und zwei rote Ringe ohne schwarze Umrandung.75 Die Henkelgestaltung mit diagonalem Kreuz ist ebenfalls von Krügen im bichromen „Cross Line Style“ bekannt, sowohl in Zypern, Syrien/Palästina als auch in Ägypten.76 Somit gehört Krug 8985 Y dem figurativen Stil 77 an, der nach Bergoffen in die erste Hälfte der

69 70

71

72

73 74 75

76 77

aus Nilton stammen vom Friedhof Mayana, heute Ashmolean Museum Nr. E 1921.1318, Grab 1262 und E 1921.1391 Grab 1289; Sedment I, pl. 45. M. BIETAK, et al., Ä&L 11, 32-33, Abb. 3. M. BIETAK, Towards a Chronology of Bichrome Ware? Some Material from cEzbet Helmi and Tell el-Dabca, in: P. ASTRÖM, op. cit., 175–201. I. HEIN, Bichrome and Base Ring Ware, in P. ASTRÖM, op. cit., 231–247. I. HEIN, Ä&L 11, 124, Abb. 2.6–9 und Taf. 1. D. ASTON, Cross-Dating, Abb. 24.a. C. EPSTEIN, Bichrome, 20–87. Auch Aström folgt dieser Einteilung: P. ASTRÖM, The Late Cypriote Bronze Age, 121. C. EPSTEIN, Bichrome, 83–87, Fig. 6. Epstein hat bereits auf die Ähnlichkeit mit White Painted IV–VI Cross line style hingewiesen. Vgl. P. ASTRÖM, The Middle Cypriote Bronze Age, SCE, Vol. IV: 1b, Lund 1972, fig. 9.10–14. C. EPSTEIN, Bichrome, 31–40. C. EPSTEIN, Bichrome, 59–60, Fig. 5.8. Die Farbe dieser Motive ist sehr schlecht erhalten, sodaß es sich möglicherweise um das „solid wheel motive“ handeln könnte. Vgl. C. EPSTEIN, Bichrome, 63–64. C. EPSTEIN, Bichrome, 65. ARTZY, A Study, passim, unterscheidet 1) einen Dekorationsstil ohne figurative Elemente, und 2) den reifen Typ.

Von Palmen und Vögeln

späten Bronzezeit datiert, d.h. in die frühe 18. Dynastie bis Thutmosis III.78 Eine Parallele zur Form findet sich in Lefkoniko, ähnliche Dekoration in Megiddo (wobei der Vogel und die Henkel- und Halsdekoration anders gestaltet wurde).79 Aus Tell el-Ajjul (H4-3) stammt ein sehr ähnliches Gefäß aus LB IA–I A/B, das in die erste Hälfte der 18. Dynastie gesetzt wird.80 Ein weiteres Gefäß aus Tell el-Ajjul ist zu nennen,81 sowie weitere Fragmente.82 Aus Ayia Irini auf Zypern stammt ein ähnlicher Krug, der jedoch nicht aus einem eindeutigen Fundzusammenhang stammt. Er zeigt in den oberen Segmenten je einen Kreis (schwarz umrandet, mit roter Farbe gefüllt), einen Vogel und einen Fisch.83 Auch aus Milia ist ein ähnliches Gefäß bekannt.84

53

der gleichen Farbkombination. Eine ähnliche lineare Dekoration (Wellenlinien innen, gerade außen) findet sich in cEzbet Helmi (Reg.Nr. 8476Y) aus rel. Stratum d/1 (erste Hälfte der 18. Dynastie)86 und in Maroni, aber auf einem anderen Krugtyp.87 Aus Enkomi stammt ein recht ähnlicher Krug, bei dem eine Wellenlinie von zwei geraden Musterstreifen eingerahmt wird.88 Zur generellen Form des Kruges kann eine Parallele aus Aniba genannt werden, die auch die gleiche Form des Henkels zeigt, aber eine in Details andere Dekoration89 und aus Sedment (?). Dabei handelt es sich aber wohl entweder um palästinensische oder sogar ägyptische Produkte.90 ad 2.2.g) 9076S. Großer bichromer Krug – zyprischer Import (Bichrome Wheel-made Ware)

Auch dieser Krug kann als Vertreter des bichromen „Cross Line style“ gelten. Die vertikalen Musterstreifen auf dem Krugkörper gehören ebenfalls Epsteins Mustervariante A an (s.o.), während die schrägen Linien Variation II entsprechen.85 Von der Dekoration der Segmente blieb nicht genug erhalten, um gesichert von einer figurativen Darstellung sprechen zu können. Einerseits blieb ein kurzes Band (SF-RF-SF), das von Wellenlinien eingerahmt wurde und bis zum Kreuzungspunkt der schrägen Linien reicht, erhalten, andererseits ein gerundetes Element in

Dieser besonders große Krug zeigt neben seiner ungewöhnlichen Dimension einige Besonderheiten. Während die horizontal verlaufenden Musterstreifen im gleichen Schema wie Epsteins „Vertical Bands D“91 angelegt wurden, werden die Musterelemente, die als Speichenrad bezeichnet werden, ebenfalls von Musterstreifen im selben Farbschema eingerahmt. In den Metopen findet sich einerseits ein Baum mit drei Blättern, die mit querverlaufenden Linien gefüllt sind, andererseits ein nur tw. erhaltenes Element, das vielleicht als Vogel zu identifizieren ist. Der Baum findet in Epsteins Klassifizierung keine genaue Entsprechung, aber in Tell el-Ajjul existiert ein Fragment mit einer ähnlichen Darstellung.92

78

84

ad 2.2.f) 8985Z. Bichromer Krug – zyprischer Import (Bichrome Wheel-made Ware)

79

80

81

82 83

C. BERGOFFEN, The Cypriot Bronze Age Pottery from Sir Leonard Woolley’s Excavations at Alalakh (Tell Atchana), 71. W.A. HEURTLEY, A Palestinian Vase-Painter of the Sixteenth Century, B.C. QDAP VIII (1938), Taf. XIII.f,. C. EPSTEIN, Bichrome, plate III.7 und 9. P. FISCHER, M. SADEQ, Tell el-Ajjul 2000, Second Season, Preliminary Report, Ä&L XII (2002), Abb. 13.1, P. FISCHER, The Preliminary Chronology of Tell el-Ajjul: Results of the Renewed Excavations in 1999 and 2000, in: M. BIETAK (Hrsg.), SCIEM, Vol. II, Wien 2003, 281, 289, fig. 10. 8. R. AMIRAN, The Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, Jerusalem 1969, 154, Photo 143, IDA 35.4110. Vgl. W.M.F. PETRIE, Ancient Gaza IV, Taf. LIV.57H8, Tomb 1717. W. A. HEURTLEY, A Palestinian Vase-Painter of the Sixteenth Century B.C., QDAP VIII (1938), Taf. VIII.g. W.M.F. PETRIE, Ancient Gaza IV, Taf. XLII.1. P.E. PECORELLA, Le Tombe dell ‘Età del Bronzo Tardo della Necropoli a Mare di Ayia Irini «Paleokastro», Rom 1977, 204, fig. 572.20.

85 86 87 88 89

90

91 92

A. WESTHOLM, Some Late Cypriote Tombs at Milia, QDAP VIII (1938), Taf. IV.1. C. EPSTEIN, Bichrome, 83–87, Fig. 6. I. HEIN, Bichrome and Base Ring, 233, Abb. 2.2. C. EPSTEIN, Bichrome, pl. XIII.5. Eher piriformer Körper. W.A. HEURTLEY, QDAP VIII, Taf. XIX.d. C. EPSTEIN, Bichrome, pl. III.4, pl. XIII.2. G. STEINDORFF, Aniba, Vol. II., Glückstadt, Hamburg, New York 1937, Taf. 83, 39 (b), 2. v. li. U.C. 18961 aus dem Petrie Museum. Cf. EPSTEIN, Bichrome, pl. XIII.6. Nach R. MERRILLEES, AJBA 1/3, 6 war das Gefäß ohne Herkunftsbezeichnung im Museum gefunden worden, und muß nicht einmal aus Ägypten stammen, da Petrie auch in Palästina tätig war. C. EPSTEIN, Bichrome, 86, fig. 6. W.M.F. PETRIE, Ancient, Gaza IV, Taf. XLV.17.

54

Bettina Bader

Ungefähre Parallelen zum Aussehen der Musterbänder finden sich in Tell el-Ajjul,93 obwohl die Anzahl der SF-RF-SF Streifen zwischen den als „spoked wheel“ bezeichneten Elementen variiert. Eine bessere Parallele dafür findet sich auf einem „Tankard“ aus Ayia Irini94 und auf einem Krug aus Milia.95 Bei einem Krug, der aus Sedment, Mayana, Grab 1270, stammt, ist eine gewisse Ähnlichkeit zur Form des vorliegenden Gefäßes erkennbar, obwohl er nur halb so groß ist. Die Anordnung der Musterbänder und der Metopen wurde doch ähnlich gestaltet, wenn auch nicht alle Details übereinstimmen.96 3.3. Stratum e/1 und/oder e/2 Allgemein kann gesagt werden, daß das Inventar der vorliegenden Opfergrube L6382 nicht dem sog. „Standardrepertoire“ bestehend aus Modellgefäßen und gebrauchsgroßen Näpfen und Ringständern entspricht, sondern eher Relikte von Mahlzeiten enthält. Derartige Reste von Opfermahlzeiten fanden sich nach Müller bisher bei Opfergruben, die vor Tempeln angelegt wurden, bei solchen, die einer Gräbergruppe zugeordnet werden können, und im Wohnhausbereich.97 Dazu paßt die kreisrunde Form der Grube, die Größe von 1,10 m und die Funde von Tierknochen.98 Da Belege für eine/n Friedhof/Gräbergruppe oder ein Wohnhaus aus der Hyksoszeit in diesem Bereich fehlen, könnte sich

93

94 95

96

97

98

W.M.F. PETRIE, Ancient Gaza III, London 1933, Taf. XLI. 16. KE 1030; Taf. XLII.26, 30, 40. P.E. PECORELLA, Le Tombe, 65, Abb. 30 und 149.20. C.F.A. SCHAEFFER, Missions en Chypre 1932 – 1935, Paris 1936, 50, Abb. 20. W.M.F. PETRIE, G. BRUNTON, Sedment I, pl. 45.71. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, E 1921.1376. Nach Merrillees handelt es sich um ein ägyptisches Produkt. Vgl. IDEM, AJBA 1/3, 11. Die Bestimmung des Tons gestaltete sich schwierig, da durch die Rekonstruktion kein originaler Bruch zu sehen war. Während der Ton nicht zyprisch zu sein scheint, wurde auch ein ägyptischer Ursprung ausgeschlossen. Vgl. J. BOURRIAU, Umm elGacab, 133–34. Eine palästinische Herkunft wäre möglich. Lediglich der Mittelstreifen um den gr.D. wurde in roter Farbe ausgeführt, die übrige Dekoration ist schwarz. Auch die Darstellung des Vogels weicht vom Üblichen ab. Vgl. V. MÜLLER, Bestand und Deutung der Opferdepots bei Tempeln, in Wohnhausbereichen und Gräbern der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Tell el-Dabca, 175–178, 186–187, 196. M. Bietak, I. Forstner-Müller, persönliche Mitteilung.

diese Grube daher durchaus auf einen Tempel beziehen,99 der evtl. unterhalb des modernen Dorfes liegt. Die geophysikalischen Surveys lieferten jedenfalls keinen Hinweis auf einen möglichen Bezugspunkt in diesem Bereich.100 ad 2.3. a) 9095 Napf mit Rundboden aus Nilton B2 Wie bereits wiederholt festgestellt,101 unterliegt diese Gefäßgruppe, die innerhalb Tell el-Dabcas gut bekannt ist, einer chronologisch signifikanten Entwicklung, die jedoch nur mit Einschränkungen auf andere Fundplätze übertragen werden kann.102 Der Gefäßindex des leider einzigen vorliegenden Napfes mit Rundboden in dieser Opfergrube beträgt 90, was gut zu einer Datierung in die späte „Hyksoszeit“ (Phase D/3–D/2) passen würde. Ein einziger Napfindex’ darf jedoch keinesfalls überbewertet werden. Eine gut entsprechende Parallele aus einer Opfergrube stammt aus Phase D/3.103 ad 2.3.b) und c) Näpfe mit Standfläche aus Nilton B2 Dieser Gefäßtyp wird in diesem Vorbericht durch zwei Exemplare vertreten, die sich in der Größe deutlich unterscheiden. Auch in Details der Herstellung sind Unterschiede zu bemerken (sichtbare Schnecke innen oder glatt; Wandstärke, Varianten der Mündungsformung) ebenso wie im verwendeten Tonmaterial (I-b-2, I-e-4, I-e-5). Auch hier finden sich Parallelen in Opfergruben

99

100 101

102

103

Inwiefern die Inventare der übrigen Opfergruben aus diesem Bereich diese Hypothese unterstützen, muß bis zur vollständigen Bearbeitung derselben abgewartet werden. M. BIETAK, I. FORSTNER-MÜLLER, Ä&L 15, Abb. 2. Do. ARNOLD, Keramikbearbeitung in Dahschur 1976–1981, MDAIK 38 (1982), 60–65, Abb. 17, 18. M. BIETAK, Problems of Middle Bronze Age Chronology: New Evidence from Egypt, AJA 88 (1984), 471–485. Abb. 2, 480–82. B. BADER, A Tale of Two Cities: First Results of a Comparison Between Avaris and Memphis, in: M. BIETAK, E. CZERNY (eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 Euro-Conference, Vienna, 28th of May to 1st of June 2003, im Druck. V. MÜLLER, Opfergruben der Mittleren Bronzezeit in Tell elDabca, Bd. II., Abb. 150.10, Reg.Nr. 5363. So schlanke und hohe Exemplare sind im Repertoire der Opfergruben vergleichsweise selten. Vgl. MÜLLER, op. cit., passim.

Von Palmen und Vögeln

in Tell el-Dabca, z.B. in einer auf einem Tempelvorplatz aus Phase D/2.104 Dieser Gefäßtyp existiert jedoch auch weiter bis in die 18. Dynastie hinein (cEzbet Helmi, Str. c–d).105 ad 2.3.d) 9100 Ausgußvase aus Nilton B2 Dieser Gefäßtyp scheint generell eher selten zu sein, auch wenn beachtet werden muß, daß es ähnliche Vasen gibt, die keinen Ausguß aufweisen. Aus diesem Grund kann bei unvollständigem Erhaltungszustand nicht eindeutig definiert werden, welcher Typ vorliegt. In Opfergruben treten Ausgußvasen hin und wieder auf, die jedoch in Phase E/3–2 datieren und damit älter sind. Ihr Aussehen differiert auch darin, daß sie eine geringere Höhe H1 und eine breitere Mündungsöffnung zeigen.106 Evtl. stellt diese Ausgußvase ein jüngeres Stadium in dieser Entwikklungslinie dar.107 ad 2.3.e) und f) 9101 und 9102. Schöpfkannen aus Nilton B2

55

allen Exemplaren, die vollständig genug erhalten sind direkt an der Mündungsoberkante ein, und nicht ein kleines Stück unterhalb, wie anhand der spätesten Exemplare gezeigt wurde.109 Auch scheinen die vorliegenden Schöpfkannen größer zu sein H1= 18,7 cm–19,8 cm als die durchschnittlichen späten Exemplare. Darüber hinaus ist die Proportion der typischen Krüglein des NR eine andere: während in früheren Perioden der Hyksoszeit die Höhe des Halses oberhalb der Schulter grob gesagt etwas mehr als ein Viertel ausmacht, verschiebt sich diese bei den Exemplaren der spätesten Hyksoszeit zu Ungunsten des Körpers, der kürzer wird. Der Hals nimmt nun etwa ein Drittel der Gesamthöhe ein. Zur Datierung anhand der Schöpfkannen kann hier demnach gesagt werden, daß eine Schöpfkanne (Reg.Nr. 9111) bereits den Stil des frühen Neuen Reiches vorwegnimmt, was mit einer Datierung in Phase D/2 durchaus noch kompatibel zu sein scheint,110 wenn davon ausgegangen wird, daß ein „Stil“ einen anderen nicht schlagartig ablöst, sondern sie graduell in einander übergehen.111 Die übrigen Kannen sollten aufgrund ihrer Formdetails mit einigem Vertrauen in die späte Hyksoszeit gesetzt werden, ebenfalls etwa in Ph. D/2. Die endgültige Datierung kann jedoch erst nach Analyse aller Funde, und nach Erarbeitung der Stratigraphie feststehen.

Von den insgesamt 5 Schöpfkannen dieser Opfergrube, zeigt eine (Reg.Nr. 9111 allerdings kein vollständig erhaltenes Profil, hier nicht abgebildet) eine Form, die jener des Neuen Reiches entsprechen könnte.108 Die Kanne zeigt eine relativ stark geknickte Schulter, einen zylindrischen Körper und einen abgerundeten Boden. Die anderen 4 Kannen, obwohl keineswegs identisch in ihrer Form, weisen eher spitze Böden und ovoide Körperformen auf. Die Henkel zeigen meist einen gerundet vierkantigen Querschnitt, einer ist eher ein Bandhenkel, wobei aber zu bedenken ist, daß nur der untere Ansatz erhalten blieb. Die Politur ist nicht bei allen Exemplaren durchgehend vertikal angelegt worden, einige zeigen horizontale Politur auf der Schulter und Reg.Nr. 9111 ebenfalls an der Mündung. Die Henkel laufen bei

Auch sog. Kochtöpfe unterliegen einer gewissen chronologischen Entwicklung innerhalb der Stratigraphie von Tell el-Dabca.112 In den Opfergruben finden sich ebenfalls derartige Gefäße, und zwar seit Phase E/3–2. Dieser Typ bleibt als Element des Repertoires erhalten bis mindestens Phase D/2.113

104

110

105

106 107 108 109

V. MÜLLER, Opfergruben, Bd. II., Abb. 80.21 und 32, Reg.nr. 2810 und 2843. Generell finden sich Näpfe mit Standboden in Opfergruben seit Str. D/3–2. Vgl. MÜLLER, Opfergruben, Bd. I., 53–54, Abb. 14. D. ASTON, Cross-Dating, Abb. 21, Reg.Nr. 8947Y, Abb. 22. m, beide Nilton E. Vgl. V. MÜLLER, Opfergruben, Bd. I, 62, Abb. 20. Vgl. D. ASTON, Tell el-Dabca XII, 71–72, group 28, pls. 16–19. Vgl. I. HEIN, Ä&L 11, Abb. 3.12–14. Vgl. K. KOPETZKY, The Dipper Juglets of Tell el-Dabca. A Typological and Chronological Approach, Abb. 6, “late D/2 – C”. P. FUSCALDO, Tell el-Dabca X, 101, fig. 54.a–b.

ad 2.3.g) 9119. Kochtopf aus Nilton E1

111

112

113

Vgl. K. KOPETZKY, The Dipper Juglets, 237. I. FORSTNER-MÜLLER, Die Gräber dea Areals A/II aus Tell elDabca, im Druck. Bei der Schöpfkanne aus A/II-p13, Grab 4 aus D/2 handelt es sich aus um einen späteren Typ. Vgl. D. ASTON, Tell el-Dabca XII, 167–169, group 157− 158, pl. 177–180. Vgl. V. MÜLLER, Opfergruben, Bd. II., Abb. 63, Reg. Nr. 2612 B. Datierung in EADEM, Offering practices in the Temple Courts of Tell el-Dabca and the Levant, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant, CChEM 3. Wien 2002, Abb. 2.

Bettina Bader

56

ad 2.3.h) 9094. Gefäßuntersatz aus Nilton B2 Dieser Gefäßtyp hatte bisher keine Parallelen, da er einen geschlossenen Boden aufweist. Das Aussehen dieses Untersatzes läßt aber keinen Zweifel daran, daß es sich um eine Hilfe zum Abstellen von rundbodigen Gefäßen handelt.114 Im Frühjahr 06 wurde in einer großen Grube (L81) im neugeöffneten Grabungsareal F/II ein Gegenstück zum vorliegenden Exemplar gefunden. Die vorläufige Datierung in die Hyksoszeit muß jedoch noch bewiesen werden.115 ad Bechervasen mit kleinen Standflächen (ohne Abbildung) Im Material der Opfergrube fanden auch einige wenige Exemplare mit kleinen Standflächen, während die große Überzahl der Bechervasenböden im konventionellen Sinn abgespatelt wurden. Daraus läßt sich vielleicht ebenfalls ein

Datierung in die späte Hyksoszeit gewinnen, als diese Art der Bodentechnik zunächst eher selten verwendet wurde, um später häufiger angewandt zu werden.116 4. SCHLUSSBEMERKUNG Die vorläufige Betrachtung der Keramik und die Datierung der Parallelfunde scheinen die stratigraphische Zuordnung der Keramik im großen und ganzen zu bestätigen. Dennoch liegt es in der Natur eines Vorberichts, daß nur die ersten Eindrücke geschildert werden können und noch viel Material aufgearbeitet zu werden hat, bevor endgültige Aussagen getroffen werden können. Auch die definitive Klärung des archäologischen Befundes hat noch zu erfolgen, sodaß Änderungen in der Interpretation der Keramik und deren Datierung weiterhin möglich und, mehr noch, sogar wahrscheinlich sind.

Bibliographie AMIRAN, R. 1969

1982

Mergeltone (“Wüstentone”) und die Herkunft einer Mergeltonware des Mittleren Reiches aus der Gegend von Memphis, 167–191, in: DO. ARNOLD (Hrsg.), Studien zur altägyptischen Keramik, Mainz.

A Study of the Cypriote Bichrome Ware: Past, Present and Future, 157–174, in: P. ASTRÖM, 2001.

ASTON, D. 1991

114

1998

Die Keramik des Grabungsplatzes Q1, Teil 1 Corpus of Fabrics, Wares and Shapes, FoRa I, Mainz.

2003

New Kingdom Pottery Phases as Revealed through Well-Dated Tomb Contexts, 135–162, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II, CChEM 4, Wien.

Keramikbearbeitung in Dahschur 1976–1981, MDAIK 38, 25–65.

ARTZY, M. 2001

The Pottery, in: G.T. MARTIN, The Tomb of Tia and Tia. A Royal Monument of the Ramesside Period in the Memphite Necropolis, London.

The Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, Jerusalem.

ARNOLD, DO. 1981

1997

The Pottery, in: M.J. RAVEN, The Tomb of Iurudef, A Memphite Official in the Reign of Ramesses II, London.

Die Tatsache, daß nur ein einziger solcher Untersatz in dieser Opfergrube gefunden wurde, genauso wie nur eine einzige größere Vase, läßt evtl. darauf schließen, daß die Vase in diesem Untersatz aufgestellt worden war.

2004a Tell el-Dabca XII. A Corpus of Late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period Pottery, UZK 23, Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien. 2004b Amphorae in New Kingdom Egypt, Ä&L 14, 175–213. im Druck Kom Rabica, Ezbet Helmi, and Saqqara NK

115

116

D. Aston, persönliche Mitteilung. Siehe M. BIETAK, I. FORSTNER-MÜLLER, 63–78, in diesem Band. Vgl. dazu I. HEIN, Ä&L 11, 128, 138.

Von Palmen und Vögeln

bericht Tell el-Dabca/cEzbet Helmi 1993–2000, Ä&L 14, 27–119.

3507. A Study in Cross-Dating, in: M. BIETAK, E. CZERNY (eds.), im Druck. ASTON, D., PUSCH, E.

BIETAK, M., FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I.

1999

2005

The Pottery from the Royal Horse Stud and its Stratigraphy, Ä&L 9, 39–75.

ASTRÖM, P. 1972

The Middle Cypriote Bronze Age, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Vol. IV: 1B, Lund.

1972

The Late Cypriote Bronze Age, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Vol. IV: 1C, Lund.

2001a

(ed.) The Chronology of Base-Ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-made Ware, Proceedings of a Colloquium held in the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm, KVHAA54, Stockholm.

Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Thutmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht für Herbst 2004 und Frühjahr 2005, Ä&L 15, 65–100.

BOURRIAU, J. 1981

Umm el Gacab, Pottery from the Nile Valley before the Arab Conquest, Cambridge.

BOURRIAU, J., NORDSTRÖM, H.-Å. 1993

Ceramic Technology: Clays and Fabrics, 148–190, in: DO. ARNOLD, J. BOURRIAU (ed.), An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery, SDAIK 17, Mainz.

2001b Bichrome Hand- and Wheelmade Ware on Cyprus, 131–142, in: P. ASTRÖM (ed.). 2001.

BRUNTON, G., ENGELBACH, R.

BADER, B.

1927

2001

2004

Tell el-Dabca XIII. Typologie und Chronologie der Mergel C-Ton Keramik. Materialien zum Binnenhandel des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, UZK 19, Wien. el-Dabca/Auaris

Tell und Kom Rabia/Memphis in der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, Dissertation an der Univ. Wien, Wien.

im Druck A Tale of Two Cities: First Results of a Comparison Between Avaris and Memphis, in: M. BIETAK, E. CZERNY (eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., III, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 Euro-Conference, Vienna, 28th of May to 1st of June 2003, CChEM 9, Wien.

57

Gurob, BSAE 41, London.

EPSTEIN, C. 1966

Palestinian Bichrome Ware, Leiden.

FISCHER, P. 2003

The Preliminary Chronology of Tell el-cAjjul: Results of the Renewed Excavations in 1999 and 2000, 263–294, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II, CChEM 4, Wien.

P. FISCHER, M. SADEQ, 2002

Tell el-cAjjul 2000, Second Season, Preliminary Report, Ä&L 12, 109–153.

FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I.

in Vorbereitung Auaris und Memphis in der Zweiten Zwischenzeit.

im Druck Die Gräber dea Areals A/II aus Tell el-Dabca, UZK, Wien.

BERGOFFEN, C.J.

FUSCALDO, P.

2005

2000

Tell el-Dabca X, The Palace District of Avaris. The Pottery of the Hyksos Period and the New Kingdom (Areas H/III and H/VI), Part I: Locus 66, UZK 16, Wien.

2001

Preliminary Report on the 18th Dynasty Pottery from Ezbet Helmi, Area H/III-t-u-/17 (The Bathroom), Ä&L 11, 149–166.

The Cypriot Bronze Age Pottery from Sir Leonard Woolley’s Excavations at Alalakh (Tell Atchana), CChEM 5, Wien.

BIETAK, M. 1984

Problems of Middle Bronze Age Chronology: New Evidence from Egypt, AJA 88, 471–485.

1991a Egypt and Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age, BASOR 281, 27–72. 1991b Tell el-Dabca V. Ein Friedhofsbezirk der Mittleren Bronzezeitkultur mit Totentempel und Siedlungsschichten, UZK 8, Wien. 2001

Towards a Chronology of Bichrome Ware? Some Material from cEzbet Helmi and Tell el-Dabca, 175–201, in: P. ASTRÖM (ed.), 2001.

HEIN, I. 1994

Erste Beobachtungen zur Keramik aus cEzbet Helmi, Ä&L 4, 39–43.

1998

cEzbet Helmi – Tell el-Dabca: Chronological Aspects of Pottery, 547–554, in: C.J. EYRE (ed.), Proceedings of the seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge 3–9 September 1995, OLA 82.

2001

Untersuchungen und vorläufige Bilanz zur Keramik aus cEzbet Helmi, speziell Areal H/V, Ä&L 11, 121–147.

BIETAK, M., CZERNY, E. (eds.) im Druck The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., III, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 Euro-Conference, Vienna, 28th of May to 1st of June 2003, CChEM 9, Vienna.

HEURTLEY, W.A. 1938

A Palestinian Vase-Painter of the Sixteenth Century, B.C., QDAP 8, 21–37.

BIETAK, M., DORNER, J., JÁNOSI, P.

HOLTHOER, R.

2004

1977

Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris. Vor-

New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites, The Pottery, The Scan-

58

Bettina Bader

dinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, Part 5:1, Lund.

(ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant, Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna 24th–26th of January 2001, CChEM 3, Wien.

HOPE, C.A. 2002

Oases Amphorae of the New Kingdom, in: R. FRIEDMAN (ed.), Egypt and Nubia, Gifts of the Desert, London.

NAGEL, G 1938

KANAWATI, N., El-KHOULI, A., MCFARLANE, A., MAKSOUD, N.V. 1984

Excavations at Saqqara. North-West of the Teti’s Pyramid, Sydney.

RAVEN, M.J. 1991

KARAGEORGHIS, V. 2001

Bichrome Wheel-made Ware: Still a Problem?, 143–155, in: P. ASTRÖM (ed.), 2001 . The Dipper Juglets of Tell el-Dabca. A Typological and Chronological Approach, 227–244, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant, Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna 24th–26th of January 2001, CChEM 3, Wien.

The Tomb of Iurudef, A Memphite Official in the Reign of Ramesses II, London.

PECORELLA, P.E. 1977

KOPETZKY, K. 2002

La Céramique du Nouvel Empire à Deir el-Médineh, FIFAO 10, Kairo 1938.

Le Tombe dell’ Età del Bronzo Tardo della Necropoli a Mare di Ayia Irini «Paleokastro», Rom 1977.

PEET, T.E., WOOLLEY, C.L. 1923

The City of Akhenaten, part 1, EES Memoir 38, London.

PETRIE, W.M.F. 1933

Ancient Gaza III, BSAE 55, London.

MARCHAND. S., TALLET, P.

1934

Ancient Gaza IV, BSAE 56, London.

1999

PETRIE, W.M.F., BRUNTON, G.

Ayn Asil et l’Oasis de Dakhla au Nouvel Empire, BIFAO 99, 307–357.

MARTIN, M.A.S. 2004

Egyptian and Egyptianized Pottery in Late Bronze Age Canaan, Ä&L 14, 265–284.

1924

SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH, T., TROY, L. 1991

MERRILLEES, R. 1970

Evidence for the Bichrome Wheel-Made Ware in Egypt, Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 1/3, 3–27.

MÜLLER, V. 1996

Opfergruben der Mittleren Bronzezeit in Tell el-Dabca Dissertation der Univ. Göttingen, Göttingen.

2001

Bestand und Deutung der Opferdepots bei Tempeln, in Wohnhausbereichen und Gräbern der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Tell el-Dabca, 175–204, in: H. WILLEMS, Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms, Proceedings of the international symposium held at Leiden University 6–7 June, 1996, OLA 103.

2002

Offering practices in the Temple Courts of Tell elDabca and the Levant, 269–295, in: M. BIETAK

Sedment I, BSAE 34, London. New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites, The Finds and the Sites, The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, Part 5:2, Uppsala.

SCHAEFFER, C.F.A. 1936

Missions en Chypre 1932–1935, Paris, 1936.

SEILER, A. 2005

Tradition und Wandel, Die Keramik als Spiegel der Kulturentwicklung Thebens in der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, SDAIK 32, Mainz 2005.

STEINDORFF, G. 1937

Aniba, Vol. II, Glückstadt, Hamburg, New York.

WESTHOLM, A. 1938

Some Late Cypriote Tombs at Milia, QDAP 8, 1–20.

WILLIAMS, B.B. 1992

New Kingdom Remains from Cemeteries R, V, S and W, at Qustul and Cemetery K at Adindan, OIP 6, Chicago.

Von Palmen und Vögeln

Tafel 1

59

60

Bettina Bader

Tafel 2

Von Palmen und Vögeln

Tafel 3

61

EINE PALATIALE ANLAGE DER FRÜHEN HYKSOSZEIT (AREAL F/II) Vorläufige Ergebnisse der Grabungskampagne 2006 in Tell el-Dabca Von Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller

I. ALLGEMEINES Die Grabungen des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes Kairo wurden gemeinsam mit dem Institut für Ägyptologie der Universität Wien im Südwesten des Ruinengeländes des alten Avaris durchgeführt. Die im Jahr 2004 unternommenen Magnetometermessungen nördlich des heutigen Ortes Khatacna (Abb. 1, 2) zeigten einen weitläufigen Gebäudekomplex, der sich im Süden bis zum Ortsrand, im Norden bis zum Areal F/I hin ausdehnt.1 Das Messbild ließ palastartige Strukturen mit agglutinierenden Räumen und Höfen vermuten. Aufgrund dieses Ergebnisses wurden im Frühling 2006 Ausgrabungen in diesem Gebiet unternommen. Das Ziel dieser Unternehmung war, die architektonischen Relikte genauer zu erfassen, andererseits die Datierung dieses Komplexes zu klären. Die Auffindung und Erfassung des großen tuthmosidischen Palastkomplexes in cEzbet Helmi2 und seine beginnende Aufarbeitung machten eine Fortsetzung in der Erforschung altägyptischer Paläste aus verschiedenen Gründen wünschenswert. Dieses Areal versprach eine Bereicherung der Stadttopographie und unserer Kenntnis der palastartigen Architektur zu erbringen. Für die Finanzierung dieses Unternehmens danken wir dem Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur, dem Fond zur Förderung wissenschaftlicher Forschung, der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und dem Institute for Aegean Prehistory, Philadelphia, für die Subvention der Restaurierung und Untersuchung der Wandmalereien des Palastareals des Neuen Reiches. Die Österreichische Botschaft in Kairo unter Botschafter Dr. Kurt Spalinger und unter dem Gesandten Mag. Peter Elsner-Mackay hat uns in vieler Hinsicht zur Seite gestanden. Besonders sind wir der Ägyptischen Antikenbehörde (Supreme Council of Antiquities) unter ihrem Generalsekretär Dr. Zahi Hawass und den

1

S. auch BIETAK/FORSTNER-MÜLLER/HERBICH im Druck.

zur Grabung entsandten Vertretern dieser Behörde für ihre freundschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Unterstützung zu Dank verpflichtet. Unser aufrichtiger Dank gilt den Teilnehmern der Grabung, die alle ihr Bestes zum Gelingen der Unternehmung gaben. Für die graphische Gestaltung dieses Beitrages sei Frau Nicola Math gedankt. II. GRABUNGSTEILNEHMER Manfred Bietak Irene Forstner-Müller

- Grabungsleiter - Stellvertretende Grabungsleiterin David Aston - Ägyptologe Katarina Aslanidou - Archäologin Bettina Bader - Ägyptologin Anja Brodbeck - Restauratorin Pieter Collet - Zeichner Josef Dorner - Ägyptologe Manfred Eccarius - Photograph Dagmar Fuchs - Studentin Perla Fuscaldo - Ägyptologin Astrid Hassler - Archäologin Felix Höflmayer - Archäologe Maarten Horn - Student Peter-Christian Jánosi - Ägyptologe Karin Kopetzky - Ägyptologin Nicola Math - Zeichnerin Maria Antonia Martinez - Zeichnerin Sandra Müller - Archäologin Erico Peintner - Restaurator Rudolfine Seeber - Restauratorin Gerald Schmied - Student Michael Weissl - Archäologe Alexandra Winkels - Restauratorin Florian Wöss - Student Magnetometer Survey Wolfgang Müller Michael Weissl Tomasz Herbich Christian Schweitzer

2

- Archäologe - Archäologe - Geophysiker - Geophysiker

BIETAK 2005; BIETAK/DORNER/JÁNOSI 2001; BIETAK/FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2003; BIETAK/FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2005.

Abb. 1 Übersicht über Tell el-Dabca Stand Frühling 2006 (I. Forstner-Müller, T. Herbich, W. Müller, C. Schweitzer, M. Weissl)

64

Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller

Eine palatiale Anlage der frühen Hyksoszeit (Areal F/II)

Abb. 2 Geophysischer Survey mit Umzeichnung (I. Forstner-Müller, T. Herbich, N. Math, M. Weissl)

65

66

Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller

Artur Buszek Piotr Kolodziejczyk

- Geophysiker - Geophysiker

Inspektoren des ägyptischen Altertumsdienstes Hanan Shauqi Anwar Abd es-Samat III. DIE ERGEBNISSE DER GRABUNGEN Das in diesem Jahr untersuchte Areal F/II erstreckt sich südlich des Weges zwischen dem Grabungshaus und dem Didamun-Kanal. Die Zielsetzung dieser ersten Kampagne war es, eine möglichst große Fläche freizulegen, um eine Einschätzung der Architektur und der Datierung dieser Gebäude zu erlangen. An einer Stelle (Planquadrat o/23) wurde ein Testschnitt angelegt, um die unteren Schichten zu erfassen. Aufgrund der enormen Ausmaße der Anlage (ca. 8000 m2) konnte nur ein Teil freigelegt werden (Abb. 3). Insgesamt wurde eine Fläche von ca. 2200 m2 geöffnet. Über die Grabungsfläche wurde ein Rasternetz von 22 Quadranten zu 10 × 10 m gelegt, das sich nach Norden orientiert. Die obersten Schichten lagen 30–70 cm unter der Oberfläche. Diese Maßangabe enthält nur das eigentliche Kerngebiet der Anlage. Diese erstreckt sich nach Westen hin Richtung Didamun-Kanal und nach Norden hin zum Areal F/I. Die Situation im Osten und Süden stellt sich wie folgt dar: In der Messung zeichnen sich die Strukturen in diesem Bereich nicht ab, die Schichten scheinen sich nicht mehr erhalten zu haben (möglicherweise durch natürliche Einwirkung wie Überschwemmungen abgetragen), allerdings ist nicht auszuschließen, dass in unteren Lagen doch noch Reste erhalten sind, die sich im Magnetometerbild nicht abzeichnen.3 Die Orientierung der Anlage erfolgt Nord-Süd (nach lokalem Norden), auffallenderweise ident mit der Palastanlage der 18. Dynastie in cEzbet Helmi, im Gegensatz dazu ist der im Norden gelegene Bau aus der frühen 13. Dynastie in F/I leicht nach Norden zu versetzt. Möglicherweise

3

4

Die Erfahrung in den Messungen mit Fluxgatemagnetometer zeigten, dass sich das Bild umso schärfer abzeichnete, je näher die Strukturen an der Oberfläche lagen. So ist das Gebäude A wesentlich deutlicher zu erkennen als Gebäude B. BIETAK/EIGNER im Druck; V. MÜLLER 2002; V. MÜLLER in Vorbereitung.

nahm hier die topographische Tradition, den Palast in diesem Bereich der Stadt zu errichten, ihren Ausgang. Nach Nordosten zu scheint von dem neuentdeckten palatialen Bezirk ein von runden Gruben (Baumallee?) flankierter Weg, der nach dem Magnetometersurvey in einem Bogen in Richtung Norden schwingt, zu einem in den Siebzigerjahren im Areal F/I von uns ausgegrabenen gleichzeitigen Tempelbezirk zu führen, in dessen Vorhof zahlreiche Opfergruben geborgen worden waren.4 Die genannte mutmaßliche Baumallee scheint vom später angefügten Gebäudeabschnitt A zum Teil überlagert worden zu sein. Stratigraphie Die vorläufige Schichtenzuweisung stellt sich mit folgenden relativen Straten dar: 5 Str. a: Rezente Gruben und Kanalsysteme, auffallend sind ovale ca. 1,2 × 0,6 m große Gruben; diese sind meist absolut N-S und O-W orientiert und dürften auf die Tätigkeit des Schweizers Eduard Naville 1895 zurückgehen.6 Str. b/1: Gruben mit großen vierhenkeligen Vorratsgefäßen, die in der Spätzeit (nach D. Aston in der Zeit der 27. Dynastie) angelegt worden waren; vermutlich handelt es sich um Vorratsgruben von spätzeitlichen Wohnhäusern, die infolge der Ackertätigkeit nicht mehr erhalten sind. Str. b/2: Gruben mit Schafs- und Ziegenbestattungen, die in gleicher Weise auch in cEzbet Helmi angetroffen wurden und dort in die zweite Hälfte der 18. Dynastie datiert werden konnten.7 Vermutlich handelt es sich hier um Relikte des Aufenthaltes von größeren Kleintier-Herden (mnmn.t) in diesem Areal, zu einer Zeit, als der Palastbezirk der Tuthmosidenzeit in cEzbet Helmi und die Relikte von Avaris in Ruinen standen. Str. c: Mehrere Subphasen einer palatiale Anlage, 15. Dynastie (D/3). Eine frühere Phase weist Bad, Brotöfen und schlüssellochförmige Schmelzöfen mit Schlacke auf.

5

6 7

Die Datierung erfolgt aufgrund der Keramik und Siegelabdrücke. NAVILLE 1887, 21. BIETAK/FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2003: 45–46; BIETAK im Druck.

Eine palatiale Anlage der frühen Hyksoszeit (Areal F/II)

Abb. 3 Übersichtsplan über das Palastareal F/II

67

68

Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller

Str. d–e: Wirtschaftsanlagen oder domestische Anlagen mit Höfen und Öfen (vermutlich Brotöfen). Es könnte sich dabei um einen Wirtschaftsbereich einer palatialen Anlage handeln, die als Vorgänger der Anlage von Str. c in Frage kommt. Auf Grund der Dichte an Öfen kann man an einen großen Haushalt denken, wobei neben einer palatialen Anlage auch an die Proviantierung von größeren Menschenmengen wie z.B. Soldaten gedacht werden könnte. Der archäologische Befund Die vorgefundene Anlage zeigte sich komplexer, als auf Grund der Magnetometermessung vermutet werden konnte. Die ursprüngliche Annahme, dass es sich um einen Bau handelt, der in einem Guss errichtet wurde, musste revidiert werden. Die Anlage wurde mehrfach umgebaut. Da die untersten Schichten noch nicht erreicht sind, scheint es schwierig, die Erstnutzung mit Sicherheit festzustellen. Die jüngere Verwendungszeit des Bezirkes kann in die 15. Dynastie datiert werden. Die Aufgabe des Baues erfolgte zur Zeit der Phase D/3. Dieser Zeitpunkt kann durch das Material, das in der Grube [L 81] (s.u.) gefunden wurde, festgelegt werden. Diese schneidet in einen Hof der Anlage ein [L562] und kann anhand des Materials ihrer Verfüllung in diese Periode gesetzt werden. Die uns erhaltenen spätesten Bodenhorizonte datieren den Gebäudekomplex gleichfalls in diese Zeit. Der Bau war aus Lehmziegeln unterschiedlichen Formats errichtet worden; in einer älteren Phase wurden auch Sandziegel verwendet. Beim Abtragen von Mauern im Plqu. n/24 zeigte es sich, dass alle vier Lagen Schilfmatten als Widerlager für die nächste Ziegelschichte eingezogen worden waren, um einen festeren Verband zu erzielen und um Setzungsrisse zu verhindern (Abb. 4).8 Der Bau besteht in vorläufiger Sicht aus vier ungleich großen Vierteln (Abschnitte A–D), die sich rings um einen Turm [M 49] gruppieren. C und zeitweise auch D waren große geräumige Höfe in diagonaler Lage zueinander. A und B hatten vermutlich eine höhere Begehebene, für die wohl der Turm im Zentrum in der späten Phase der Anlage als gemeinsames Treppenhaus d.h. Verteilerplattform fungierte.

8

Abschnitt A (Abb. 6) Der Abschnitt A ist ein in sich geschlossener Bau, der sich gegenüber den anderen drei Viertel selbständig absetzt. Sein südlicher Teil konnte freigelegt werden, sein nördlicher Teil kann anhand des Magnetometersurveys problemlos rekonstruiert werden. Neben einer Einheit aus drei fast gleich großen (ca. 11,7 × 2,5 m) länglichen Räumen [L23, L55, L59] liegt im Nordwesten noch ein weiterer kleinerer Raum [L12] (8,9 × 1,58 m). Die vier Räume sind an ihrem NordostEnde durch Türen untereinander verbunden, so dass sich eine Art Korridor bildet, der in den beiden nordöstlichen Räumen noch durch eingezogene Mäuerchen zusätzlich definiert ist. Der Zentralraum ist von Norden her durch eine 1,3 m breite Tür zugänglich, die in eine Gruppe von schmäleren länglichen Räumen führt. Während die Raumgruppe im Südwesten aus dicken Mauern errichtet wurde, die auf eine Überdachung mit Tonnengewölbe schließen lassen, sind die bisher freigelegten Mauern der 5–6 Räume im Norden dünner, d.h. ehemals mit Flachdach gedeckt. Die beiden Gebäudehälften sind daher unterschiedlich akzentuiert. Ein Eingangstor ist in der Mitte der Nordostwand zu erwarten. Alle Räume sind mit einem Pflaster aus Sandziegeln ausgestattet. Die Funktion der Räume ist noch unklar; es könnte sich am ehesten um Bürogebäude mit Magazinen handeln. Unklar ist auch noch die Deutung der teilweise uneinheitlichen Raumgruppe im Südwesten, wobei der südlichste Raum mit seiner Südwestwand aus der Gebäudefront herausspringt. In Analogie der Rampenlandungen der Paläste F, G und J in cEzbet Helmi ist auch hier an eine Rampe mit hervorspringender Landung zu denken, die außerdem den Zugang zum zentralen Turm gewährleistet. Diese Deutung ist umso wahrscheinlicher, als die Umfassungsmauern der Abschnitte A und D zwischen sich im Südwesten eine Gasse freilassen, die zur mutmaßlichen Rampe führt und auch deren Breite einnimmt. Aus diesem und auch aus anderen Gründen ist für den Abschnitt A ein Obergeschoß anzunehmen, das eine Raumkonfiguration aufgewiesen haben muss, die auf den Mauern des Erdgeschosses basiert. In der Ostecke des Abschnittes A war ein

Diese Bauweise ist in Ägypten bestens bekannt s. SPENCER 1979, 134–135, pl. 47A.

Eine palatiale Anlage der frühen Hyksoszeit (Areal F/II)

Abb. 4 Lehmziegelmauer mit Schilfmatten

Abb. 5 Gründungsdepot [L557] in der Ostecke von Anlage A

69

70

Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller

25

24

K

23 L12

L12

L

L23

L23 L55

M L59

Ra m pe L59

N

Turm

ng

M49

u nd

Hof C

La

0

Abb. 6 Abschnitt A

10m

Eine palatiale Anlage der frühen Hyksoszeit (Areal F/II)

24

71

25

N

Turm M49

Landung

O

23

M83

pp Tre Ko

r

M82

r

pe

o rid

ep Tr

P

e

M81

Hof L186

Q 0

10m

Abb. 7 Hof [L 186] , über Treppe [M81–83] vom Turm [M 49] her zugänglich

Gründungsdepot L557 angelegt worden, das drei Fayenceobjekte und ein Metallobjekt enthielt (Modellnapf aus Fayence, Kette aus länglichen Fayenceperlen, unbeschriftete Plakette; bei dem Metallobjekt könnte es sich um ein Armband handeln) (Abb. 5). Die Gegenstände waren auf einer Schicht aus hellgelbem Sand deponiert, die die Trennschicht zwischen Gebäude A und einem unmittelbar darunter liegenden Vorgängerbau bildete.

Abschnitt B Der Abschnitt B besteht aus einem Kastenmauerwerk mit einer Seitenlänge von über 30 m. Entlang seiner Nordwestseite ist ein Korridor, vermutlich eine Treppe oder Rampe, zu erkennen, die auf eine Landung führt, welche später zu einem Turm [M 49] ausgebaut wurde. Das Kastenmauerwerk repräsentiert einen aus cEzbet Helmi bekannten Bautyp der späten Hyksoszeit

72

Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller

Abb. 8 Wasserleitung aus Kalkstein in Raum [L508]

Abb. 9 Opferplatte aus Kalkstein mit der Titulatur einer Königin des Mittleren Reiches, sekundär als Türangelstein verwendet

Eine palatiale Anlage der frühen Hyksoszeit (Areal F/II)

73

Abb. 10 Schlüssellochförmige Öfen zur Metallverarbeitung

und der 18. Dynastie, wobei es sich um ein Gebäude auf gehobener Plattform handelt, auf die eine entlang der Nordwestseite angefügte Rampe oder Treppe hinaufführt.9 Dieses Kastenmauerwerk schließt einen mutmaßlichen Hof [L 186] ein, der über eine entlang der Wände angelegte Treppe [M 81–83] vom Turm [M 49] her zugänglich war (Abb. 7). Diese Treppe war L-läufig; Parallelen sind u.a. aus Illahun bekannt.10 Es gab in diesem Kastenmauerwerk noch weitere ebenerdige Räume, welche zugänglich waren, wie man an Relikten eines Kalkestrichs erkennen konnte. Nach einem Umbau wurde im Südwesten des Kastenmauerwerks ein Magazin beziehungsweise ein Keller aus zwei Räumen [L 177] errichtet. Südwestlich davon befand sich ein kleiner quadratischer Hof von etwa 22 m Seitenlänge [L 562], der vielleicht mit einer Kolonnade im SW ausgestattet war, die sich noch in Form einer Reihe von Säulengruben erhalten hat. Entlang der Nordostund der Südostmauer ist je eine Mauer scheinbar

vorgelagert. Es handelt sich dabei jedoch um Relikte älterer Bauphasen. Außerdem gibt es Mauerstümpfe, die von Südosten und Nordwesten in den Hof hineinragen. Es ist unklar, ob der Hof in einer bestimmten Bauphase unterteilt oder sogar teilweise überdacht war. In der letzten Phase war er gewiss vollkommen offen, wie die Opfergrube L81 und die von dieser ausgehende Schicht der Keramik zeigt.

9

10

BIETAK/DORNER/JÁNOSI 2001: 37; BIETAK 2005: 148–49, 163–64.

Abschnitt C: Hof Abschnitt C befindet sich im Nordostviertel der Gesamtanlage und wurde einstweilen nur durch den Magentometersurvey erfasst. Es handelt sich um einen ca. 30 × 24 m großen Hof der an die Aussenwand der Gesamtanlage angrenzt und an drei Seiten von länglichen Räumen umgeben ist. Seine Verbindung zum Kastenmauerwerk des Abschnittes B ist einstweilen noch unklar. Wahrscheinlich ist eine Verbindung über den Turm [M 49].

Zu den Treppen in Illahun s. ARNOLD 2005, 91–96.

74

Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller

Abschnitt D: Hof Abschnitt D besteht aus einer ca. 25 × 25 m großen Fläche, die zumindest zeitweise als Hof genutzt war,11 der entlang der Außengrenzen der Gesamtanlage von zwei Umfassungsmauern umgeben ist. An seiner Nordost und Südost-Grenze scheinen sich längliche Räume zu befinden. Dieser Abschnitt ist durch die Grabung nur angeschnitten und einstweilen nur durch den Survey erkennbar. Ältere Bauphasen der Anlage Unter dem Turm [M 49] kam ein älterer Bau zum Vorschein, der aus mehreren Räumen mit Originalfußböden besteht. Die Räume wurden unterschiedlich genutzt: In einem Raum [L 508], vermutlich eine Badeanlage, war eine Wasserleitung aus Kalkstein angelegt worden (Abb. 8). Der Raum war von Nordosten her durch einen 0,62 m breiten Eingang zugänglich, der in diesem Eingang gefundene Türangelstein

aus Kalkstein war zweimal wieder verwendet worden. In seiner ursprünglichen Funktion diente er als Opferplatte für eine Königin des Mittleren Reiches, deren Name leider nicht erhalten ist (Abb. 9), später wurde die Opferplatte als Säulenbasis umgearbeitet. Der große Raum [L 486] war zumindest zeitweise als Werkstatt verwendet worden, in der SW-Ecke konnten Brotöfen festgestellt werden, in der Mitte des Raumes fanden sich schlüssellochförmige Öfen zur Metallschmelze, wie Schlackereste in der Umgebung zeigten (Abb. 10). Dies erklärt auch die bis zu 40 cm hohe Schicht aus rötlichem verbranntem Material in den Nebenräumen. Die Opfergrube [L 81] (Abb. 11) Die Grube scheint unmittelbar mit der Aufgabe der Gesamtanlage zusammen zu hängen. Die obere Verfüllung dehnte sich vom eigentlichen Grubenrand in Form einer dichtgepackten Schicht über eine Reihe von Planquadraten aus

Abb. 11 Grube [L 81]

11

S. oben.

Eine palatiale Anlage der frühen Hyksoszeit (Areal F/II)

Abb. 12 Fischschale aus Mergel C mit Früchte pflückendem Affen und mit weiblichen Dämonen

Abb. 13 Fischschale aus Mergel C mit Antilopen jagendem Leopard, sowie einem Lebensbaum mit Datteln pflückenden Affen

75

76

Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller

Abb. 14 Nubische Keramik aus Grube [L81]

und wurde in ihrem oberen Bereich von der Pflugschar erfasst und weit verteilt , sodass zuerst an eine rezente Störung zu denken war. Beim Abtiefen stellte sich heraus, dass es sich um eine große kreisrunde Grube handelt, deren eigentlicher Durchmesser auch am Grabungsende noch nicht festgestellt werden konnte. Ihre Verfüllung besteht vor allem aus Keramik und Tierknochen, wobei unter anderem Rinderknochen, im besonderen Rippen, auffällig waren. Auch eine Reihe von Siegelabdrücken kam beim Ausnehmen der Grube zum Vorschein. Insgesamt wurden bisher mehr als 600 Ganzgefäße und über 300 Fundkörbe mit Tonscherben geborgen. Neben Formen, die uns aus dieser Zeit bestens bekannt sind, vor allem Schalen, Näpfen, Ringständern und Bechervasen, kamen auch Bierflaschen und Amphoren zu Tage. Letztere erwiesen sich als Importe der Levante und kommen als Weinbehälter in Frage. Ähnliche Gruben und Keramikdeponierungen wurden bisher in Tempelbezirken von Tell el-Dabca festgestellt und als Opfergruben und Opferrelikte erkannt, in denen vermutlich Reste kultischer Mahlzeiten deponiert worden waren.12 Solche Opfergruben fanden sich gelegentlich auch im

domestischen Bereich wie z.B. in Anlagen der frühen 18. Dynastie in cEzbet Helmi.13 Der Befund in vorliegender Form ist jedoch für uns neu, da er mit einer großen kultischen Mahlzeit im Zusammenhang mit dem Verlassen der palatialen Anlage stehen dürfte. Nach dem Ereignis der Deponierung der Keramik und Tierknochen gibt es nach bisherigem Befund keine unmittelbaren Verwendungsspuren. Weitere solche Opfergruben sind, dem geomagnetischen Befund nach in anderen Höfen der Anlage zu erwarten,14 wobei offensichtlich tausende von Tongefäßen – ganz oder zerbrochen – gemeinsam mit Resten der Mahlzeit wie Tierknochen und Asche deponiert worden waren. Der Fund von Modellgefäßen scheint sich in die rituelle Deutung dieser Gruben zu fügen. Unter der Keramik kamen neben Eß- und Trinkgeschirr Typen zu Tage, die das Repertoire der frühen Zweiten Zwischenzeit erheblich erweitern. Diese umfassen völlig neue Formen, aber auch Varianten bisher bekannter Formen. Besonders bemerkenswert sind die so genannten ovalen Fischschalen aus Mergelton C, mit höchst ungewöhnlicher Dekoration (Abb. 12, 13). Diese sind als archaisierende Formen anzusehen und

12

14

13

V. MÜLLER 2002; in Vorbereitung. BIETAK/DORNER/JÁNOSI 2001: 59–67.

BIETAK/FORSTNER-MÜLLER/HERBICH im Druck.

Eine palatiale Anlage der frühen Hyksoszeit (Areal F/II)

waren zum Zeitpunkt der Deponierung über 100 Jahre alt. Es handelt sich dabei offensichtlich um altes Zeremonialgeschirr, das im Palast oder in einem angeschlossenen Tempel aufbewahrt worden war. Auf der Innenseite des Bordes ist eine lebhafte Szene eingraviert, in der ein Leopard in eine Herde von Antilopen einfällt und ein Tier schlägt. Die Tiere zeigen dabei nicht den in der ägyptischen Kunst üblichen Passgang, sondern natürliche Trottbewegungen. Menschliche Jäger sind auf dieser Szene nicht dargestellt. An der Schmalseite des Bordes sind in Bäumen sitzende Affen zu sehen. Das Motiv von in Bäumen sitzenden Affen, die Feigen pflücken, ist uns aus dem Repertoire der Gräber des Mittleren Reiches z.B. in Beni Hassan bekannt.15 Das Motiv wurde jedoch bereits zur Zeit des Mittleren Reiches auch in der vorderasiatischen Kunst übernommen wie z.B. die Gravur auf einer Fensteraxt aus Syrien zeigt.16 Neben der Darstellung des Leoparden und der Antilopen sowie des Baumes mit den Affen sind auf ähnlichen Schalen auch weibliche Dämonen mit Messer in der Hand auffallend. Letztere sind ein beliebtes Motiv auf den Zaubermessern der Zweiten Zwischenzeit.17 In dieser Grube tritt auch die früheste in Tell el-Dabca gefundene nubische Keramik auf. (Abb. 14). Da es sich um offene Gefäße handelt, muss man sich die Frage stellen, ob es sich überhaupt um Importe handeln kann, da die Gefäße kaum als Transportbehälter in Frage kommen. Wahrscheinlicher ist die Vermutung, dass hier Relikte nubischer Söldner in Avaris vorliegen, die in Form von Keramik und Pfeilspitzen auch aus der späten Hyksoszeit und der ersten Hälfte der 18. Dynastie aus cEzbet Helmi belegt sind.18 Ein ausführlicher Vorbericht über diese Opfergrube wird von David Aston zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt in dieser Zeitschrift vorgelegt werden. Auf Grund von Problemen mit dem Grundwasser und der Bewässerung der Nachbarfelder konnte Grube [L 81] in dieser Kampagne nicht fertig ausgenommen werden.

IV. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

15

18

16 17

NEWBERRY 1893, Tf. XXIX; SCHOSKE/KREISSL/GERMER 1992, 38 Abb. 22. Für diesen Hinweis danken wir Frau Kristina Hein. Allgemein s. BRUNNER-TRAUT 1975, 83; HOULIHAN 1997. NIGRO 2003, 23, fig. 20. VOSS 1999, 390–399, insbesondere 397–98, s. dort auch weiterführende Literatur.

77

Mit der Grabung im Areal F/II wurde vermutlich erstmals in der 40jährigen Forschungsgeschichte der Grabungen in Tell el-Dabca ein palastartiges Gebäude angeschnitten, das mit der regierenden 15. Dynastie in Zusammenhang gestellt werden könnte. Die Anlage zeigt einen außergewöhnlichen mehrgeteilten Grundriss und dürfte das Ergebnis einer agglutinierenden Entwicklung mit einer gewissen Vorausplanung sein. Auffallend ist der Turm im Zentrum, auffallend sind die beiden großen Höfe, die einander diagonal gegenüber liegen, und die moderate Größe des Gebäudes B. Der Abschnitt A im Nordostviertel der Gesamtanlage ist eine Einheit für sich und scheint administrative Funktion mit angeschlossenen Magazinen gehabt zu haben. Es ist dies ein Element, das bei einem Palast zu erwarten wäre. Hier saß wohl die Verwaltung des Komplexes. Was vermisst wird, ist der Thronsaal. Ob es sich tatsächlich um einen Palast handelt oder um ein großes Gebäude, das anderen Aufgaben diente, wird erst die Fortsetzung der Feldarbeit 2008 zeigen. Die vollständige Ausgrabung dieses Abschnittes ist für eine funktionelle Bestimmung unerlässlich. Bei momentanem Forschungsstand entsteht der Eindruck, als ob der eigentliche Palast, von dem nur mehr der Fundamentbereich erhalten ist,19 auf einer gehobenen Ebene im Abschnitt A oder B zu rekonstruieren ist. Es handelt sich jedenfalls um eine weitläufige Anlage mit diversen Räumen und Höfen unterschiedlicher Nutzung. In früheren Schichten konnten in manchen dieser Räume industrielle Anlagen wie Brot- und Schmelzöfen festgestellt werden. Diese Ergebnisse bedingen eine Intensivierung der archäologischen Forschungen der nächsten Jahre in diesem Bereich. Damit sollen die Grundlagen für eine vergleichende bautypologische Untersuchung des Bauwerks geschaffen werden, um zu klären, ob die Vorbilder für diese Architektur im ägyptischen Kulturkreis oder dem des alten Orients zu finden sind.

19

HEIN 2001; FUSCALDO 2002. Sollten sich allerdings die älteren Strukturen als Vorgängerbau der palatialen Anlage erweisen, wären originale Räume und Fußbodenschichten erhalten.

78

Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller

Bibliographie ARNOLD, F. 2005

Baukonstruktion in der Stadt Kahun. Zu den Aufzeichnungen Ludwig Borchardts, 77–104, in: P. JÁNOSI (Hg.) Structure and Significance, Bau und Bedeutung (Festschrift für Dieter Arnold), Wien.

Avaris at cEzbet Helmi, Areas H/III and H/VI, Part I: The Classical Kerma Pottery from the 18th Dynasty, Ä&L 12, 167–186. HEIN, I. 2001

BIETAK, M. 2005

Neue Paläste aus der 18. Dynastie, 131–168, in: P. JÁNOSI (Hg.) Structure and Significance, Bau und Bedeutung, (Festschrift für Dieter Arnold), Wien.

im Druck Nomads or Mnmn.t-Shepherds in the Eastern Nile Delta in the Late New Kingdom, in: A. MAEIR und P. DE MIROSCHEDJI (Hg.), I Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times (Ps. 78:2b): Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Winona Lake.

HOULIHAN, P.F. 1997

Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris, Vorbericht Tell el-Dabca/cEzbet Helmi 1993– 2000, mit einem Beitrag von A. VON DEN DRIESCH. Ä&L 11: 27–129.

BIETAK, M., EIGNER, D. im Druck Tell el-Dabca XIV. Ein Palastbezirk des späten Mittleren Reiches und andere Siedlungsschichten, UZK, Wien. BIETAK, M., FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I.

Harvesters or Monkey Business, GM 157, 31–47.

MÜLLER, V. 2002

BIETAK, M., DORNER, J., JÁNOSI, P. 2001

Kerma in Auaris, 199–212, in: C.-B. ARNST, I. HAFEMANN, A. LOHWASSER (Hg.), Begegnungen, Festgabe für E. Endesfelder, K.-H. Priese, W.F. Reineke u. S. Wenig, Leipzig.

Offering Practices in the Temple Courts of Tell elDabca and the Levant, 269–296, in: M.BIETAK, (Hg.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant. Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material in Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001, CChEM 3, Wien.

in Vorbereitung Tell el-Dabca XVIII. Opferdeponierungen in der Hyksoshauptstadt Auaris (Tell el-Dabca) vom späten Mittleren Reich bis zum Frühen Neuen Reich. Teil I: Katalog der Befunde und Funde; Teil II: Auswertung und Deutung der Befunde und Funde, UZK, Wien. NAVILLE, E. 1887

The Shrine of Saft el Henneh and the Land of Goshen (1885), London.

2003

Ausgrabungen im Palastbezirk von Avaris, Vorbericht Tell El-Dabca/cEzbet Helmi Frühjahr 2003, Ä&L 13: 39–50.

2003

2005

Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht für Herbst 2004 und Frühjahr 2005, Ä&L 15: 65–100.

NEWBERRY, P.

NIGRO, L. L’ascia fenestrata e il pugnale venato: due tipologie di armi d’apparato dell’età del Bronzo Medio in Palestina, Monumenti Musei e Gallerie Pontificie, Bollettino 23 (2003), 7–42.

BIETAK, M., FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., HERBICH, T.

1893

im Druck Geophysical Survey and its Archaeological Verification. Discovery of a New Palatial Complex in Tell el-Dabca in the Delta, in: Z. HAWASS und J. RICHARDS (Hg.), Fs. O’Connor.

SCHOSKE, S., KREISSL, B., GERMER, R. 1992

BRUNNTER-TRAUT, E.

SPENCER. A.J.

1975

1979

Affe, LÄ I, 83–85.

FUSCALDO, P.

VOSS, S.

2002

1999

The Nubian Pottery from the Palace District of

Beni Hasan I, Archaeological Survey of Egypt 1, London. „Anch“ – Blumen für das Leben, München. Brick Architecture in Ancient Egypt, Warminster. Ein Zaubermesser aus K 95.2, MDAIK 55, 390–399.

NEUESTE ERGEBNISSE DES MAGNETOMETERSURVEYS WÄHREND DER FRÜHJAHRSKAMPAGNE 2006 IN TELL EL-DABcA/QANTIR Von Irene Forstner-Müller und Wolfgang Müller

Die geophysikalischen Messungen zur Untersuchung der antiken Topographie von Tell el-Dabca/ Qantir wurden im Mai 2006 fortgesetzt. Erfahrungsgemäß erwies sich dieser Monat als optimale Zeit, da die Felder zu diesem Zeitpunkt abgeerntet und somit zugänglich waren. Wie in den Vorjahren waren zwei Messteams mit unterschiedlichen Geräten tätig: T. Herbich mit dem Fluxgate Gradiometer FM 36 (GEOSCAN Research, England) und C. Schweitzer mit dem hochauflösenden Cäsium-Magnetometer SM-4/4G. Die Vermessung und Erstellung eines Planes erfolgte durch M. Weissl.1 Die Untersuchungen konzentrierten sich auf folgende Stellen (Abb. 1): A: Tellareal A B: cEzbet Machali C: Südlich von cEzbet Rushdi bis cEzbet Mehesin Zu A: Das Areal A/II stellt den letzten Rest des antiken Tellhügels dar. Dieses Gebiet ist durch langjährige Grabungen untersucht. Hier konnte eine Siedlung des späten MR und ein Tempelbezirk mit Friedhöfen der 13. Dynastie und Zweiten Zwischenzeit festgestellt werden. Diese waren in der Spätzeit (26. Dynastie) von großen Gebäuden überlagert. Die Messungen durch C. Schweitzer zeigten

1

2

Ein Survey dieser Art ist ohne den großen Einsatz dieses Teams nicht durchzuführen, ihnen allen sei an dieser Stelle ausdrücklich gedankt. Dieses Projekt ist in Zusammenarbeit mit der Abteilung Geophysik an der ZAMG – Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik unter der Leitung von S. SEREN geplant.

massive Strukturen, die aufgrund ihrer Orientierung vermutlich in der Spätzeit errichtet worden sind (Abb. 2). Im Jahr 2007 soll hier eine weitere Meßmethode, die digitale Georadarmessung, angewendet werden.2 Zu B: Das Areal ist sehr stark durch moderne Aktivitäten gestört. Die antike Topographie im Areal von cEzbet Machali zeigte eine Insel. Dies war bereits von J. Dorner festgestellt worden3 und konnte jetzt bestätigt werden. Das Westufer des Nilarms [F 3] war bereits in den Vorjahren gemessen worden,4 während dieser Kampagne wurde das Ostufer erreicht. Im Norden ändert sich der Besiedlungscharakter, hier kommen ähnliche Strukturen zutage wie in der Messung, die von E. Pusch und seinem Team im Gebiet von Qantir/Piramesse durchgeführt worden ist.5 Dies bestätigt auch die an der Oberfläche vorgefundene Keramik, die in die ramessidische Zeit datiert. Eine Zielsetzung der folgenden Kampagnen ist es, an diese Magnetometermessungen anzuschließen Zu C: Die Messung wurde von cEzbet Rushdi nach Süden ausgedehnt bis zum modernen Ort Mehesin, im Westen wurde bis unmittelbar an das Grabungsareal AV6 angeschlossen. Die dichte Besiedlung der Zweiten Zwischenzeit setzt sich in diesem Bereich fort.

3 4 5 6

DORNER 1999. FORSTNER-MÜLLER, MÜLLER, SCHWEITZER, WEISSL 2004. PUSCH, BECKER, FASSBINDER 1999a, b. HEIN, JÁNOSI 2004.

Abb. 1 Übersicht über Tell el-Dabca Stand Frühling 2006 (I. Forstner-Müller, T. Herbich, W. Müller, C. Schweitzer, M. Weissl)

80

Irene Forstner-Müller und Wolfgang Müller

Neueste Ergebnisse des Magnetometersurveys während der Frühjahrskampagne 2006 in Tell el-Dabca/Qantir

81

Abb. 2 Geophysischer Survey F06 durch C. Schweitzer in Areal A/II

Bibliographie DORNER, J.

HEIN, I., P. JÁNOSI

1999

2004

Die Topographie von Piramesse, Ä&L 9, 77–83.

Tell el- Dabca XI. Areal A/V: Siedlungsrelikte der späten Hyksoszeit, UZK 21, Wien.

FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., W. MÜLLER, C. SCHWEITZER, C.M. WEISSL

PUSCH, E.B., H. BECKER, J. FASSBINDER

2005

1999a Palast – Tempel – Auswärtiges Amt?, Ä&L 9, 135–154.

Preliminary Report on the Geophysical Survey at Rushdi/ Tell el-Dabca in spring 2004, Ä&L 14, 101–109. cEzbet

1999a Wohnen und Leben, Ä&L 9, 155–170.

THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE AHMOSE AND TETISHERI PROJECT AT ABYDOS 2002–2004: THE NEW KINGDOM POTTERY By Julia Budka

The pottery from the Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project derives from three major excavation complexes: The Ahmose pyramid complex, the Tetisheri pyramid complex and the

New Kingdom town site located immediately to the west of the Ahmose pyramid.5 A surface collection from all areas was conducted in 1993. The bulk of excavated material derives from the area at the base of the Ahmose pyramid where excavation was renewed starting in 1993; large scale fieldwork at the Tetisheri pyramid complex and in the New Kingdom town only began in 2004. Nevertheless, it is possible to characterize and compare the individual pottery corpora coming from these areas. The most striking difference between the material from the pyramid complexes of Ahmose and Tetisheri lies in the variability of shapes and wares as well as in the time span covered by the ceramics (see below). Although the pottery from the town site has as of yet only been studied very briefly, the material seems to hold extremely strong potential for future research. As is the case with material from the Ahmose pyramid complex, a large variability in shapes and wares can be recognized in the town ceramic. In accordance with its function as an area of settlement, the proportion of storage vessels is larger (both Egyptian and imported). The different repertoire is also illustrated by fragments of “fire-dogs” which were collected from the town surface and which so far are missing from the temple area.6 Thus, the domestic wares from the town site will substantially enlarge the pottery corpus from South Abydos.

1

4

INTRODUCTION Considerable amounts of ceramic material were unearthed during excavations directed by Stephen P. Harvey at the Ahmose pyramid temple complex at South Abydos.1 It is well known that the memorial cult of the founder of the 18th Dynasty at this monumental complex lasted for a long time span until the Ramesside period.2 Consequently, it came as no surprise that the ceramic material does not exclusively date to the original building phase of the pyramid complex – thus the later reign of Ahmose and the reign of his son Amenhotep I3 – but in fact covers all four major ceramic phases of the New Kingdom up to late Ramesside times.4 The purpose of this report is to present the first results of two study seasons in 2002 and 2004. Since excavations will hopefully continue in the near future and provide further evidence, a full publication of the pottery must await coming results. Nonetheless, some preliminary comments on the general character of the material and the most common types are possible. THE MATERIAL

2 3

I would like to thank Stephen P. Harvey, not only for inviting me to work on the ceramic material deriving from his excavations, but also for reading a draft of this paper, for many useful comments and especially for correcting my English. Christian KNOBLAUCH helped with the final editing of the text. I am indebted to Elizabeth (Dee) Turman, Andrea Schlickmann and Petra Weschenfelder for helping to draw pottery in the field; thanks are also due to Matt Loeser for the original pencil drawing of ATP 6564.1; all of the inkings presented here are by the author. Cf. HARVEY 1998 passim. Decoration of the pyramid temple was carried out by the son of Ahmose as well; cf. HARVEY 1998, 150, 228–229, fig. 74.

5

6

For the principal division of the New Kingdom in four pottery phases see BOURRIAU 1981, 72, BOURRIAU 1990b, 19*; with additions and comments by HOPE 1985, 4–5; ASTON 1991, 71, n. 1 and ASTON 2002, 177. During the early excavations at South Abydos the dimensions of the New Kingdom town site were partly misunderstood. Three houses excavated by CURRELLY in 1902 and attributed to the “Ahmose Town” are actually part of the Middle Kingdom town, see WEGNER 1998, 26–28. An example of a firedog was drawn by ‘Umm Sety/Dorothy EADY as coming from the New Kingdom town EAO excavations of 1966 (notes provided kindly by Peter LACOVARA to Stephen HARVEY).

84

Julia Budka

Fabrics and wares The first task while working on the pottery from the Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos was to establish a site-specific categorization of fabrics. As ASTON and others have shown, it is possible to detect a certain development in the composition and nature of fabrics and wares within the pottery from New Kingdom Egypt.7 Minor variations in composition, varying proportions of particular fabrics, and the presence or absence of certain wares may provide some hints as to the dating and the origin of the pottery assemblages in question. The main fabric groups were identified from fresh breaks with the aid of a 1 × 10-magnification hand-lens. The designations employed for the groupings are those used within the “Vienna System”8 with some minor alterations and additions.9 Four Nile silt fabrics (plus several variations) and seven different Marl clay fabrics (plus several variations) have been identified at South Abydos as of yet. In addition, several non-Egyptian amphora fabrics of probably Canaanite origin were classified.10 Nile silt clay is by far the most common material. The majority of the pottery belongs to a medium, straw-tempered fabric equivalent to Nile B2. The sandy and straw-tempered Nile C was used for trays and bread plates as well as large bowls and small votive vessels.11 The bread moulds coming from a production zone dump to the east of the pyramid complex (operation 20, Fig. 1.4), mostly belonging to Jacquet’s Type D of the New Kingdom,12 were made of a typical mixture of sandy mud, clay and organic temper, classified as Nile C3 or – with additional limestone fragments as inclusions – as Nile D4.13 Nile D, variant 2,

7

8 9

10

11

12

For example the sandy variant of Nile B2 which is typical for the Ramesside period, the use of Mixed clays and the distribution of Marl clays, cf. ASTON 1992, 73. NORDSTRÖM/BOURRIAU 1993, 168–186. Following a system established by the author for the New Kingdom pottery at Elephantine; see BUDKA 2005, 91–95. Chemical and/or petrographical analysis of these samples could possibly provide more information on the origins. Two variants of Nile C – a fine tempered type and a coarse one – are to be distinguished; cf. BIETAK 1991, 325–326. JACQUET 1981, fig. 5.

could be identified at Abydos. This fabric with fine to medium sand inclusions and limestone particles was mostly used for beer jars and flowerpots. The fabrics of cooking vessels are characterised by abundant inclusions of rounded sand grains in varying amounts and sizes. They can be classified as – local? – equivalents of Nile E of the “Vienna System”.14 Marl clays are less common than Nile clays. The following have been identified in the material deriving from the Ahmose complex: Marl A2, A4 (variant 1 and 2) and A3; Marl B; Marl C (variant 1 and 2), Marl D (variant 1 and 2) and Marl E. Within the material of the early 18th Dynasty Marl A2, A4 and Marl B were used most often. During the late 18th Dynasty and the 19th Dynasty, Marl D appears in large quantities. Both Marl C and Marl E are rare at South Abydos and restricted to vessels dating to the early 18th Dynasty. Marl C was mainly used for large potstands (ATP 5318.1, 5360.5, Fig. 12.1, 12.4) and zirs (e.g. ATP 4477.1, Fig. 6.1). The presence of this particular fabric at Abydos underscores the results from recent excavations that use of Marl C did not cease completely at the end of the Second Intermediate Period15 but rather that it continued into the early New Kingdom.16 The first occurrence and origins of Marl D are still a matter for future research. The fabric is known as early as the mid 18th Dynasty (as yet, the earliest evidence dates to the reign of Thutmose III)17 but by the late 18th Dynasty it becomes common and “fashionable”. 18 Unfortunately, the contexts at South Abydos from which Marl D-sherds were recovered are partly disturbed, thus comprising mixed material dating from the early 18th Dynasty up to Ramesside times. Despite this lack of stratified contexts, so far most sherds made of Marl

13

14

15 16

17

18

For this specific “bread mould ware” (‘Brotmodelton’) at Elephantine see BUDKA 2005, 92, n. 305. It is possible to define two variants of Nile E-equivalents – a fine tempered type and a coarse one; cf. BIETAK 1991, 326. Cf. NORDSTRÖM/BOURRIAU 1993, 180. Marl C-vessels were discovered in early New Kingdom levels at Tell el-Dabca and Kom Rabica; for a detailed study on Marl C see BADER 2001. HOPE 1989, 14 (Am. II/T.IV); for amphorae in Marl D from TT 99 with stamps of Thutmose III see ROSE 2003, 204. ASTON 2002, 173.

The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery

85

Fig. 1 Functional pottery types from the Ahmose Pyramid complex. Scale 1:3 (nos. 1–4), 2:9 (no. 5)

D seem to date to the late 18th Dynasty, and thus parallel the widely known development of fabrics. Marl E is very rare at the Ahmose pyramid complex and it was used mainly for large thick walled bread trays (so-called Schaelbecken).19 Parallels for these vessels are known from Koptos and Deir el-Ballas20 as well as from early 18th Dynasty contexts at Memphis.21 Complimenting the New Kingdom material found at the sites of Memphis, Qantir and Elephantine, two variants of a Mixed clay fabric were recognized within the Ahmose complex material. The first type, Mixed fabric A (III-a), is one that is well known from early 18th Dynasty and Thutmoside contexts at Elephantine and was used almost exclusively for zir jars (Fig. 6.5). As already proposed by Seiler, this fabric seems to be an innova-

tion of the New Kingdom.22 To date, it has not been found in Second Intermediate Period contexts. The second group of Mixed clay fabric at Abydos is of Ramesside date (Mixed B, III-b). Two variants can be differentiated: Mixed B1, a very hard and dense fabric, is characterized by numerous inclusions of mica.23 Mixed B2, an equivalent to the fabric described by ASTON at Qantir as Fabric IIIB, is similar to a Nile D2 variant with a Marl surface.24 Mixed B2 is quite rare at South Abydos and the examples seem to date to the 20th Dynasty (see further below). Mixed clay fabric B was primarily used for amphorae (e.g. ATP 5095.1 and 5603.1) and large storage vessels, in most cases cream or pink slipped (Fig. 14.4, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8). A large variety of wares can be observed at South Abydos (cf. Table 1). For example, Nile B2

19

22

20 21

This type of vessel is frequently found in settlements of the 13th Dynasty; see BADER 2001, 81–83; on possible function of these peculiar objects see recently SEILER 2005, 120–121. BOURRIAU 1990a, 21–22. NORDSTRÖM/BOURRIAU 1993, 182, fig. 26.

23

24

SEILER 1999, 217; see also BUDKA 2005, 94 with n. 321. ASTON 1998, 68 (III.A); ASTON 1999, 6 (Mixed clay fabric 2); BUDKA 2005, 94–95 (III-b-1). ASTON 1998, 68 (III.B); ASTON 1999, 6 (Mixed clay fabric 1); BUDKA 2005, 95 (III-b-2).

86

Julia Budka

is found uncoated (most common); red slipped (burnished or unburnished); white coated; with red slipped rim (more common in the Ramesside period); with red rim band on uncoated exterior and red slipped interior; with black rim band (e.g. ATP 3928.13, early–mid 18th Dyn.25); blue painted on various coatings and with incised (ATP 5138.2) and applied relief (ATP 560.9, 6065, 7654.1, 6564.1). The surface of Marl clay vessels may be left uncoated but is more often cream slipped and burnished. Incised decoration is most common in the early 18th Dynasty (e.g. ATP 5335.1, Fig. 6.2). Carinated Marl-bowls are attested in red slipped and sometimes monochrome painted versions as well (ATP 5618.1, 6008.1 and 6418.2, cf. Fig. 5.9–10).26 Technology and methods of manufacture Most of the pottery from South Abydos was either wholly or partially made on a simple wheel. Small open forms are usually thrown on the wheel in one piece, whereas large storage vessels frequently show traces of joints because they were produced in more than one piece.27 This manufacture process is very evident in the vessel category of large water jars (zirs). The body of these vessels is usually handmade by coiling, while the neck and the rim are wheel-turned.28 Egyptian handmade pottery is rare and the examples are restricted to baking platters/trays29 and Schaelbecken.30 Indigenous Nubian pottery, which appears quite regularly within the material, is handmade

25

26 27

28 29

30

31

The most common shapes of this ware are bowls with direct rims or carinated profiles (cf. SEILER 1997b, 29, fig.1) and drop-pots (see below). Cf. HOPE 1989, fig. 8e. For shaping techniques in general see HOLTHOER 1977, 42–43. SEILER 1999, 216–219, fig. 51. For the manufacture of these bread plates see ASTON 2002, 173. This functional pottery type is usually found within settlements; see BOURRIAU 1986/87, 53. Both fine wares (e.g. Naqada period Black Topped beakers) as well as coarse wares were found; the later comprises mainly cooking pots of a mineral rich fabric (sometimes with vegetal inclusions as well). These vessels find close parallels in the settlement material coming from the French excavations at Adaima, see BUCHEZ 2004a, figs. 6–7; BUCHEZ 2004b, 676, figs. 5.5–5.14. The predynastic fine wares comprise several C-Ware sherds and an appliqué of a hippopotamus,

as a rule (e.g. the Pan Grave sherd ATP 6207.2, Fig. 1.1). This holds also true for the predynastic pottery which appears in large quantity in surfacecontexts as well as below the New Kingdom levels.31 Some imports (especially from Cyprus; e.g. Base Ring I ware) are handmade too.32 Large plates and restricted Egyptian shapes with a large maximum diameter show frequently impressions from strings (e.g. ATP 4472.4, 4240.7, 5040.14, 5630.1, 5842.4, cf. Fig. 8). These strings had been wound around the vessels to provide support during the process of drying.33 Bread moulds which were found in large amounts in excavation unit 20 are usually produced over a mould.34 Some of them bear incised marks made by fingers or fingernails near the base – a feature known from other sites like Elephantine and Thebes.35 Comments on innovations in wheel technology during the 18th Dynasty in comparison to the Second Intermediate Period – for example methods of finishing off bases – have already been discussed by Janine Bourriau and Dorothea Arnold, and similar observations may be made with respect to the material from South Abydos.36 From the technological point of view the earliest pottery from the Ahmose pyramid temple area is clearly of a New Kingdom date,37 aside from the much earlier material of Predynastic origin. It is important to mention that there is no trace of Middle Kingdom ceramic which is so well-attested from the nearby excavations of the town and temple of Senwosret III conducted by Joe WEGNER.38

32

33 34 35

36 37

38

indicating a Naqada I date. To date, no D-Ware is attested. The handle of a Base Ring I ware-jug was found in 1993 during surface collection (ATP 325); from excavation unit 9 derived the mouth of a Mycenaean stirrup jar (ATP 3796). For some imports from excavations in the area of the New Kingdom town at the beginning of the 20th century see AYRTON/CURRELLY/WEIGALL 1904, pl. LVIII, nos. 10 and 11 (Mycenaean stirrup jar, Ashmolean E 2443). Cf. HOPE 1989, 13. See lately ASTON 2002, 173. Recently a large amount of bread moulds was recovered at Western Thebes, see DE SAINTILAN 2000, fig. 3 (typology of moulds). BOURRIAU 1990a, 19; cf. also SEILER 1997a, 23. Cf. in this context the new proposal by SEILER 2003, 67 to date the beginning of BOURRIAU’s phase 1 in Upper Egypt already to the Second Intermediate Period. See WEGNER 2000, figs. 8–9, 15–18 for the main Middle Kingdom pottery types.

The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery

Working method The sherds arrive from the field at the house in large baskets, arranged according to their archaeological context (operation, locus and lot).39 Whenever it is appropriate, pottery contexts are also recorded in detail in situ. The ceramicist assists the excavators in determining the value of detailed recording of large deposits of sherds (e.g Tetisheri pyramid entrance deposit, see below). With the help of two workmen, the contents of each basket are separated into the categories of diagnostic and body sherds, making use of the spacious sherd-yard next to the dig house. Rim and base sherds, handles and decorated/painted sherds are regarded as diagnostics. The undecorated body sherds (= undiagnostics), which form the major part of the excavated material, were sorted and counted by ware (fabric and surface treatment) and shape.40 Samples of imported wares (mostly fragments of Canaanite vessels,41 cf. Fig. 9.6, 9.11–12) and unusual wares are grouped with the diagnostics pieces. Predynastic sherds, which occurred in some baskets in large quantity, were counted and separated out to be analyzed in a different, detailed study. Some Late Period, Roman, Coptic sherds, as well as examples of quite recent date are noted and recorded in a general way.42 Representative pieces of these late wares are collected and stored for future analysis in a separate bag together with the New Kingdom diagnostics. The diagnostics of each basket are recorded in terms of ware and shape of the vessel. Each of them is noted on a detailed, site-specific formsheet on paper, which is later entered in a data-

39 40

41

42

For this recording system see HARVEY 1998, 146–149. As first step, restricted and open vessels are differentiated. Consequently, the classification of vessel shape comprises the most significant types like plates, lids, flowerpots, beer jars, drop-pots, meat jars, storage jars, bottles, amphorae, zir jars, potstands, cooking-pots, bread moulds and trays. As is the case with material from Memphis, diagnostic elements of Canaanite amphorae (rims, handles, bases) are much rarer than body sherds, see BOURRIAU 1990b, 21*. The Coptic amphorae which are well known from surface-contexts in Abydos and from Thebes are mostly covered with a thick black resin-like layer on the interior, see PUMPENMEIER 1998, 134 and MYSLIEWIC 1987, nos. 2015–202. Hand-made bowls with white and red pattern are also known in the Theban necropolis

87

base. The most significant and the more unusual pieces as well as complete profiles were removed from the baskets and processed in a detailed way.43 A total of 119 baskets were studied in the 2002 season; 204 baskets were evaluated in 2004. The majority of these derive from the Ahmose pyramid temple area; only 12 baskets were processed from the 2004 season, devoted to excavation of the Tetisheri pyramid. A total of 126,066 sherds were examined, sorted and recorded. Out of this large amount, about 18 % were diagnostics (22,715 sherds). Based on the drawings and data from the processed baskets, a preliminary site-specific corpus has been developed, arranged by fabric, by technology of shaping, by ware (defined by surface treatment and/or decoration) and finally by shape. Since the evaluation of the mass of data is still in progress, this article is based on consideration of more than 1,000 diagnostics in the database and about 600 diagnostic pieces drawn in 2002 and 2004. Old drawings from season 1993 were considered as well but the wares of most of these pieces still remain to be checked.44 Ahmose pyramid complex: Preliminary comments and selected types To date, five buildings have been identified within the environs of the Ahmose pyramid complex.45 The bulk of the ceramic material processed thus far derives from the small (19 × 28 m.) Temple A, probably dedicated to Ahmose-Nefertary and/or Ahmose. This building was first discovered in 1993 and work continued in 2002. Brick stamps giving

43

44

45

and are probably of recent date, see ROSE 2003, 203, pl. 110. Each of these removed sherds is numbered separately with a unique identifier reflecting the basket from which it was taken (e.g. ATP 7532.1, 7532.2 etc.) and entered in the Pottery Database (created with Filemaker Pro 6.0). Important pieces get drawn; lesser ones are restricted to the description in the database and photographs. The efforts of previous researchers on the material are very valuable for the present project. Thanks are due to Brigit CROWELL for work on ceramic in 1993 and 1996, and to Brian SMITH for 1996 drawings. For the general layout of the site and the identification of until 1993 unknown monuments and buildings see HARVEY 1998 passim; for an updated perspective see HARVEY 2004.

88

Julia Budka

the name of the Chief Treasurer Neferperet, combined with palaeographic features of the writing of Ahmose-Nefertary’s name, suggest a construction date late in Ahmose’s reign.46 Pottery coming from excavation units 11, 13, 18, 19, 24, 25 and 30 was analyzed. This material gives a general idea of the time span of use of the small shrine. In addition, ceramic analysis was conducted on material deriving from renewed 1993 work on the Ahmose pyramid temple, the structure discovered and first published by A. C. MACE. This material covers a very long time span. Some pottery from operations 21 and 22 was processed as well. These excavation units comprise part of Temple C, located just to the east of the pyramid temple. According to HARVEY this building is most likely dedicated to Ahmose-Nefertary, based on the predominance here of brick stamps bearing her name and titles.47 From operation 22 comes an interesting piece, ATP 5870.1 (Fig. 14.12). The complete profile of a small beaker in Marl A4 is preserved. Its ware and shape (especially the pointed base) suggest a date later than the New Kingdom, maybe the Third Intermediate Period or even the Late Period. Operation 20 is located in the area to the east of the pyramid complex. According to the finds, the archaeological remains (bakery dump, brick and stone debris) as well as the results of the magnetometry survey conducted in 2002, it seems likely that this area was some kind of production zone connected with the temple.48 A collection of sherds coming from operation 20 has already been studied by the author (aside from bread moulds mainly beer jars, large plates with rope impressions,49 flowerpots, potstands and zirs), but the detailed publication of these contexts must await further excavation of additional and (hopefully) more informative material.

46 47 48 49

HARVEY 2004, 4–5. HARVEY 2004, 5. Cf. HARVEY 2004, 5. For a similar assemblage of these main pottery types see the newly found production/bakery area in Western Thebes, DE SAINTILAN 2000, figs. 1 + 2 (bread plates), fig. 3 (types of bread moulds), fig. 4 (large plates with rope impressions), fig. 5 (beer jars). The production zone dump at the Ahmose Pyramid Complex finds also a good parallel in an area to the east of the temple of Senwosret III at South Abydos (WEGNER 2000, 103, fig. 13). Very dense pottery deposits mainly

Temple A The material coming from Temple A displays a large variation, both in terms of date and wares and shapes. Following the division of the New Kingdom pottery by BOURRIAU and others, four main phases can be differentiated, covering the entire period of the New Kingdom.50 Phase 1 dates to the early 18th Dynasty and thus represents the original building phase and primary use of the temple. A large amount of pottery can be dated to the Thutmoside era (especially to the reign of Thutmose III) and was classified as comprising the second phase. Ceramic of late 18th Dynasty and 19th Dynasty-date comprises the third phase and is very numerous. Late Ramesside material (20th Dynasty) represents the final phase (Phase 4) attested by some isolated sherds within the complex. The general character of the material does not change during this long time-span of use. It clearly attests the votive and cultic aspect of the pottery within the temple area. According to their frequency, beer jars, bowls and dishes of different shapes and types, bottles, storage vessels, potstands, incense burners and bread moulds are the most important types amongst the material excavated (cf. Figs. 2–14). The so-called beer jars that are found in large amounts very often feature a restricted rim and fall into HOLTHOER’s type BB2 as “transitional Beerbottles”.51 This type can be dated by parallels elsewhere at Abydos,52 Drac Abu el-Naga53 and at Elephantine54 to the early-mid 18th Dynasty. In comparison, HOLTHOER’s type BB4 with a direct rim and short neck is not as numerous.55 With the exception of jars coming from the pyramid of Tetisheri excavated in 2004, most of these vessels seem to date to the mid-late 18th Dynasty or the

50 51 52

53 54

55

consisting of bread moulds (see SMITH 2000, 119–122) are comparable to the assemblages in excavation unit 20, although of earlier date. See note 4. HOLTHOER 1977, 87 – “very common in NK context”. PUMPENMEIER 1998, fig. 24 (Heqareshu Hill, both transitional and ordinary type). SEILER 1995, fig. 2. SEILER 1997a, fig. 21, 4 and unpublished sherds from Bauschicht 10. HOLTHOER 1977, 87–88.

The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery

Fig. 2 Beer jars from the Ahmose Pyramid complex. Scale 1:3

89

90

Julia Budka

Fig. 3 Offering pottery: burners, pedestal bowls and votive dishes. Scale 1:3

The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery

19th Dynasty (Fig. 11.1).56 One peculiar attribute of both types of beer jars is still in need of a suitable explanation and future research: the fact that, in many cases, the rough flat bases of the jars feature a small hole measuring between 1–3.5 cms in diameter. So far no norm was observed concerning the occurrence of these roughly made perforations which closely resemble the ones known from flowerpots. These holes were made before firing of the pots.57 Among the first things that may come to mind is some kind of cultic meaning in relation to the identity of the pots as votive offerings. Despite the common reference to these as “beer jars” in the Egyptological literature, we still do not know exactly what the pots really contained.58 Since beer jars with holes are coming from the production zone operation 20 as well and were also found in a similar context at Thebes,59 the current hypothesis is that these holes were actually functional in some way – if purely of ritual character or with a practical aspect is a matter of future research. As a very common type at South Abydos, the drop-pots (so-called Bechervasen) find parallels at Qantir,60 cEzbet Helmi,61 Elephantine (Bauschicht 10) and on New Kingdom sites in Nubia.62 Similar vessels were also found in large numbers at the Heqareshu Hill in Abydos.63 It should be pointed out that in most cases it is not possible to determine whether uncoated body sherds belong to drop-pots or beer jars (see also below, “Tetisheri Complex”). Small votive dishes that could have been used in addition as lids, were made in a sandy, local Nile

56

57

58

59 60 61 62

63 64

65

For this type of beer jars and their occurrence all over Egypt see ASTON 2002, 169–170, fig. 2.5. For similar vessels and these holes see BOURRIAU/DE MEYER/OP DE BEECK/VEREECKEN 2005, 121, fig. 30. ASTON 1998, 44. See BOURRIAU/ASTON/RAVEN/VAN WALSEM 2005, 20 for the latest discussion of shape and function of “beer jars”. DE SAINTILAN 2000, pl. XXXVIIB. ASTON 1998, late SIP, nos. 43–52. HEIN 2002, figs. 4.26, 4.27. HOLTHOER 1977, pl. 41 (wine-decanters); WILLIAMS 1992, 81, figs. 3b–d. PUMPENMEIER 1998, fig. 23. ATP 7741.1 and ATP 7211.6 = PUMPENMEIER 1998, fig. 27; ATP 6300.6 = PUMPENMEIER 1998, fig. 27 and WILLIAMS 1992, 264, fig. 97a. PUMPENMEIER 1998, 134 with ns. 156–157 and fig. 27. Similar vessels, associated with pieces of charcoal, were

91

clay fabric (Nile C of the “Vienna System”, e.g. ATP 4243.10, 4260.4, 4369.4, 4262.8, Fig. 3.5–7, 3.9–10). Of particular interest are different types of dishes, mostly with direct rim and a complex contour and with a smoked interior.64 Since in same cases actual traces of resin are still preserved (e.g. ATP 7211.6), this group may be called incense bowls (Fig. 3.1–4). PUMPENMEIER proposed (by means of the material found at the Heqareshu Hill) that the large shallow dishes with traces of burning date to the mid-18th Dynasty whereas the same type in a smaller and deeper variant is of Ramesside and Third Intermediate Period date.65 Tall pedestal bowls which were used as burners (e.g. ATP 5040.2, 5142.2, 6207.5, Fig. 3.13–16) represent another type with a ritual function.66 Examples of these burners which are most often white washed have already been found at the Terrace temple.67 Quite common are dishes with unmodelled rim and flat base and red “splatter” decoration on the interior in combination with a red-painted rim (ATP 4015.18, Fig. 5.5–6). These dishes are frequently found in New Kingdom contexts.68 The bread plates are of the type that is common on town sites of the New Kingdom in Egypt (Amarna, Deir el Medina, Qantir, Elephantine) and Nubia (Fig. 1.3).69 The shape of the cooking pots that come from early levels at South Abydos (e.g. ATP 5312.3, 5318.5, 5445.1) is already attested during the Second Intermediate Period, but these pots are more common in the 18th Dynasty. At this time the vessel type spread throughout the whole of Egypt.70

66

67

68

69 70

found in the foundation deposit of the Sethos I-temple at Qurna, see MYSLIWIEC 1987, 38–39, nr. 52–53. This type can be equated with HOLTHOER’S 1977 type composite burners BU 4 with very tall foot; cf. BRUNTON, Qau and Badari III, pl 17, nr. 85P (dated to the Second Intermediate Period). For burners from Thebes, dated to the 17th Dynasty and their ritual function see recently SEILER 2005, 102–103, 120. AYRTON/CURRELLY/WEIGALL 1904, pl. XLVII, 105. For an example of early 18th Dynasty-context see BIETAK 1972, pl. 6. Cf. HOLTHOER 1977, 115, CU 3/IR/3R/c–e. For this particular type of decoration see recently ASTON 2006, 65–74 who proposes a dating of the ware to the reigns of Thutmosis III/Amenhotep II. Cf. ASTON 2002, 173, figs. 3.1 and 3.2. SEILER 1999, 221–222; FUSCALDO 2002, figs. 3f and 3g.

92

Julia Budka

Fig. 4 Plates and dishes with direct rim (Nile silt types). Scale 1:3

The life-span of Temple A according to the pottery Phase 1: Early 18th Dynasty (Ahmose–Thutmose I/II) The main types for the early phase in Temple A are beer jars of HOLTHOER’s type BB2, drop-pots of various types, simple bowls with direct or slightly inverted rims, various potstands, burners and

tall offering stands. The complete profile of a bowl (ATP 6904.2, Fig. 4.9) made in Nile B and left uncoated has a parallel from cEzbet Helmi.71 As the latter vessel is made in Marl B, this demonstrates that similar shapes could be produced in different materials. Simple bowls with slightly inverted rim find parallels in early-mid 18th Dynasty contexts at Ele-

The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery

93

Fig. 5 Various types of plates and dishes (nos. 1–7 Nile, nos. 8–10 Marl). Scale 1:3

phantine.72 The most common surface treatments are red washed inside and out (sometimes with a horizontally burnished interior), but uncoated examples and red rim bands are attested as well. Similar bowls with black rim bands (figs. 10.3 and 4)73 and with red rim bands and ‘splash decoration’ on the interior74 (figs. 5.5. and 5.6) are most likely of Thutmoside date.75 Bases of simple bowls with slightly inverted rim may be formed as ringbases or flat bases (cut off from the wheel). Carinated bowls with direct rim closely resemble the material of Bauschicht 11–10 at Elephantine, dating to the Late Second Intermediate Period up to

71 72 73

74 75

HEIN 2002, fig. 3, nr. 22 (8497 O), rel. c/1–c/2. SEILER 1999, 206–208, fig. 46. Recently, close parallels from Deir al-Barsha were published, see BOURRIAU/DE MEYER/OP DE BEECK/VEREECKEN 2005, 111, fig. 11. See ASTON 2006, 65–74. According to BOURRIAU, black rim bands „died out early

Thutmoside times.76 ATP 7432.9 (Fig. 5.10) can be equated with a bowl in Nile silt at Elephantine and a Marl B-dish from Deir el-Ballas.77 The later fabric was used at South Abydos for the production of a small and thin-walled dish with direct, inverted rim (ATP 7801.1, Fig. 5.8).78 ATP 6802.3 (Fig. 9.2) represents a small variant of red slipped ovoid bottles with flaring mouth and rounded base commonly known from early 18th dynasty contexts.79 The group of large water jars (zirs) is significant for this phase as well, but it also continued into phase 2. ATP 7642.1 which is made in the typical zir-fabric (Mixed A) finds close paral-

76 77 78 79

in the reign of Thutmosis III“, see BOURRIAU/DE MEYER/ OP DE BEECK/VEREECKEN 2005, 111 with literature. SEILER 1999, 208–210, fig. 47. SEILER 1999, 210, fig. 47.3; BOURRIAU 1990a, 27, fig. 4.3. This type is similar to SEILER 1999, fig. 47.4. Cf. BIETAK 1972, pl. VI, reg. 45; WILLIAMS 1992, 84, figs. 6j, k and l.

94

Julia Budka

Fig. 6 Zirs and storage jars from the Ahmose Pyramid complex (phases 1 and 2). Scale 1:3

lels at Elephantine.80 The same type is also attested in uncoated (ATP 4351.2) or – more frequently – in white-coated Nile silt (e.g. ATP 3985.1, ATP 3494.6).81 In general, evidence for zirs is quite rare in the pyramid temple area; the largest concentrations were so far discovered in operation 20 (the

production zone dump) and on the surface of the New Kingdom town. This distribution is certainly connected with the function of the vessels as water/storage jars.82 One rim of a Marl C-zir (ATP 4477.1, Fig. 6.1) from excavation unit 20 is of particular interest. Although it is a small example, it

80

82

81

SEILER 1999, 217–219, fig. 51.3 and BUDKA 2005, 94–95. Parallels are known from Elephantine and Thebes, cf. ASTON/ASTON/RYAN, 15 with literature; no. 1 (KV 21).

For zir jars in tomb context see lately ROSE 2003, 206–207, fig. 4.

The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery

95

Fig. 7 Flowerpots from the Ahmose Pyramid complex. Scale 1:3

falls into BADER’s type 57h.83 This type is known in Tell el Dabca from late level D/3 to D/2 which corresponds to the end of the Second Intermediate Period. BADER has already suggested that it survives into the New Kingdom.84 The piece from Abydos definitely confirms the existence of this zir type during the early 18th Dynasty.85 ATP 7928.1, the upper part of a large storage jar with folded over rim (Fig. 6.3), is related to the vessel group of water jars. The exterior and the rim zone on the interior of this drop-shaped Nile B2-jar are red washed. Since the use of Marl B is most typical for

phase 1, the very large, and as of yet singular, storage vessel with a folded over rim (ATP 5304.1, Fig. 6.8) may belong to this period. The same holds true for ATP 5335.1, a fragment from the shoulder of a large Marl B-bottle with incised decoration (Fig. 6.2). The combination of incised horizontal and wavy lines is common since the Middle Kingdom in Upper Egypt and survives into the New Kingdom.86

83

85

84

BADER 2001, fig. 61b, Kat. Nr. 316, 3434I; II-c-3. BADER 2001, 185. A parallel was found at Tell Hebua (SEILER 1997b, pl. III, fig. 5), which is dated with reference to Tell el-Daba to the end of the Second Intermediate Period. For the vessel shape see also BOURRIAU 1986/87, 59, fig. 2.10.

Phase 2: Mid-18th Dynasty (Thutmoside) This phase is represented by a large amount of sherds in Temple A. The general character of the

86

As of yet, it is uncertain whether the production of these Marl C-vessels continued into the New Kingdom. The few examples of 18th Dynasty contexts could also be heirlooms/pieces with a long lifespan which were originally produced during the Second Intermediate Period. Cf. ARNOLD and BOURRIAU 1993, 90, figs. 99C and 100B.

96

Julia Budka

Fig. 8 Large open shapes (Nile silt types). Scale 1:3 (nos. 2–4, 6), 1:4 (no. 1), 2:9 (no. 5)

material and the main pottery types resembles with some minor changes the earlier phase 1. Unrestricted vessels with a perforation and/or fingerprints in the base, so-called flowerpots, 87

which are in general common in contexts of the mid-18th Dynasty,87 were frequently found within the temple area and are attributed to phase 2 (Fig. 7). HOLTHOER’s division of flowerpots into

STEINDORFF 1937, pl. 77, Form 25; WILLIAMS 1992, figs. 1a–d (unfinished angular bowl); SEILER 1995, 199, fig. 1, HEIN 2002, figs. 5.35 and 5.36.

The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery

97

Fig. 9 Bottles and vases from the Ahmose Pyramid complex. Scale 1:3

types with unmodelled rim (FP 1) and modelled rim (FP 2) may be applied to the material from South Abydos as well, although the type with unmodelled rim is far more frequent.88 ATP 4015.11 represents the lower part of a flowerpot of the flat-based type without perforation (Fig. 7.5). The upper part should most likely be reconstructed with an unmodelled rim.89 This type of rim is preserved on some examples (ATP

88 89 90

HOLTHOER 1977, 83–86. Cf. HOLTHOER 1977, pl. 18, FP 1. HOLTHOER’s (1977) type FP 2 with common dimen-

5900.1 and 5859.2, figs. 7.2–4). ATP 4015.20 is a flowerpot with modelled rim and a very large diameter (Fig. 8.2).90 Another significant vessel form for the Thutmoside period is a slender, red slipped “common jar” with horizontally incised lines on the tall neck, here illustrated by ATP 5618.10 (Fig. 9.13).91 ATP 5414.2, the rim sherd of a white washed bottle with folded over and modelled rim

91

sions (diameter 34 cm) is illustrated by ATP 4468.2, deriving from operation 20, locus 5, lot 16. For parallels see WILLIAMS 1992, 82, fig. 4i.

98

Julia Budka

Fig. 10 Thutmoside painted wares from the Ahmose Pyramid complex (phase 2). Scale 1:3

(Fig. 9.4), represents a type of restricted vessel belonging in phases 1-2. A complete vessel of this kind is preserved at cEzbet Helmi.92 The earliest examples seem to date to the late Second Intermediate Period, but the context of the vase from Ezbet Helmi was dated to the mid 18th Dynasty.93 Related to this bottle ATP 5414.2 are ATP 4127.4 (Fig. 9.5) and ATP 7527.1 (Fig. 9.6), both coated white on the exterior and with folded over rim. ATP 4127.4 in particular may be compared with

92 93 94 95

HEIN 2000, fig. 4.30. HEIN 2000, 132, 140. SEILER 1999, 220–221, fig. 52. For a piece from Elephantine see BUDKA 2005, 96, n. 326–327, fig. 29.4 with cited parallels in Deir el-Ballas,

similar bottles dated to the late Second Intermediate Period at Elephantine.94 The shape of ATP 7527.1 is similar to Marl B-vessels known from Egypt and Nubia dating to the early-mid 18th Dynasty.95 Several Canaanite amphorae probably belong in phase 2 (Figs. 9.8–11). Within phase 2, some decorated wares are attested as well (Fig. 10). Most common are Marl A2-squat jars with monochrome linear decoration in black (e.g. ATP 5618.5, 7583.16, 7608.1).96 Larger necked jars are attest-

96

Qau, Aniba and Rifeh. For the general connection of the group of white coated bottles and Marl-jars see already HEIN 2000, 132. Complete vessels of this type are frequently found within tombs of the period (e.g. the “Pseudo-Import Jars”

The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery

99

ed with similar decoration patterns (e.g. ATP 5620.1, Fig. 10.5).97 Carinated Marl-bowls with linear decoration are quite frequent (Fig. 10.6–7)98. Black rim ware which comprises both open and restricted shapes (Fig. 10.2–4) may be regarded as another characteristic of phase 2 (see below).99 The same holds true for red ‘splash decoration’ which is found in South Abydos on simple bowls with slightly inverted rim (Figs. 5.5 and 6).100 ATP 5685.1 (Fig. 10.1) is a fragment of a tall necked bottle or jar in Marl A2. The sherd displays a linear decoration in black and red (bichrome) – a surface treatment typical for the period of Thutmose III–IV.101 Locus 10 in operation 25, a dense pottery layer located at the rear of the temple, provides a representative selection of pottery dating mainly to phase 2 and shall be briefly described. The frequencies of ceramic types are typical for the material found in Temple A. Of the diagnostic material processed to date, 43 % are beer jars (of which the type with restricted rim, HOLTHOER’s BB 2, predominates, see Fig. 2),102 15 % simple bowls with direct rims and flat bases (Figs. 4.1–4, 5.1–7), 10 % burners and pedestal bowls (Fig. 3.1–4, 13–16), 7 % small votive dishes/vessels (Fig. 3.5–10), 7 % storage jars (Fig. 6.4–7) and 5 % drop-pots (cf. Figs. 19 and 20). The remaining 13 % comprise bottles, a carinated bowl, an imported Base Ring I-jug,103 ovoid jars and potstands. The Cypriote vessel, the sherd of black rim ware (simple bowl, cf. Fig. 10.2 and 10.3) and the body sherd of a blue painted storage jar are of special interest. The presence of the later sherd rules out a date for the assemblage before the mid-18th

Dynasty (before Thutmose III).104 But since all sherds except the blue painted one would also fit into phases 1–2, the early-mid 18th Dynasty, it cannot be excluded that the blue painted sherd is intrusive within the context.105 However, additional evidence from Temple A for the joint occurrence of both black rim ware and blue painted ware makes a date around Amenhotep II for the above mentioned pottery layer not unlikely. The ceramic assemblage which is comparable with the pottery layer in operation 25 was found on top of a curious installation within Temple A during excavations in 1993. In a small side room in the western part of the building (operation 19) two mud brick bins were discovered set against an interior wall and covered with a deposit of pottery (locus 7). The pottery types found above the bins comprise mostly beer jars, flowerpots, baking plates and storage vessels. Black rim ware (ATP 4242.28) occurs within this deposit as well as blue painted ware. As stated above, the later two ceramic groups suggest a date for the deposit in the mid 18th Dynasty (Thutmose III-Amenhotep II).106 Parallels for the slender jar with slightly flaring mouth and direct, black painted rim (ATP 4242.28, Fig. 10.4) are known from Gurob.107 A complete study of the contexts (ATP 4048, 4049, 4053, 4240–4244), which is planned for future campaigns, will provide detailed information. At the moment, function and use of the bins remain unclear.108 In general, published comparative material for phases 1 and 2 (early-mid 18th Dynasty) at Abydos is found among others at the following

of WILLIAMS 1992, figs. 7o, p and r and fig. 8) and were also recovered from the Sethos I. Temple at Qurna, MYSLIEWIC 1987, nos. 1 and 39. Cf. HOLTHOER 1977, pl. 40 (NJ 6). Cf. MYSLIEWIC 1987, nos. 60–76. For complete vessels in this ware see BROVARSKI/DOLL/ FREED 1982, 78–79, cat. 51 (Zawiyet el Aryan tomb 234), cat. 52 (Deir el Ballas); ASTON 1996, pl. 4.14 (Tell Hebua IV). An almost complete profile of a carinated bowl with direct rim is preserved from the Ahmose Pyramid Temple, excavation unit 11 (ATP 3054). See ASTON 2006, 65–74. ASTON 1996, 179. According to ASTON 1998, 182 HOLTHOER’s BB1–BB3 are „restricted to the early–mid eighteenth Dyn.“, whereas BB4 is very common in the 19th Dynasty. ATP 8037.1, a small fragment from the neck of the jug. For the earliest occurrence of blue painted ware see

HOPE 1985, 5 (Sedment 132); HOPE 1987, 110; ASTON 1988, 354, n. 208. The presence of a fragment of a faience scarab of Usermaatre (ATP 8005) within locus 10 supports this possibility. But since recently a blue painted bowl from Memphis was found in an early Eighteenth Dynasty context (see BOURRIAU/ASTON/RAVEN/VAN WALSEM 2005, 41), the blue painted piece from op. 25, locus 10 could belong to the original filling as well. For the occurrence of black rim-ware (Schwarzrandkeramik) see HEIN 2002, 139 with further references. BRUNTON/ENGELBACh 1927, pl. XXXIV, 24B. An ostracon was found above one of the bins (ATP 4206). According to Hratch PAPAZIAN (personal communication, publication forthcoming) it “represents the second longest inscription from the site… consisting of a grain ration ledger”. Could this text be connected with the functional use of the bins?

97 98 99

100 101 102

103 104

105

106

107 108

100

Julia Budka

The most significant types of this phase are Marl D-amphorae, meat jars and various vessel forms in blue painted ware (see below). Meat jars (neckless ovoid jars) are attested since the mid-18th Dynasty (ATP 4015.26, 6009.6, 6088.1, Fig. 11.3–5). At South Abydos they are found in larger quantities during the 19th Dynasty.109 As a rule, meat jars are produced in Marl clays, most often in Marl D.110 Related neckless storage jars can be found in Nile silts as well (e.g. ATP 3065.9, Fig. 11.6). The unusual piece ATP 6418.1 may be classified as kind of miniature globular meat jar made in Marl D1, cream coated and burnished (Fig. 11.2). Similar vessels are also attested in Nile clay. ATP 5842.3 clearly imitates a Marl surface by means of a white slip. ATP 6552.1 and 7499.1 (Fig. 14.10–11) represent the most common type of amphorae within this phase. The vessels fall into HOPE’s (1989) category 1a. The majority of the examples at Abydos are made in Marl A2 and Marl A4 variant 2 and left uncoated; ATP 4115.5 gives a rare example for the use of Marl A3 (Fig. 14.9). Various types of potstands (low, tall, tubular, conical or bi-conical) are among the main types of vessels. Although large potstands in Marl B or Marl C should be dated to phase 1 (Fig. 12), the numerous smaller types in Nile clays (Nile B2 and Nile C2, Fig. 13) find good parallels at Amarna and belong therefore at least partly to phase 3.111 The complete profile of a large tubular potstand with additional, vertical buttresses applied to the exterior has survived from operation 30 (ATP

7520, Fig. 11.7). Parallels throughout Egypt at Amarna (Nile),112 Malqata,113 Elephantine (Marl)114 and Qantir (Nile),115 suggest a date around the late 18th and early 19th Dynasty. Another functional pottery type is represented within this phase by ATP 6657.1, a lamp with traces of smoke (Fig. 1.2). Most of its parallels are known from contexts of the late 18th Dynasty or Ramesside period.116 A large concentration of blue painted pottery was noted in operation 24, locus 4. The repertoire of this excavation unit is typical for phase 3, especially the late 18th Dynasty. The most common types for this phase are amphorae, both imported (Canaanite, cf. Fig. 14.3 and 14.5) and of Marl D (common) or Marl A2 (rarer); numerous beer jars of type BB 4 (Nile B2, fewer in Nile D2); various bottles and larger storage jars (both in Marl and Nile clays, most of them blue painted on white wash); bread moulds und bread trays; carinated bowls with direct rim (both in Marl and Nile); funnel-necked jars (most often blue painted); globular jars; jugs (Marl and a few Nile); meat jars (most in Marl A2 and A4); ovoid jar (commonly blue painted); various Nile-potstands and squat jars in Marl A2. In addition, an imported pilgrim flask, most likely of Syro-Palestinian manufacture, was found. In general, comparable material for the contexts of the late 18th Dynasty within the Ahmose pyramid temple area can be found at Ezbet Helmi (ASTON 2002), Malqata (HOPE 1989), Amarna (ROSE 1984) and Elephantine (BUDKA 2005). The 19th Dynasty pottery is hard to distinguish from late 18th Dynasty material.117 For that reason phase 3 at Abydos covers most of this dynasty as well. The character of the material in Dynasty 19 changes only slightly and new shapes are rare. Carinated bowls illustrated by ATP 5521.1 (Fig. 14.13) are a common type and thought to be “innovations of the Ramesside period”. 118 The bowls often functioned as cooking vessels and are very

109

113

sites: Deir el-Ballas (BOURRIAU 1990a), Drac Abu el-Naga (SEILER 1995 and 2005) and Thebes in general, Elephantine (Bauschicht 10, SEILER 1997a, 1999; BUDKA 2005), Aniba (STEINDORFF 1937) as well as Tell Hebua (SEILER 1997b), Tell Hebua IV (ASTON 1996) and cEzbet Helmi (FUSCALDO 2000, HEIN 2002). Phase 3: Late 18th Dynasty-Ramesside

110 111

112

ATP 5156.1 finds parallels at Qantir, ASTON 1998, nos. 2181, 2183–85; ATP 5471.2 may be equated with ASTON 1998, nos. 1577, 1593, 1604. Cf. ASTON 2001, 173. ATP 5630.2 may be equated with PEET and WOOLLEY 1923, pl. XLVI, I/1019A and 1019M; ATP 5346.1 with PEET and WOOLLEY 1923, pl. XLVI, I/1019D; ATP 5508.3 and 7380.4 with pl. XLVI, I/1019E; ATP 6668.2 with pl. XLVI, I/86 and ATP 7648.2 with pl. XLVI, I/206. ROSE 1986, fig. 7.2, no. 57042.

114 115 116 117

118

HOPE 1989, fig. 5b. BUDKA 2005, fig. 33.5 (late 18th Dyn.). ASTON 1998, 180 with parallels, no. 513. Cf. BUDKA 2005, 100–102 with n. 369, fig. 32.3. For the latest discussion of this continuity see ASTON 2002, 177. ASTON 1998, 170, nos. 469–470. Nevertheless, early examples of this vessel type are attested within the late 18th Dynasty; see BUDKA 2005, 105–106, fig. 37.3.

The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery

Fig. 11 Common types of phase 3 from the Ahmose Pyramid complex. Scale 1:3

101

102

Julia Budka

Fig. 12 Large potstand types (all Marl, except no. 3). Scale 1:3

The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery

103

Fig. 13 Nile silt potstand types. Scale 1:3

common in Ramesside settlements (e.g. Elephantine).119 This type is rare at South Abydos and ATP 5521.1 (Fig. 14.13) is an early example.120 Aside from meat jars, restricted vessels within the unpainted Ramesside material comprise primarily beer jars, funnel-necked jars, various bottles (ATP 5661.3 and 5661.4) and amphorae

(ATP 5318.4121). HOLTHOER’s beer jar type BB4 now clearly dominates. A very remarkable sherd (ATP 8128) of this type was found in 2002 (Fig. 11.1). This beer jar with direct rim and medium tall neck bears an ink inscription, “containing 8 + x lines in hieratic, with the eighth being entirely illegible. The left side and the bottom of the piece have broken off,

119

121

120

Cf. ASTON 1999, no. 310 and BUDKA 2005, 110–111, figs. 40.5 and 6. It finds parallels at Qantir, see ASTON 1998, no. 469 and Elephantine BUDKA 2005, 105, fig. 37.3 (late 18th Dynasty).

Can be equated with ASTON 1998, nos. 1563–1564, HOPE 1989 type 1a; ATP 5318.2 similar to Late Bronze Age Amphora at Qantir, Fabric IV.07.05, no. 2623; ATP 3065.2 finds a parallel at Qantir; ASTON 1998, no. 1670.

104

Julia Budka

Fig. 14 Ramesside types from the Ahmose Pyramid complex: dishes and bottles (phases 3–4). Scale 1:3

The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery

resulting in the loss of the end of the lines and of the remainder of the text. However, the right margin is intact, and each begins with a title. The ostracon appears to be a roster of cultic personnel, and among the individuals listed are an overseer, a scribe, two guards and a deputy. The text also appears to mention a temple, most possibly that of Ramesses II, though the definitive identification must await the final publication of this piece. The principal difficulties lie in the incompleteness of the text and the moderate to severe fading of the ink, especially to the left of the curved surface leading into the break122.” In terms of shape this most interesting piece has parallels in Qantir and should be dated to the (early) 19th Dynasty.123 Phase 4: Late Ramesside (mostly 20th Dynasty) In the area of the Ahmose-Nefertary building (Temple A) pottery of probably 20th Dynasty-date was found. Since they may be distinguished from material of 19th Dynasty date, these late sherds which are not numerous represent the final New Kingdom phase (phase 4). The unpainted material compares well with material from Elephantine and comprises mostly bottles, globular jars, plates, carinated bowls and amphorae (Fig. 14). Significant and datable to the 20th Dynasty is the use of Mixed fabric B (e.g. bottles and globular jars ATP 5746.1, ATP 6316.7 and 6657.4124). The clearest indication for a late New Kingdom date is the presence of blue painted carinated bowls with wavy-line decoration (see below). Some of these carinated bowls (ATP 7069.2 and ATP 6560.2) were excavated in operation 27, together with additional late Ramesside material such as the bottle with red slipped rim on white coated surface ATP 7069.1125 (cf. Fig. 14.1–2) and some blue painted body sherds of large vessels with linear decoration. To conclude, within the four phases of use attested by the pottery at Temple A three peaks of cultic activity can be named. The first heyday is of course connected with the building of the complex and King Ahmose (phase 1). The amount and variability of the ceramic material reaches its

122

123

124

125

Hratch PAPAZIAN, personal communication (publication forthcoming). ASTON 1998, nos. 534, 548; see also ASTON 1999, pl. 3, no. 60 (Elephantine, Phase IIA, Late New Kingdom). This type finds parallels in Qantir (ASTON 1998, no. 2532) and in Bauschicht 7 and 6 at Elephantine (personal observation, cf. BUDKA 2005, 95). This ware becomes popular during the Twentieth and

105

next climax during the reign of Thutmose III (phase 2). Numerous pottery fragments dating to the late 18th to early 19th Dynasty attest the final culmination of activity within the complex. Since according to textual evidence the latest main phase of cultic activity at the Ahmose pyramid complex can be linked with Ramesses II, it is reasonable to assume that most of the pottery from phase 3 dates to the reign of this king.126 Blue painted pottery Blue painted pottery was discovered in considerable quantities at the Ahmose-Nefertary building (Temple A), especially in excavation units 18, 19, 24 and 25. Excavation unit 24 comprises both Temple A and Temple B; most of its numerous blue painted material seems to belong to Temple A. In addition, some blue painted sherds were found in excavation unit 21, the area around the eastern outer wall of the pyramid temple. From the adjoining excavation unit 22, covering part of Temple C (Ahmose-Nefertary), a small amount of blue painted ware was recovered. Additional material came from the area around the entrance and the northern front of Temple A (operation 27 and 18/25). The majority of the blue painted vessels at South Abydos are made of Nile clay (Fig. 15), but a few sherds of Marl were discovered as well (e.g. ATP 7010.1, Fig. 16.2). The most common blue painted wares are Nile B2 cream or white coated, Nile B2 red coated (ATP 5860.1),127 Nile D2 cream coated (ATP 4015.31, 6039.5, 6089.12, 6258.4, 6395.5) and Marl A2 uncoated. Polychrome decorated wares are present within the material from Abydos as Marl A2 cream or white coated (ATP 6088.10, 6418.5).128 The ware groups comprise a large variety of both restricted and open forms: plates and saucers, dishes, bowls, stemmed bowls, beakers, lids, bottles and various types of jars (primarily ovoid and funnel-necked, cf. Fig. 15.3–5 and Fig. 16).129. ATP 5860.1, a very small dish with direct rim and probably rounded base, represents one example of blue

126

127 128 129

Twenty-first Dynasties, see ASTON 1998, 79. For the textual evidence see HARVEY 1998, 121–125 and in preparation. The red-coating may also be burnished. For the blue painted wares at Amarna see HOPE 1991, 21. To classify body sherds to a certain restricted form is very often impossible.

106

Julia Budka

Fig. 15 Blue painted Nile silt types from the Ahmose Pyramid complex. Scale 1:3

painted on red coated ware (Fig. 15.2). Another interesting open form is ATP 6300.2, a shallow, very thin-walled dish, blue painted inside and cream coated outside (Fig. 15.1), to which I have not been able to find a close parallel. A tall ovoid jar, with a blue painted mouth and red lines as decoration (ATP 5488.1), is comparable with a vessel at Qantir.130 This type of jar is attested in different ware groups, but according to ASTON the vessels are “relatively common in late Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasty contexts, but are more often blue painted than not.” 131 ATP 6316.1 is another sherd of this type (Fig. 15.4).132 The thin black lines preserved below the rim may be interpreted as upper part of a decoration zone with

floral pattern (pendant lotus?). A large fragment of a rim sherd of a similar, slender jar was recovered from operation 19 (ATP 7609, Fig. 15.5). It is similar in shape to jars found at Amarna, although the rounded rim is slightly flaring.133 A potstand or lid, ATP 6005.2 (Fig. 15.6), can be equated with a piece from Amarna.134 Blue painted necked jars appear frequently within the material at South Abydos and find parallels at Amarna (late 18th Dynasty).135 The specific type of funnel-necked jars is represented by ATP 6005.1 (Fig. 16.1) with floral pattern on the neck.136 The fragment from the shoulder of a large storage jar (ATP 6088.10) displays a peculiar design in blue, red and black on white coated

130

134

131

132 133

ASTON 1998, no. 1313. ASTON 1998, 344 with parallels at Saqqara, Gurob, Riqqeh, Herakleopolis, Amarna, Thebes, Deir el Medina and Nubia. The shape can be equated with ASTON 1998, no. 1186. Cf. HOPE 1991, fig. 5g (blue painted); for the shape with flaring rim see PEET and WOOLLEY 1923, pl. L, XXVI/1013. For similar vessels see also ASTON 1998, nos. 1314–1320.

135

136

HOPE 1991, fig. 12e. For example ATP 5645.12 corresponds to HOPE 1991, fig. 4g; ATP 5488.1 to HOPE 1991, figs. 6b–e and ATP 4267.2, a funnel necked jar with a floral decorative scheme on the neck to HOPE 1991, fig. 8e. ATP 4015.31 is similar to HOPE 1991, fig. 5g. Cf. HOPE 1991, figs. 8a, 8e, 20k, closest parallel: pl. 15c (Cairo 2671).

The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery

107

Fig. 16 Blue painted necked storage jars from the Ahmose Pyramid complex. Scale 1:3

Marl A2/4 (Fig. 16.4). The lower part of a circular motif with two short adjoining slightly bent lines is preserved. This design is not unique amongst the material from Abydos; it finds a parallel in ATP 7610.4. At the moment it is uncertain whether the pieces belong to a floral zone or some kind of ornamental band with symbols. Of special interest is ATP 6564.1, coming from the area north of the entrance of Temple A (Op. 27, 9, 11). It is a small fragment from a handmade appliqué in the form of an animal figurine (Fig. 17). The white-coated piece was once attached to the shoulder of a large vessel. It can be identified as the head and neck from a recumbent figure of an ibex. The slight curve of the neck and the breaks suggest that the animal was looking

straight ahead (en face) while the body was reclining side wards. This position and the general appearance of the Abydos appliqué find a close parallel in the famous blue painted amphora now kept in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (MFA 64.9).137 Applied decoration in the form of gazelles or ibexes is in general well known on blue painted pottery.138 For that reason ATP 6564.1 is classified within this ware group, although blue paint is missing from the appliqué. As HOPE has pointed out, the extraordinary vessel MFA 64.9 was not a simple container, but it „had an ornamental value and probably stood in a niche”.139 Although the reconstruction of the vessel shape to which ATP 6564.1 once belonged is of course hypothetical, it seems very reasonable to

137

138

HOPE 1982, 88–90, cat. 70. Cf. also a large vessel from Gurob with two figures of gazelles BRUNTON/ENGELBACH 1927, pl. XXXIX, 602.

139

See BOURRIAU 1981, 39, cat. 57; HOPE 1982, 88; HOPE 1989, 97, 100. HOPE 1982, 90.

108

Julia Budka

Fig. 17 Ibex figurine as appliqué to a large vessel. Scale 1:1

assume a large vessel with similar decorative character. The ibex figurine is a clear indication that the vessel was provided with a “front” and a “back” like the Boston amphora. This would require an appropriate installation for the placement of the vessel within Temple A, perhaps in some kind of corner or niche. An unusual blue painted fragment was recovered during survey collection at South Abydos in 1993. ATP 212 may be described as the end of a “boomerang”-shaped object. Its lower part is almost flat, whereas the upper part is rounded and painted with red and blue lines. Although its function is not clear, the fragment might have been an appliqué of a blue painted vessel.140 Another peculiar vessel was reconstructed from two adjoining pieces coming from operation 24 (ATP 6008.2) and operation 19 (ATP 7597) (Fig. 15.7). The piece is likely to be some

140

141

142

143 144

Blue painted cobra fragments belonging to „cobra bowls“ are comparable in shape; cf. ASTON 1998, 402–403, fig. 5.05. Cf. HOPE 1991, fig. 2e and PEET/WOOLLEY 1923, pl. LXXXII/256. See HOPE 1991, 36. For a similar bowl with composite contour see BOURRIAU/ASTON/RAVEN/VAN WALSEM 2005, 55, nr. 149 – this parallel from the tomb of Haremhab makes a date to the late 18th/early 19th dynasty likely. Cf. also ASTON 1998, 57. ASTON 1998, 355.

kind of ornamental bowl for which parallels in Amarna can be named.141 The linear decorative scheme of the vessel seems atypical of the 18th Dynasty. A Ramesside date might therefore be possible.142 As HOPE (1989) has determined, with the beginning of the 19th Dynasty the decorative scheme on blue painted ware changed slightly – fewer floral motifs are attested (only the pendant lotus survived), while more linear patterns and lines appear within the decoration.143 The Abydos pottery which shows these characteristics (cf. Figs. 15. 5, 15.7, 16.2) should consequently be dated to the Ramesside period. In addition, according to ASTON, blue painted vessels with wavy lines are to be dated in the 20th Dynasty.144 A group of shallow carinated bowls with a wavy line decorative scheme (Fig. 18.1–2) is therefore significant (e.g. ATP 5156.9, 6397.3).145 These bowls have parallels at Deir el Medina, namely in the Ramesside tomb no. 359 (Ramesses III – Ramesses IV),146 and in the Royal Tomb of Ramesses IV.147 Tetisheri pyramid complex After promising results of the magnetometry survey conducted by Tomasz HERBICH in 2002,148 the pyramid of Tetisheri became the focus of excavations in 2004. The primary function of the monument has been already described by HARVEY as representing Ahmose’s inclusion of the memorial structure for Tetisheri in order to achieve the legitimation of his own building works at Abydos.149 The text of the famous stela which was found inside the building by CURRELLY refers to the decision of Ahmose and his wife Ahmose-Nerfertary to build a pyramid at Abydos in memory of their grandmother.150 Brick stamps found on the building material of the shrine, as well as palaeographic features of the stela, attest to its construction within the later reign of Ahmose.151

145

146

147

148 149 150 151

Cf. ASTON/ASTON/BROCK 1998, 153, no. 165 (Royal Tomb Ramses’ IV) with parallels. NAGEL 1938, fig. 26, no. 136. For tomb 1159A at Deir elMedina (most likely Ramesses III) see lately ASTON 1991, 73, n. 21 ASTON/ASTON/BROCK 1998, nos. 165, 166 (only red decoration), 193. See HARVEY 2004, 5. HARVEY 1998, 426. BREASTED 1962, vol. II, 36; PETRIE 1902, 3, pl. 52. Information kindly provided by HARVEY, publication forthcoming.

The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery

109

Fig. 18 Large bowls with painted or applied decoration from the Ahmose Pyramid complex (phases 3–4). Scale 1:3 (nos. 1–3, 5), 2:9 (no. 4)

In 2004 only a selected number of baskets coming from the Tetisheri Complex were studied. Remarks on the material are therefore necessarily of a preliminary character. In contrast to the pyramid temple area, this pottery shows less variation. As of yet, the material resembles the pottery found at the Terrace Temple152 and seems to date to the early 18th Dynasty only. No blue painted pottery or Ramesside sherds have been found so far. The occurrence of small fragments of Pan

152

153

Cf. AYRTON/CURRELLY/WEIGALL 1904, pl. XLVII = HARVEY 1998, fig. 9. According to HARVEY (personal communication) these small, worn Pan Grave sherds might have come to the site as inclusions in the bricks and are possibly reflecting Nubian settlement on the peripheries, where bricks are made. Pan Grave sherds came to light within the Pyramid Complex of Ahmose as well, especially within the excavation units 19, 27, 28 and 29. BIETAK 1966, 64

Grave vessels might be also of significance in the question of dating.153 In 1903 a large pottery concentration was found near the entrance of the pyramid which CURRELLY described as follows: “Around the entrance to the chamber of offerings there were hundreds of offering pots. They were all of the one kind, and, as far as could be seen, were in no particular order; sometimes they were scattered and sometimes piled two or three deep”.154 Surprisingly, excavation in 2004 brought

154

mentions a rim sherd of a large Pan Grave bowl with incised decoration found at Abydos; KEMP 1977, 290, n. 9 notes sherds excavated during the Pennsylvania-Yale excavations at the site. For the general presence of Nubian cooking wares in contexts of the early New Kingdom see BOURRIAU 1986/87, 57. CURRELLY 1904, 36 with pl. LI for the ground plan and deposit in front of the entrance.

110

Julia Budka

Fig. 19 Drop pot types from the Tetisheri Pyramid. Scale 1:3

The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery

111

Fig. 20 Drop pot types from the Tetisheri Pyramid. Scale 1:3

to light a large amount of more pots right in front of the entrance. It quickly became clear that Currelly did not come close to uncovering the extent of the deposit and the newly found clusters of 155

Cf. HARVEY forthcoming.

pots adjoin and enlarge his zones of sherd concentrations as marked on his published plan.155 The pots are arranged in two to three layers and many of them are almost intact. Considering this

112

Julia Budka

new material, it is now possible to clarify the remarks by CURRELLY in some aspects. The pots are definitely not “all of the one kind”; rather, a small variety of vessel types is attested. Since the bulk of the material are drop-pots – a type of vessel known to have functioned as offering pottery156 – these should be identified with “the one kind” mentioned by CURRELLY. Within this group of drop-pots several different types can be distinguished according to the shape of the base (rounded base, flat base with finger impressions, trimmed base with very small flat base = “minimierte Standfläche”,157 pinched base as illustrated by ATP 8430-1158) and rim (direct rounded rim; slightly inverted rim, rounded or edged/ trimmed; slightly flaring rim, rounded)159 (Figs. 19, 20). In terms of wares, the most common fabric is Nile B2, followed by fewer in Nile D2 and some examples out in Nile C2. The surface of the majority was left uncoated, but sometimes a thin red wash was applied to the exterior (Figs. 19.1–2, 20.2, 20.4).160 ATP 10136.8 (Fig. 20.6) is whitewashed and ATP 8021.4 shows a black rim band.161 The huge offering-deposit in front of the Tetisheri pyramid documents cultic activity while the building was still in use. As of yet, the material is restricted to vessels dating to the early 18th Dynasty of which the major part displays some kind of votive character. The following types comprise the majority of closed forms aside from the predominant drop-pots of various types: Beer jars with vertical direct rim and short mouth162 and ovoid, red washed (mostly burnished) bottles with rounded base. This very limited repertoire is enlarged by a round based white washed bottle, a Marl A2-bottle with incised lines on a long slender neck (ATP 7319.3) and a small Marl B-bottle with

156

157

158 159

160 161

162 163

Cf. SEILER 1995, 190; BOURRIAU/DE MEYER/OP DE BEECK/VEREECKEN 2005, 109–110, figs. 7–8 and SEILER 2005, 117–119, figs. 37–40. HEIN 2002, 128 with further remarks on this New Kingdom-technique of finishing off the base and fig. 4.26 (8481 B). The rim of this vessel resembles ASTON 1998, no. 48. See PUMPENMEIER 1998, fig. 23 for the same types of drop-pots. Cf. PUMPENMEIER 1998, 130. BROVARSKI/DOLL/FREED 1982, 78–79, cat. 52 (from Deir el-Ballas); SEILER 1995, fig. 2. Cf. PUMPENMEIER 1998, fig. 24. Cf. AYRTON/CURRELLY/WEIGALL 1904, pl. XLVII, 105. These vessels occur in general quite frequently in early

a funnel-shaped neck (ATP 7319.5) and the body sherds of a zir in Mixed fabric A. The Tetisheri pottery corpus comprises a large amount of different potstands, mostly tubular and conical ones in uncoated Nile silt (cf. Fig. 13). There are remarkably few open forms, but some simple bowls with direct rims appear within the material in Nile B2 or Nile D2, either red slipped or uncoated (Fig. 5.2). Small incense-bowls, most often with a carinated profile, represent a specific group within the corpus. They are also well attested in the pyramid temple area (see above). A type that is clearly related to ritual and cultic use are tall pedestal bowls which were used as burners. Similar examples of these burners were already found at the Terrace Temple163 and also in the pyramid temple area (see above, Fig. 3). Very often the vessels are covered with a thick white wash or type of plaster – a clear indication for a cultic purpose.164 The limited repertoire from the Tetisheri pyramid finds very close parallels at Heqareshu Hill near Umm el Gaab at Abydos.165 All of the types can be dated to BOURRIAU’s Phase I of New Kingdom Pottery. Thus, the preliminary analysis of the pottery coming from the pyramid of Tetisheri as a closely datable collection seems to imply a rather short-lived cultic activity for the queen.166 Importance of study The New Kingdom pottery coming from the Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project is of great importance for the study of Egyptian pottery. I would like to highlight several aspects to illustrate this significance. First of all, it is essential to include the pottery

164

165

166

New Kingdom Egypt; they are well attested in tomb contexts at Thebes, see BIETAK 1972, pl. VI, Reg. 40. See SEILER 1995, HULIN 1984, 172, PUMPENMEIER 1998, 134, fig. 28 and most recently SEILER 2005, 115–117; for Ramesside variants of this type see HOPE 1989, fig. 9h. Cf. PUMPENMEIER 1998, 136–137 for the intense activity of pottery deposits during the early New Kingdom in the area of the Heqareshu Hill and cemetery U. It must be stated that in 2004 a fragment of a limestone offering table was found in front of the entrance of the pyramid. By means of palaeography it seems to date to Ramesside time (see HARVEY forthcoming); how this textual evidence can be correlated with the pottery material must await further study of the excavated material.

The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery

113

of the Ahmose complex at Abydos, which is in some respect unique in its layout and history of use,167 as part of a broad contextual study of the area and its monuments. Together with epigraphic and textual sources, the ceramic evidence can provide insights into significant aspects of social activity and material culture. Furthermore, only a few sites in Upper Egypt can provide a similarly wide range of domestic, cultic and funerary artefacts (e.g. Deir el-Ballas). Thus, Abydos with its large amount of domestic and votive pottery has considerable potential for future research. Already in this preliminary stage of research, the material from the Ahmose complex has modified in some respects our understanding of the distribution and manufacture of certain wares. In terms of shape, Hathoric bowls can be named in this context (Figs. 18.4–5). These vessels occur in Egypt as of the 18th Dynasty and are especially well known at Deir el Medina.168 To date, four carinated bowls with rough applications in the shape of the head of Hathor were recognized at Abydos (town surface 1993, ATP 569.9, 6043.7 and 6560.1).169 All of them are uncoated on the exterior with red slipped interior and made in (a local?) Nile B2. Similar examples are known from Malqata170 and Amarna.171 The date of the bowls at Abydos is as of yet not certain because one was discovered in surface levels (ATP 560.9) and the others derive from mixed contexts.172 Despite this

fact, the finds at South Abydos might provide additional information on the function of these vessels that are usually connected with Thebes and the goddess Hathor in her role as Lady of the Western Valley.173 Special attention will therefore be focused in the future on the context and distribution of these vessels at South Abydos and possible associations with the cult of AhmoseNefertary.174 The amount and variation of blue painted pottery is of particular interest amongst the ceramic from the Ahmose pyramid temple area. As of yet, the only sites in Upper Egypt where blue painted pottery was discovered in considerable quantities have been Thebes and Amarna.175 Aside from Malqata, Amarna, Memphis/Saqqara and Qantir, Abydos is the latest major findspot of this characteristic ware. Some of the blue painted pottery from Abydos – especially the silt wares which make up the majority of the sherds176 – could very well have been produced locally.177 As yet this is simply an idea – future work on additional material will prove whether it really holds true or not. But since blue painted pottery at Qantir was recently identified as local work,178 it would come as no surprise. In reviewing the recorded selection of blue painted pottery from the Ahmose pyramid temple area it became evident that a considerable part of it is clearly Ramesside in date and finds

167

172

168

169

170

171

HARVEY 1998, 421. Fo a detailed study on Hathoric vases see GUIDOTTI 1978, 108, fig. 5 for a bowl with painted decoration comprising a representation of the goddess; see also PINCH 1993, 150. In addition, ATP 6089.3 represents a bottle with tall neck and remains of applied decoration which might have been once the face of the goddess. See also the drawings of a feminoform drop jar with breasts and a sherd (from a bowl?) with a Hathor head appliqué from the New Kingdom town by ‘Umm Sety/Dorothy EADY (cf. note 6). For a recent discussion of the jars with applications of breasts, the so called Hathorvasen, see SEILER 2006, 317–325. HOPE 1989, fig. 14a for red-coated bowls with simple applications and a more elaborated example with red band decoration (fig. 13s). HOPE 1991, 26, fig. 1d (blue painted; a similar bowl without applied relief was found in the Ahmose Pyramid Temple, ATP 1143); HOPE is also referring to a bowl with a Hathor head found in house T.36.78 at Amarna which “is not specified whether it was painted”.

173 174

175

176

177

178

Since ATP 6560.1 is associated with a blue painted carinated bowl (ATP 6560.2), a Ramesside date for this piece is very likely. Cf. GUIDOTTI 1978, 105. These bowls decorated with Hathor masks may also be related to painted “Nun” bowls in faience (see STRAUSS 1974), which were found at the Terrace Temple and throughout the Ahmose complex, cf. AYRTON/CURRELLY/WEIGALL 1904, pl. XLVIII, no. 15. For similar bowls and for votive offerings to Hathor in general see PINCH 1993, passim and pl. 32 (faience bowls). Blue painted pottery from Ramesside strata of the New Kingdom settlement of Elephantine is in comparison quite rare; cf. BUDKA 2005, 105–107. Blue painted marl vessels which point to the Theban region as origin are rather rare. An area of burning (kilns/furnaces) was noted by HERBICH in the 2002 magnetometry survey to the east of the temples; see HARVEY 2004, 4–5. ASTON 1998, 354–355.

114

Julia Budka

parallels at the Delta capital Pi-Ramesse (Qantir).179 Thus, it enlarges the essential corpus of HOPE (1989, 1991) which comprises ceramics coming from Malqata and Amarna.180 Besides its general significance for the ware group (new types and shapes), the blue painted pottery from Abydos provides insights into the cultic activity, function and the amazingly long time span of use of the temple area. In addition, some of the vessels clearly had a decorative character and could be called “temple inventory”. This holds especially true for so far isolated finds like the large ornamental bowl (Fig. 15.7) and the ibex appliqué (Fig. 17) once attached to a now vanished painted amphora. The last piece has major connotations since vessels with this type of appliqué were formerly primarily known from Amarna and Malqata181 and thought to derive “from royal workshops”.182 Functional use of the pottery from the temple area will be one of the major points of interest in future research. The spectrum comprises not only offering pottery and vessels for clearly cultic purposes but also household-wares (cooking-pots, dishes), containers and imported vessels. This repertoire and its contextual analysis bear considerable potential which may be indicated here by one interesting feature observed in 2004. In operations 27, especially in the area around the entrance of Temple A, a substantial number of fragments of pottery ovens was recognized within the sherd material. These ovens with an approximated diameter of 50–80 cm are hand-made in very coarse Nile clay. Both rimand body sherds have been found in large pieces with a wall thickness ranging from 2 to 4 cm. Some of these ovens show traces of use (smoked/burnt). They are always associated with large amounts of bread-moulds, carbon, baking plates and large ringstands 183 (ATP 6668.1, Fig. 1.5). Over-fired fragments of Rames-

179

180

181

ATP 4043.5 and ATP 5645.12 correspond to ASTON 1998, no. 1304; ATP 4110.2 to ASTON 1998, no. 1323; ATP 4259.2 to ASTON 1998, nos. 1343–1344 and both ATP 5149.5 and 6002.3 to ASTON 1998, no. 1285 (necked bottle). Similar aspects, although of earlier date, hold true for the recently published corpus of blue painted pottery from the tomb of Haremhab in Saqqara, see BOURRIAU/ASTON/RAVEN/VAN WALSEM 2005: 41–55. HOPE 1989, 97. Lately, a gazelle head as vessel appliqué was recovered in Qantir, see ASTON 1998, 400, no. 1418;

side bottles which might be local productions, made in rather coarse Nile silt,184 have been found in these contexts as well (cf. Fig. 14.1–2). Similar ovens were found in situ in the Ramesside town-area of Elephantine next to the New Kingdom-temple of Khnum in an area where the prominent features of the houses are large grain-silos.185 As at Abydos, the ovens at Elephantine were commonly associated with these typically, over-fired bottles.186 Considering the context at Elephantine and the fact that the pieces from the ATP 2002 season of excavation were found with clearly Ramesside material (bottles, plates, potstands, blue painted ware), a Ramesside date for the ovens in the area of Temple A is likely. Although they may not originally belong to the Ramesside usage of the templearea, this possibility has to be considered. If both – the Ramesside date and the original provenance from the surroundings of Temple A – prove to be correct, these ovens will give further important information on the use-life of the building complex in late New Kingdom-times. In summary, the pottery from South Abydos, especially the votive pottery from the pyramid of Tetisheri, enlarges on one hand the corpus of pottery which can safely be dated to the early 18th Dynasty. On the other hand, the material from Abydos provides information pertaining to the nature of cultic material found within New Kingdom temples, ranging in time from the 18th to 20th Dynasty. Consequently, it increases our knowledge concerning the development of pottery from this period. Furthermore, the clear dating of the Ahmose complex to the later part of his reign implies a similar date for the early New Kingdom pottery from the area. This may eventually enable a contrast with late Kamose/earliest Ahmose material, e.g. the pottery from Deir el-Ballas, which has a quite different ceramic repertoire.

182 183

184

185 186

considering the new finds, ASTON (1998, 57) even attributes MFA 64.9 to Qantir. BOURRIAU 1981, 39. This ringstand is probably dating to the late New Kingdom, see ASTON 1999, 121, no. 1078, pl. 35 (Phase IIB, Lybian Period); ASTON names parallels at Gurob and Medinet Habu. ATP 7499.3 from Op. 27, loc. 23, lot 33: Nile B2 overfired, white washed. For a ground plan of this area see ASTON 1999, fig. 4. See BUDKA 2005, figs. 40.7–9.

The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery

Prospects for future work The next season of work will see the detailed study of the material from the Tetisheri pyramid. Consequently, quantitative analyses and careful studies of all material from important contexts and from ceramic rich deposits will be carried out. Special attention should also focus on imports and Egyptian imitations of foreign vessels since these occur in large quantities at Abydos. As excavations at the town site will continue, the ceramic material should be included in the study of the pottery from the site. Particular attention will be paid to the variation of shapes and wares and the settlement character of these ceramics. In general, the pottery of the site reflects the importance of Abydos as a town and cultic place, not only during the reign of Ahmose but also well into Ramesside times. As of yet, textual evidence only attests to the survival of the memorial cult of King Ahmose into the reigns of Ramses II and

115

Merenptah.187 The pottery found within the pyramid complex suggests a continuation of the cult well into the 20th Dynasty.188 The ceramic material thus covers an amazingly long time span of nearly four centuries – from the later reign of Ahmose (around 1528 BC) up to the reign of Ramesses IV (around 1145 BC).189 Since this period was preceded by a major historical event in the form of the defeat of the Hyksos, the study of the pottery will help the general understanding of the time in question, its material culture as well as some aspects of the later Egyptian attitudes to the founder of the 18th Dynasty. The New Kingdom site at Abydos has not failed to astonish by means of unexpected finds since renewed excavations in 1993. Thus, it would come as no surprise if late Ramesside textual evidence for the cult of Ahmose might be recovered in the coming seasons of the Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project, thereby confirming the period of activity already suggested by means of the ceramic evidence.

ATP No.

Label

Location

Fabric

Surface

6552.1

Amphora

27/8/10

Marl A2

uncoated

late 18th–19th Dyn.

Date

Fig. 14.10

Fig.

7499.1

Amphora

27/23/33

Marl A2

uncoated

late 18th–19th Dyn.

Fig. 14.11

7380.8/7298.1

Amphora

27/17/24

Import

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 14.3

6566.1

Amphora

27/7/12

Import

uncoated

18thDyn.?

Fig. 14.5

5095.1

Amphora

22/8/1

Mixed B1

yellowish/pinkish slip

Ramesside

Fig. 14.6

4115.5

Amphora

20/8/9

Marl A3

selfslipped

(late) 18th Dyn.?

Fig. 14.9

5156.2

Amphora

21/4/3

Import

white slipped

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 9.10

5660.1

Amphora

24/4/6

Import

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 9.11

6423.1

Amphora

25/1/4

Import

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 9.8

5081.1

Amphora

22/5/1

Marl D? Import?

uncoated?

6564.1

Appliqué/Ibex

27/9/11

Nile B2

white washed

5870.1

Beaker

22/4/6

Marl A4 var. 2

uncoated

4242.28

Beaker/ovoid jar

19/7/12

Nile B2

10136.6

Beer jar

33/4/8

Nile B2

5842.2

Beer jar

22/4/5

Fig. 9.9 late18th Dyn. Late Period?

Fig. 17 Fig. 14.12

black rim band on red wash early–mid 18th Dyn. uncoated early 18th Dyn.

Nile D2

uncoated

early–mid

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 10.2 Fig. 2.8 Fig. 2.1

Table 1 List of illustrated sherds (arranged according to shape)190

187 188

189

Cf. MUNRO 1988, 60–61 and HARVEY 1998, passim. Royal activity in general is well attested in Abydos during the 20th Dynasty; e.g. Ramesses IV with two large stelae found by MARIETTE in his Middle cemetery (see KRI VI, 17–25; PEDEN 1994, 151–174) and some smaller monuments (KRI VI, 35–36). As of yet, no blue painted pottery later than the reign of this king has been found; cf. ASTON 1998, 56.

190

Abbreviations used within Table 1 comprise: BP = blue painted, BPCS = blue painted on cream slip, BPRS = blue painted on red slip, BPWW = blue painted on white wash, ent. = entirely, RSMO = monochrome painted on red slip, RWBI = bichrome painted on red wash, UCMO = monochrome painted on uncoated, UCRS = red slipped in and red rim band on uncoated out.

116

Julia Budka

ATP No.

Label

Location

Fabric

Surface

8042.3

Beer jar

25/10/12

Nile B2

uncoated

Date early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 2.2

Fig.

8049.2

Beer jar

25/10/12

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 2.3

8049.3

Beer jar

25/10/12

Nile B2

uncoated

early

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 2.4

6286.2

Beer jar

27/8/10

Nile B2

uncoated

early

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 2.5

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 2.6

8037.11

Beer jar

25/10/12

Nile B2

uncoated

early

8065.5

Beer jar

25/14/13

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 2.7

8128

Beer jar

28/10/28

Nile B2

uncoated

19th Dyn.

Fig. 11.1

8042.2

Beer jar/Drop-pot

25/10/12

Nile B2

red washed

Fig. 20.4

5830.2

Bottle

22/15/1

Nile D2

white washed

early 18th Dyn. Ramesside Ramesside

Fig. 14.2

Ramesside

Fig. 14.4

Fig. 14.1

7027.1

Bottle

27/7/19

Nile D2

white washed with red rim band

6316.7

Bottle/Globular jar

27/1/2

Mixed B2

white slipped

5723.1

Bottle

28/2/5

Marl A3

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 9.1

7530.1

Bottle

30/11/25

Nile B2

red washed

mid 18th Dyn.?

Fig. 9.12

5618.10

Bottle

24/1/2

Nile B2

red washed

early–mid 18th Dyn.

Fig. 9.13

6802.3

Bottle

28/2/13

Nile D2

red washed

18th Dyn.

Fig. 9.2

8042.1

Bottle

25/10/12

Nile B2

red washed

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 9.3

5414.2

Bottle

22/11/1

Nile D2

white slipped

18th Dyn.

Fig. 9.4

5156.7

Bottle

21/4/3

Import?

white slipped

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 9.7

4127.4

Bottle

20/8/9

Nile D4

white slipped

18th Dyn.

Fig. 9.5

7527.1

Bottle

30/10/23

Nile D2

pinkish slip

18th

Fig. 9.6

5471.1

Bottle/Amphora

22/13/1

Mixed B1

cream slipped

5685.1

Bottle/jar

24/1/8

Marl A2

4470

Bread mould

20/5/16

7380.2

Bread plate

7211.6

Dyn. Ramesside

Fig. 14.7

RWBI

early–mid 18th Dyn.

Fig. 10.1

Nile E4

whitish layer

early–mid 18th Dyn.

Fig. 1.4

27/17/24

Nile C2

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 1.3

Burner/dish

28/2/14

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.?

Fig. 3.1

5040.2

Burner/dish

22/1/1

Nile C1

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 3.13

7741.1

Burner/dish

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.?

Fig. 3.2

6300.6

Burner/dish

27/7/12

Nile B2

red rim band on uncoated

early 18th Dyn.?

Fig. 3.4

8091

Burner/tall offering stand

25/11/15

Nile B2

white washed

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 3.16

18th

6008.1

Carinated Bowl

24/4/9

Marl A2

RSMO

early–mid

Dyn.

Fig. 10.6

5618.1

Carinated Bowl

24/1/2

Marl A2

RSMO

early–mid 18th Dyn.

Fig. 10.7

red washed out and over rim; 19th Dyn. uncoated in

5521.1

Carinated Bowl

21/3/12

Nile B2 sandy

5156.9

Carinated Bowl

21/4/3

Nile B2 sandy

7069.2

Carinated Bowl

27/17/22

Nile B2

6397.3

Carinated Bowl

19/16/29

Nile B2

BP on white slip out above carination, white slipped in

7432.9

Carinated Bowl

27/19/28

Marl A2/4

4243.2

Carinated Bowl

19/7/12

Marl A2/4 Nile B2

BPCS out; red rim band, un–coated in

Fig. 14.13

20th Dyn.?

Fig. 18.1

BPWW out above carination, white slipped in; added deco- 20th Dyn. ration in red and blue

Fig. 18.2

Ramesside?

Fig. 18.3

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 5.10

UCRS

18th Dyn.

Fig. 5.9

red washed in and out above Ramesside? carination

6041.1

Carinated Bowl

21/7/10

4240.12

Carinated Bowl/Dish

19/7/12

Nile B2

red slipped in and out

6207.2

Cooking pot Pan Grave

29/4/4

Nubian Nile C2 variant

uncoated, incised decoration

6300.2

Dish

27/7/12

Nile B2

BPWW

Fig. 8.3

Ramesside?

Fig. 14.14

early 18th Dyn. Ramesside

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 15.1

18th

7801.1

Dish

25/18/16

Marl B

uncoated

early–mid

5870.12

Dish/Burner

22/4/6

Nile B2

uncoated

5860.1

Dish

22/4/5

Nile B2

BPRS

early 18th Dyn. Ramesside?

Fig. 15.2

8554.1

Drop-pot

33/13/50

Nile B2

red washed

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 19.1

10503.1

Drop-pot

33/4/12

Nile B2

red washed

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 19.2

Table 1 continued

Dyn.

Fig. 5.8 Fig. 3.3

The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery

Surface

Date

117

ATP No.

Label

Location

Fabric

8554.3

Drop–pot

33/13/50

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 19.3

Fig.

8556.1

Drop–pot

33/4/51

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 19.4

10138.5

Drop–pot

33/4/8

Nile B2

uncoated

early

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 19.5

8430.1

Drop–pot

33/7/44

Nile B2

uncoated

early

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 19.6

18th

8554.5

Drop–pot

33/13/50

Nile B2

uncoated

early

Dyn.

Fig. 19.7

7309.2

Drop–pot

33/7/27

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 19.8

8430.2

Drop–pot

33/4/8

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 19.9

7309.1

Drop–pot

33/7/27

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 20.1

10141.1

Drop–pot

33/4/9

Nile B2

red washed

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 20.2

7319.1

Drop–pot

33/6/29

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 20.3

10136.8

Drop–pot

33/4/8

Nile B2

white washed

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 20.6

8448.1

Drop–pot

33/7/48

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 20.5

4465.4

Flowerpot

20/5/16

Nile B2

uncoated

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 7.3

4015.11

Flowerpot

19/6/6

Nile B2

uncoated

early–mid

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 7.5

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 7.1

early

4015.20

Flowerpot/dish

19/6/6

Nile B2

uncoated

early–mid

5900.1

Flowerpot/dish

26/1/4

Nile D2

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 7.2

5859.2

Flowerpot/dish

26/1/3

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 7.4

4472.6

Flowerpot/dish

20/5/16

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 8.1

6418.1

Globular jar

19/15/30

Marl D 1

white slipped, burnished

Fig. 11.2

6657.4

Globular jar

28/2/8

Mixed B

cream slipped

mid–late 18th Dyn. Ramesside

6043.7

Hathoric bowl

24/7/10

Nile B2

UCRS

Ramesside?

Fig. 18.4

6560.1

Hathoric bowl

27/7/12

Nile B2

UCRS

Ramesside?

Fig. 18.5

Nile D2

red washed in and out; smoked

Ramesside?

Fig.1.2 Fig. 8.5

6657.1

Lamp

28/2/8

5040.14

Large bowl/plate

22/1/1

Nile B2

uncoated

18th

6005.1

Large funnel-necked storage jar

24/4/9

Nile B2

BPWW

late 18th Dyn.

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Dyn.?

Fig. 14.8

Fig. 16.1

4015.24

Large plate

19/6/6

Nile B2

6088.10

Large storage jar

24/4/13

Marl A2/4

BPWW

late

Dyn.?

Fig. 16.4

6005.2

Potstand/Lid?

24/4/9

Nile B2

BPWW

late 18th Dyn.?

Fig. 15.6

8044.1

M–dish

25/10/12

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 3.10

4162.8

M–dish

19/6/8

Nile C1

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 3.5

4260.4

M–dish

18/5/10

Nile C1

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 3.6

5367.5

M–dish

31/1/1

Nile C1

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 3.7

5824.4

M–dish

26/1/3

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 3.9

4015.26

Meat jar

19/6/6

Marl A2

uncoated

late 18th–19th Dyn.

Fig. 11.3

6088.1

Meat jar

24/4/13

Marl A2

uncoated

late 18th–19th Dyn.

Fig. 11.4

6009.6

Meat jar

24/4/9

Marl A2/4

uncoated

18th–19th

Fig. 11.5

late

18th

18th

Fig. 8.4

Dyn.

8078.3

M–vessel

25/10/12

Nile B2

uncoated

early

Dyn.

Fig. 3.8

7010.1

Necked storage jar

27/7/19

Marl A2

BPWW

late 18th Dyn.?

Fig. 16.2

8034.1

Necked storage jar

25/10/12

Marl A2

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 6.7

3065.9

Neckless storage jar

11/8/12

Nile B2

red slipped

late 18th–19th Dyn.

Fig. 11.6

6008.2 7597

Ornamental Bowl

24/4/9, 19/24/34

Nile B2

BPCS

late 18th Dyn.

Fig. 15.7

6008.5

Ovoid jar

24/4/9

Nile B2

BPCS

late 18th Dyn.

Fig. 15.3

6316.1

Ovoid jar

27/1/2

Nile B2

BPWW

late

18th–

yn.

Fig. 15.4

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 15.5

7609

Ovoid jar

19/26/37

Nile B2

BPCS

late

5874.3

Plate/dish

22/4/7

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 4.7

5874.2

Plate/dish

22/4/7

Nile B2

red slipped ent.

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 4.6

4048.11

Plate/dish

19/7/7

Nile C1

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 4.5

7520

Potstand

30/10/23

Nile B2

red washed

late 18th Dyn.

Fig. 11.7

5410.1

Potstand

22/7/2

Marl C

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 12.1

5872.1

Potstand

26/1/4

Marl B

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 12.2

7570.1

Potstand

19/23/32

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 12.3

Table 1 continued

118

Julia Budka

ATP No.

Label

Location

Fabric

5318.1

Potstand

25/1/1

Marl C

uncoated

Surface

early 18th Dyn.

Date

Fig. 12.4

5360.5

Potstand

30/1/4

Marl B

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 12.5

6552.6

Potstand

27/8/10

Nile B2

uncoated

early

18th

6904.1

Potstand

30/w. baulk

Marl B

uncoated

early

18th

7380.4

Potstand

27/17/24

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 13.2

5346.1

Potstand

30/1/2

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 13.7

5142.1

Potstand

ANOB 1/1/3

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 13.3

6668.2

Potstand

28/4/10

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 13.8

5166.1

Potstand

21/3/4

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 13.4

7648.2

Potstand

25/6/8

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 13.9

5630.2

Potstand

24/1/4

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 13.5

5508.3

Potstand

21/3/9

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 13.6

7592.2

Potstand

19/24/34

Nile B2

white washed

early

5624.2

Pedestal bowl /Burner

24/1/2

Nile D2

exterior white plastered

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 3.12

5142.2

Pedestal bowl /Burner

ANOB 1/1/3

Nile B2

white wash

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 3.14

6207.5

Pedestal bowl /Burner

29/4/4

Nile B2

traces of white wash

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 3.15

6668.1

Ringstand

28/4/10

Nile D5

white washed

Ramesside

6352.7

Simple bowl

24/West Profile Cleaning

Nile B2

black rim band on red slipped

early–mid 18th Dyn.

Fig. 10.3

3928.13

Simple bowl

19/1/4

Nile B2

black rim band on red slipped

early–mid 18th Dyn.

Fig. 10.4

18th

18th

Fig.

Dyn.

Fig. 13.1

Dyn.

Fig. 13.10

Fig. 3.11

Dyn.

Fig.1.5

5870.15

Simple bowl

22/4/6

Nile B2

red washed in and out

early

Dyn.

Fig. 4.1

7397.8

Simple bowl

27/19/26

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 4.3

8086.4

Simple bowl

25/15/14

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 4.4

7499.6

Simple bowl

27/23/33

Nile B2

UCRS; in red burnished

early–mid 18th Dyn.

Fig. 4.8

6904.2

Simple bowl

30/w. baulk

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 4.9

8065.7

Simple bowl

25/14/13

Nile B2

red slipped in and out

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 5.1

4240.28

Simple bowl

19/1/12

Nile D2

red rim band

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 5.3

early–mid

18th

8037.3

Simple bowl

25/10/12

early

Nile B2

red rim band on uncoated

Fig. 5.5

Dyn.

Fig. 5.4

4015.18

Simple bowl

19/6/6

Nile D2

red rim band on uncoated¸ Thutmoside with splash decoration

5001.5

Simple bowl

ANOB 1/1/1

Nile B2

red rim band on uncoated¸ Thutmoside with splash decoration

Fig. 5.6

5179.1

Simple bowl

21/4/6

Nile B2

red slipped ent., out lower part uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 5.7

7741.2

Simple bowl

28/5/21

Nile B2

UCRS

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 4.2

10503.3

Simple bowl

33/4/12

Nile D2

red washed ent.

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 5.2

Thutmoside?

Fig. 10.5

5620.1

Storage jar

24/1/2

Marl A2

monochrome painted on uncoated ware

6410.5

Storage jar

19/15/30

Marl A2

BPRS

late 18th Dyn.?

Fig. 16.3

5335.1

Storage jar

26/1/2

Marl B

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 6.2

7928.1

Storage jar

28/2/24

Nile B2

red washed

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 6.3

5304.1

Storage jar

ANOB 1/1/4

Marl B

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 6.8

5044.3

Storage jar, funnelnecked

22/2/1

Nile D2

white washed

late 18th–19th Dyn.?

Fig. 6.4

4477.1

Zir

20/5/10

Marl C

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 6.1

18th

7642.1

Zir

25/6/8

Mixed A

uncoated

early

Dyn.

Fig. 6.5

4311.1

Zir/storage jar

20/8/13

Marl A4 var. 2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 6.6

Table 1 continued

The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002–2004: The New Kingdom Pottery

119

Bibliography ARNOLD, DO., BOURRIAU, J. (eds.) 1993 An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery, SDAIK 17, Mainz am Rhein. ASTON, D. 1992 Two Decorative Styles of the Twentieth Dynasty, CCÉ 3, 71–80. 1996 Tell Hebwa IV – Preliminary Report on the Pottery, E&L 6, 179–197. 1998 Die Keramik des Grabungsplatzes Q I. Teil 1, Corpus of Fabrics, Wares and Shapes, Forschungen in der Ramses Stadt. Die Grabungen des Pelizaeus-Museums Hildesheim in Qantir-Pi-Ramesse, Bd. 1, Mainz am Rhein. 1999 Elephantine XIX. Pottery from the Late New Kingdom to the Early Ptolemaic Period, AV 95, Mainz am Rhein. 2000 The Pottery from H/VI Süd Strata a and b: Preliminary Report, E&L 11, 167–196. 2006 Making a Splash. Ceramic Decoration in the reigns of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II, 65–74, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN, A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, OLA 149.1. ASTON, D., ASTON, B., BROCK, E.C. 1998 Pottery from the Valley of the Kings – Tombs of Merenptah, Ramesses III, Ramesses IV, Ramesses VI and Ramesses VII, E&L 8, 137–214. ASTON, D., ASTON, B., RYAN, D.P. 2000 Pottery from Tombs in the Valley of the Kings, KV 21, 27, 28, 44, 45 and 60, CCÉ 6, 11–38. AYRTON, E.R., CURRELLY, C.T., WEIGALL, A.E.P. 1904 Abydos III, EEF, London. BADER, B. 2001 Tell el-Dabca XIII. Typologie und Chronologie der Mergel C-Ton Keramik des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, UZK 19, Wien. BIETAK, M. 1966 Ausgrabungen in Sayala-Nubien 1961–1965. Denkmäler der C-Gruppe und der Pan-Gräber-Kultur, Berichte des Österreichischen Nationalkomitees der UNESCO-Aktion für die Rettung der Nubischen Altertümer III, DÖAW 92, Wien. 1972 Theben-West (Luqsor). Vorbericht über die ersten vier Grabungskampagnen (1969–1971), SÖAW 278, 4., Wien. 1991 Tell el-Dabca V. Ein Friedhofsbezirk der Mittleren Bronzezeitkultur mit Totentempel und Siedlungsschichten. Teil I. Unter Mitarbeit von Christa MLINAR und Angela SCHWAB, UZK 8, Wien. BOURRIAU, J. 1981 Umm el-Gacab, Pottery from the Nile Valley before the Arab Conquest, Cambridge. 1986/87 Cemetery and Settlement Pottery of the Second Intermediate period to Early New Kingdom, BES 8, 47–59. 1990a The Pottery, 15–22, in: P. LACOVARA, Preliminary Report on the Deir el Ballas Expedition 1980–86, ARCE, Winona Lake. 1990b Canaanite Jars from New Kingdom Deposits at Memphis, Kom Rabica, Eretz Israel 21, 18*–26*.

BOURRIAU, J., ASTON, D., RAVEN, M. J., VAN WALSEM, R. 2005 The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Commander-in-Chief of Tutcankhamun III, The New Kingdom Pottery, Excav. Mem. 71, London. BOURRIAU, J., DE MEYER, M., OP DE BEECK, L., VEREECKEN, S. 2005 The Second Intermediate Period and Early New Kingdom at Deir al-Barsha, E&L 15, 101–129. BREASTED, J.H. 1962 Ancient Records of Egypt, 5 vols., New York. BROVARSKI, E., DOLL, S.K., FREED, R.E. (eds.) 1982 Egypt’s Golden Age: The Art of Living in the New Kingdom (Catalogue), Boston. BRUNTON, G. 1930 Qau and Badari III, BSAE 1926, London. BRUNTON, G., ENGELBACH, R.E. 1927 Gurob, BSAE, ERA, London. BUCHEZ, N. 2004 Les vases à cuire de l’époque prédynastique à Adaïma : aspects techniques, économiques et culturels, CCÉ 7, 15–45. BUDKA, J. 2005 XII. Zur Keramik des Neuen Reiches – erste Beobachtungen anhand des Materials aus der Oststraße B II, 90–116, in: G. DREYER et al., Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 31./32. Grabungsbericht, MDAIK 61, 2005, 13–138. CURRELLY, C.T. 1904 The Shrine of Teta-Shera (CTC), 35–38; in: E. R. AYRTON, C. T. CURRELLY, A.E.P. WEIGALL 1904. FUSCALDO, P. 1999 Tell-Dabca X. The Palace District of Avaris, Area H/III, The Pottery of the Hyksos Period, Part I, Locus 66, UZK 16, Wien. 2002 Preliminary Report on the 18th Dynasty Pottery from cEzbet Helmi, Area H/III-t-u/17 (the Bathroom), E&L 11, 149–166. GUIDOTTI, M.C. 1978 A Proposito dei Vasi con Decorazione Hathorica, EVO 1, 105–118. HARVEY, S. 1998 The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Pennsylvania. 2004 New evidence of Abydos for Ahmose’s funerary cult, EA 24, 3–6. HEIN, I. 2002 Untersuchungen und vorläufige Bilanz zur Keramik aus cEzbet Helmi, Speziell Areal H/V, E&L 11, 121–147. HOLTHOER, R. 1977 New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites. The Pottery, SJE, Volume 5:1, Lund. HOPE, C. 1982 Blue-Painted Pottery, 88–89, in: E. BROVARSKI, S.K. DOLL, R.E. FREED, (eds.) 1982. 1987 Innovation and Decoration of Ceramics in the Mid-18th Dynasty, CCÉ 1, 97–122.

120

Julia Budka

1989

Pottery of the Egyptian New Kingdom – Three Studies, Victoria College, Archaeology Research Unit, Burwood. 1991 Blue Painted and Polychrome Decorated Pottery from Amarna: A Preliminary Corpus, CCÉ 2, 17–92. HULIN, L.C. 1984 Pottery Cult Vessels from the Workmens’ Village, 165–177, in: B. J. KEMP (ed.), Amarna Reports I, London. JACQUET-GORDON, H. 1981 A Tentative Typology of Egyptian Bread Moulds, 11–24, in: Do. ARNOLD (ed.), Studien zur altägyptischen Keramik, Mainz am Rhein. KEMP, B.J. 1977 An incised sherd from Kahun, Egypt, JNES 36, 1977, 289–292. MUNRO, I. 1988 Zum Kult des Ahmose in Abydos: ein weiterer Beleg aus der Ramessidenzeit, GM 101, 57–64. MYSLIWIEC, K. 1987 Keramik und Kleinfunde aus der Grabung im Tempel Sethos’ I in Gurna, AV 57, Mainz am Rhein. NAGEL, G. 1938 La céramique du Nouvel Empire à Deir el Médineh, Tome I, DFIFAO 10, Le Caire. NORDSTRÖM, H.A. and BOURRIAU, J. 1993 Ceramic Technology: Clays and Fabrics, 142–190, in: DO. ARNOLD, J. BOURRIAU (eds.) 1993. PEDEN, A.J. 1994 Egyptian Historical Inscriptions of the Twentieth Dynasty, Documenta Mundi, Aegyptiaca 3, Jonsered. PEET, T.E. and WOOLLEY, L.C. 1923 The City of Akhenaten I, EES Excavation Memoir 38, London. PETRIE, W.M.F. 1902 Abydos I, EEF 22, London. PINCH, G. 1993 Votive Offerings to Hathor, Oxford. PUMPENMEIER, F. 1998 Heqareschu-Hügel, 123–137, in: G. DREYER et al., Umm el-Qaab, Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 9./10. Vorbericht, MDAIK 54, 77–175. ROSE, P. J. 1984 The Pottery Distribution Analysis, 133–153, in: B.J. KEMP (ed.), Amarna Reports I, London. 1986 Pottery from the Main Chapel, 99–117, in: B.J. KEMP (ed.), Amarna Reports III, London. 2003 Ceramics from New Kingdom tombs: recording and beyond, 202–209, in: N. STRUDWICK, J.H. TAYLOR (eds.), The Theban Necropolis, Past, Present and Future, London.

DE SAINTILAN, M. 2000 Des cuisines de plein air localisées dans le secteur de la chapelle dite “de la Reine Blanche”, Memnonia 11, 169–178. SEILER, A. 1995 Archäologisch faßbare Kultpraktiken in Grabkontexten der frühen 18. Dynastie in Drac Abu elNaga/Theben, 185–203, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen. Neue Perspektiven archäologischer Forschung, Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 9.–13.6. 1993, SAGA 12, Heidelberg. 1997a VIII. Zur Datierung der Stadtmauer A2 und B des Neuen Reiches, 165–173, in: KAISER, W. et al., Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 23./24. Grabungsbericht, MDAIK 53, 117–193. 1997b Hebua I – Second Intermediate Period and Early New Kingdom Pottery, CCÉ 5, 23–33. 1999 Zur Formentwicklung der Keramik der Zweiten Zwischenzeit und der frühen 18. Dynastie, 204–224, in: KAISER, W. et al., Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 25./26./27. Grabungsbericht, MDAIK 55, 63–236. 2003 4. Bemerkungen zum Ende des Mittleren Reiches in Theben – Erste Ergebnisse der Bearbeitung der Keramik aus Areal H, 49–72, in: D. POLZ, A. SEILER, Die Pyramidenanlage des Königs Nub-Cheper-Re Intef in Draa Abu el-Naga, Ein Vorbericht, SDAIK 24, Mainz am Rhein. 2005 Tradition & Wandel. Die Keramik als Spiegel der Kulturentwicklung in der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, SDAIK 32, Mainz am Rhein. 2006 „Erhebe dich, Vater! ..., deine Milch dir, die in den Brüsten deiner Mutter Isis ist.“ Zu Form und Funktion einer Gruppe anthropomorpher Gefäße aus der Nekropole in Drac Abu el-Naga/Theben, 317–327, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN, A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines. Studies in honour of Manfred Bietak, OLA 149.1. SMITH, V. 2000 VII. Characteristics of Deposits and Ceramic Assemblage of the Production Zone, 118–122, in: J. WEGNER, 2000. STEINDORFF, G. 1937 Aniba II, Glückstadt. STRAUSS, E.-C. 1974 Die Nun-Schale – Eine Gefäßgruppe des Neuen Reiches, MÄS 30, München/Berlin. WEGNER, J. 1998 Excavations at the Town of Enduring-are-the-Placesof-Khakaure-Maa-Kheru-in-Abydos. A Preliminary Report on the 1994 and 1997 Seasons, JARCE 35, 1–44. 2000 The Organization of the Temple Nfr-KA of Senwosret III at Abydos, E&L 10, 83–125. WILLIAMS, B. 1992 New Kingdom Remains from Cemeteries R, V, S and W at Qustul and Cemetery K at Adindan, Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition, vol. VI, Chicago.

CANAANITES READING HIEROGLYPHS* Horus is Hathor? – The Invention of the Alphabet in Sinai By Orly Goldwasser This article is dedicated to the memory of Menakhem Shuval, a student at Tel Aviv University. Shuval wrote a Ph.D. thesis on local scarab production in Middle Bronze Age Canaan under the supervision of the late Pirhia Beck and myself. He concentrated on the definition of the local Canaanite scarab industry and collected hundreds of examples, which he divided into types of “specific Canaanite motifs.”1 His sudden death in December 1995 left behind a very extensive, unfinished manuscript, which comprises hundreds of pages of texts and plates and which has never been published. Many recent publications have confirmed his conclusions. May he rest in peace.

An early, yet very common, combination of signs on Middle Bronze Age scarabs is (Fig. 1). It is very frequently attested in Canaan and Byblos, but is rare in Egypt.2 It does not appear in the Uronarti collection or any other dated Egyptian example, and is known from Tell el-Dabca from two surface finds to date.3 This motif was by and large explained by scholars as a combination of the hieroglyph of the Horus falcon and a crudely executed n®r (R8) hieroglyph.4 Assessing the aggregate of hieroglyphic signs that appear on the Middle Bronze Age scarabs, it seems that the aggregate is built of signs which are connected either to the royal titles, royal names, or otherwise to good wish meanings.5 Unlike other non-iconic scripts, in the hieroglyphic script, single pictorial icons, which are easy

to identify by the uninitiated as well, carry full meanings6 such as “the king of Upper and Lower Egypt,” “life,7” “good,” “stability,” “gold,” “unification,” “His Majesty,” “protection,” etc.; all these signs may have simultaneously carried the additional prestige value “Egyptian” for their users. One should remember that even in Egypt only a very small percentage of the population could read and write: the estimated range is 1–3%.8 Yet probably every Egyptian, and many foreigners too, would have recognized these specific icons and would have understood their meaning. We can find the budding form of this usage on early scarabs.9 A basic repertoire of Egyptian signs on scarabs is represented by the corpora of Uronarti and Kahun.10 These local Egyptian corpora can clearly be shown to have borrowed their motifs from Egyptian Middle Kingdom jewelry, magic wands, coffins, and of course typical royal and pri-

* A shorter version of this article was presented at the conference “Grenzbereiche der Schrift, Neue Forschungen zur ägyptischen Kultur und Geschichte,” organized by the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften and held in Berlin on 19th January 2006. I am deeply indebted to Benjamin Sass for the fruitful discussions on the Protosinaitic script and his many helpful comments and suggestions. Thanks are also due to Claus Jurman from the Institute of Egyptology of the University of Vienna, who very skillfully aided me in editing this article and made useful suggestions. Finally, I would like to thank Niv Allon from the Department of Bible Studies of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for his contribution to the editorial work and to the reading of the Wadi el-Óôl inscriptions. The designations of the hieroglyphic signs in this article follow the sign list in GARDINER 1957: 438–548. 1 Beatrice Teissier mentioned his work writing “M. Shuval of Tel Aviv University is currently making a comparative study of Middle Bronze Age scarabs in order to deter-

mine which were Palestinian and which were Egyptian” (TEISSIER 1996: 15, n. 9). TUFNELL 1984: 118; BEN-TOR 1997: 179; MLINAR 2006: 214–218. BEN-TOR 1998: 159. TUFNELL 1984: 118; KEEL 1995: 172; BEN-TOR 1998: 159. For a recent elaborate discussion on this topic, see QUIRKE 2004. They are not symbols but are part of a writing system and thus have a stable signified in the language – they refer to a word or a combination of words. The anx sign (S34) is one of the most popular Egyptian hieroglyphs on cylinder seals. It also appears as a symbol of blessing at royal courts (e.g., Alalakh: BECK 2002: 81). Its attraction lies in the option of presenting the abstract notion “life” in a single, concrete, portable icon. BAINES and EYRE 1983. Mainly with the floral “unification” motif, see WARD 1978. TUFNELL 1975.

PART ONE: HORUS IS HATHOR?

2

3 4 5

6

7

8 9

10

122

Orly Goldwasser

Fig. 1 Canaanite scarabs with the motif (after KEEL 2004: 88, figs. 57–60)

vate stelae. Yet the rich repertoire that makes its appearance during the Hyksos period in Tell elDabca and Canaan must have made use of additional sources and a different semiotic tradition.11 One wonders whether Canaanites outside Egypt were exposed to genuine Egyptian inscriptions, besides the scarab repertoire. Should this have been the case, one should ask which genres of Egyptian inscriptions might have served as sources of influence,12 and where the encounter might have taken place. Possible loci of encounter could have been royal and private inscriptions in Byblos13 or the Eastern Delta – the fertile land which was always an eminent goal of Canaanite nomads and immigrants, and which during the late Middle Kingdom witnessed a back-and-forth movement of Canaanites in great numbers.14 If we take the Hathor temple in Sinai and its inscriptions as an example of an Egyptian temple-site in

11

12 13

14

15

On this tradition, see the various studies of Keel, e.g., KEEL 1989a. For the Tell el-Dabca industry, see MLINAR 2004. KEEL 1995: 167–168. On Byblos and Ras Shamra/Ugarit as centers for the diffusion of Egyptian art (part of which may have reached Palestine), see BECK 2002: 66 and passim. For an inscription with Hathor nbt Kbn, “Mistress of Byblos,” from Byblos, see MONTET 1928: 35, fig. 6. Bietak has recently identified an Early Bronze Age temple of Asiatic type in the Delta, see BIETAK 2003; also BIETAK 1998. For a compelling example of such a loan, see KEEL 1995: 224; see also KEEL 1989a: passim. On Egyptian

the Levant during the Middle Bronze Age (even if of unusual dimensions), we may observe that already a limited number of typical Middle Kingdom stelae and other inscriptions may be sufficient to yield all the Egyptian signs and symbols that can be identified on Canaanite scarabs. From the life-long cultural studies of Othmar Keel and his school, it may be observed that the new iconographic aggregate on Middle Bronze Age scarabs, which surpasses the repertoire of original Egyptian topics, is comprised of images that have meaning and high priority within the Canaanite cultural sphere, such as the Goddess, her branch, her caprids, variations of the weathergod or his lion, the ruler, ruler and attendant, pairs of gods in entangled positions, god and worshiper, etc.15 It seems that Egyptian gods were incorporated into this productive and innovative Canaanite aggregate only if they carried a meaning for the Canaanite holder or beholder.16 The rare occurrences of Ptah may point to his popularity in northern Egypt, and may hint at the possibility of a Ptah cult in Canaan, already in the Middle Bronze Age.17 A dominant image of a Hathor-like goddess, even in her most “Egyptian” representations, was probably identified by the Canaanites with their own Goddess, as Silvia Schroer ingeniously showed.18 One wonders, in this context: what was the meaning and the cultural appeal of the repetitive combination for the Canaanite holder of the seal? The falcon is a popular image in the scarab repertoire. It appears in two main variations: a. A falcon-headed human being. b. A bird-form falcon.

16

17

18

motifs on Middle Bronze Age cylinder seals, see EDER 1995 and TEISSIER 1996. In her thinking on Canaanite art and culture, BECK devoted special attention to questions on the semiotic procedures and translations involved in the “copying” of Egyptian symbols by Canaanite/Syrian craftsmen, see BECK 2002. It was suggested that a temple of Ptah existed in Ashkelon in the Late Bronze Age, see HELCK 1971: 443; on Ptah on Middle Bronze Age scarabs, see KEEL 1989b: 286–291; KEEL 1995: 213–214 and 241–242; MLINAR 2001: 224–226. Ptah was very popular in the Sinai inscriptions of the Middle Bronze Age. SCHROER 1989.

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 123

Keel, in various publications, has strongly argued that these two icons had kept their Egyptian meaning. He interprets the falcon-headed human being as the Egyptian god Horus,19 and not the Canaanite god Hauron as suggested previously by other scholars.20 A detailed survey of the appearances of the human-headed Horus-like images in the Near East and of his Canaanite attributes leads Keel to the suggestion that Horus was identified for a long time in Syria and Canaan with the weather-god (Baal), and that it is this identification that triggered his appearance on large numbers of typical Canaanite scarabs.21 The occurrences of the scarabs with the bird-form falcon or similar birds seem to be, in his opinion, variations on this topic. This identification presents one difficulty, as it is not clear when and how the “switch” from Horus-Baal to Seth-Baal took place. King Nehesi of Avaris had pledged alliance to Seth.22 Does this fact suggest that the weather-god was already identified with Seth in Avaris before the time of the “Great Hyksos”? A scarab lately discovered by Claude Doumet-Serhal at Sidon mentions , %tx nb IAii, “Seth, Lord of IAii.”23 The name of the land IAii has the classifier. The owner of the scarab carries a West Semitic name. Jean Yoyotte dates the scarab to the end of the 12th Dynasty.24 From this new find one may conclude that Seth, probably identified with Baal, was worshiped in a region somewhere on the Lebanese coast as early as the end of the 12th Dynasty.25 The solution to the Horus/Seth incongruity may be that Horus-Baal and Seth-Baal rep-

resent two competing repertoires. The HorusBaal may have originated in what Keel would call Volksreligion26 before the Hyksos period. The competing Seth-Baal identification may have been born or adopted in the court circles in the Delta and/or Byblos. The question that still remains unanswered is the “why” question, viz., why would some power holders choose to promote Seth’s position by identifying him with Baal, and make him their own primary god. Also, during the New Kingdom the maintenance of the Baal-Seth identification is mostly related to the royal circles. Schneider suggests that Baal was promoted to the god of the Egyptian kingship by Amenophis II.27 The 19th Dynasty kept the closest relations with Seth. The famous 400-Year Stela not only presents Seth as a personal god of Ramesses II, but also reports an official “ascent” to the throne of Seth aA p˙ty (“great of power”), i.e., the inauguration of the kingship of Seth is regarded as an official royal event.28 In the official repertoire of the New Kingdom, we find awe and reverence for Seth. Yet the picture in the Volksreligion might have been different. During the Hyksos times, Seth appears rarely on scarabs, and remains a rarity during the New Kingdom. He is also almost absent from the “Figurines Universe,” which is a window into the religious beliefs of the lower class,29 and is not very common on private stelae of the New Kingdom, very much unlike less central Canaanite gods, such as the sphinx Hauron-Harmakhis.30

19

25

20

21 22 23 24

In her article titled “Image and Identity: Egypt’s Eastern Neighbors, East Delta People and the Hyksos,” Dorothea Arnold suggests on the ground of various drawings in the pyramid of Lisht that the Asiatics who worked in Egypt in the pyramid project venerated the god Sokar (ARNOLD, DO. forthcoming). In his more recent book, Keel is somewhat more obscure in his identification and sees it as a CanaaniteEgyptian combination of the royal god Horus and the Canaanite royal god; see KEEL 1998: 41. KEEL 1989a: 244–277, esp. 276. BIETAK 1984; BIETAK 1990. LOFFET 2006. I am grateful to Professor Jean Yoyotte for the information concerning the date of the scarab. The scarab is entirely Egyptian in style and the perfect hieroglyphs show a rare high level of “Egyptianness.”

Going back to the beginning of our discussion, to the Horus sign group, we shall try to reach

26

27 28 29

30

Compare here the cylinder seal with Seth nb […] dated by Collon (cited by Teissier) to the eighteenth century BCE; see TEISSIER 1996: 18–19 with fig. 77. KEEL 1989b: 291 and passim. The identification might have happened in the center of the repertoire (e.g., courts) and only then moved to the fringe Volksreligion domain. Horus does not appear in the literary tradition of the Ancient Near East, whereas the “Canaanite connections” of Hathor, for example, are well documented in literature and in material culture. SCHNEIDER 2003: 161. MONTET 1933; STADELMANN 1986. The fate of Seth in the Late Period may be the result of his “detachment” from popular beliefs. STADELMANN 1967: 76–88; ZIVIE-COCHE 2002: 55–78.

124

Orly Goldwasser

Fig. 3 A scarab from Megiddo (LOUD 1948: pl. 150, no. 104)

Fig. 2 Depiction of sistra from the Middle Kingdom, Meir (BLACKMAN 1915: pl. XV)

the meaning of the combination. It is important to note that the combination appears in a large array of variations.31 The common opinion that we have here a coupling of a Horus and a badly executed nTr sign is very unconvincing. It is hard to identify the semantic or cultural reason for the possible attachment of the Horus and the nTr sign. If we asked ourselves, what are the possible sources of borrowing for this popular combination, we would quickly find ourselves in a blind alley. The coupling of these two signs has hardly any Egyptian equivalent, and is generally very uncommon in Egyptian inscriptions.32 Another option, put forward by Keel,33 who reads the combination as falcon sign and a qnbt “corner” sign (O38), has no meaning or parallels in Egyptian, and the falcon (or the onbt hieroglyph) is mostly placed in the wrong direction from the point of view of correct hieroglyphic writing. In a chapter of his thesis, dated 18.4.94, Menakhem Shuval offered a new direction. Basing his conclusions on comparisons to scenes from Meir, which show a combination of motifs frequent on Canaanite scarabs – Hathor heads,

31

32

Christa Mlinar is preparing a catalogue of all occurrences; see MLINAR forthcoming, Chapter V. In the Egyptian material, the only prominent place where the combination repeatedly appears during this period is the Horus name of Sesostris III (BECKERATH 1999: 85). An observer with a limited knowledge of Egyptian may couple incorrectly the falcon and the nTr, “god,” sign, which begins the Horus name , whereas the falcon is in reality only the antecedent of the first royal name and thus a constant, while the fol-

shrines, and falcons (Fig. 2) – he suggests seeing in our combination a “Canaanite representation of the name of Hathor.” He correctly compares the frequent appearance of the in a shrine-like motif to a green jasper scarab from Megiddo (Fig. 3), in which the shrine houses a branch or tree, a clear symbol of the Canaanite Goddess. Shuval ends his discussion by suggesting that the combination may be a Canaanite variant of the name of the goddess Hathor, suggesting Byblos as the source of influence. In the eyes of the (Canaanite) beholder? The spelling of the name Hathor, the female Goddess par excellence, the goddess of love, music, and turquoise, is something of a surprise for the uninitiated, even today. The iconic values of the signs involved in the writing of her name have no inherent feminine semantic value. They consist of a square and a falcon inside the square. Within the big square there is another little square in the corner ( ) (O10).34 The initiated knows that the square is a building or enclosure which carries the phonetic value Hwt, but also the iconic meaning “residence.” The falcon stands for the phonetic value Hr, but also retains its iconic meaning of the “divine falcon.” Thus, Hathor, the divine mother of Horus, is metaphorically named

33 34

lowing signs may change ad infinitum. Another theoretical and very unfeasible suggestion would be that the combination means Horus + nTr as [DIVINE] classifier. Such a reading would require a very advanced knowledge of the hieroglyphic system, and is very rare even in Egypt. For this classifier, see recently GOLDWASSER 2006: 270–274. KEEL 1995: 172. On the meaning of the hieroglyph, see ATZLER 1972: 17–44 and BIETAK 1979: 141.

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 125

“the Residence of Horus.” In Figs. 4–6 below, we see a collection of variations of writing of the name “Hathor” in Egyptian inscriptions from Egypt and Sinai: The collection of examples in Figs. 4, 5 and 6 is by no means comprehensive, and contains material from only a few sources. Yet even within this rather limited corpus the variations are striking. The name of the goddess Hathor can be written with the bird standing outside the square, with an additional phonetic complement t (X1) within the square, and the “corner” on the side of the square has no real fixed position and may “travel” around within the square. In the example of Fig. 5c, the bird is replaced by the icon (D2,

Fig. 4 Writings of Hathor from Egypt (private stelae from Giza, Naga ed-Der, and of unknown provenance, Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period) (a: LUTZ 1927: pl. 20, no. 38; b–d: ibid.: pl. 15, no. 28; e: BUDGE 1913: pl. 46, no. 318)

b)

c)

a)

d)

Fig. 5 Middle Kingdom examples of the writing of Hathor from Sinai (a: Sinai I: pl. XLIV, no. 102, e. face; b: ibid.: pl. XXXVI, no. 118, l. 2; c: ibid.: pl. XXII, no. 80, left side, l. 3; d: ibid.: pl. XVI, no. 47, col. 2)

126

Orly Goldwasser

b)

standing outside the shrine) that also carries the phonetic value Hr, and the name of the goddess takes as classifier the icon , “cobra,” (I12) a classifier of female goddesses from the Old Kingdom on.35 In Fig. 5d, a different building (reversed Serekh building?) replaces the original sign (O6). The Horus is now within the building, but in the company of the cobra classifier and the epithet of the goddess nbt mfkAt, “The Mistress of Turquoise.” We can postulate that owing to the clear iconic value of the signs creating the name of Hathor, and their surprising mobility, the uninitiated could have easily learned to recognize the name of the important goddess. Yet lacking the understanding and religious background of the hieroglyphic system, such an observer might have seen in the name three (or four) separate elements: 1. A Horus falcon (see also Fig. 7a–b).

(G5) or a generic “bird”

2. A small half-square sign (O38a) that may appear in different places (and sometimes also a “half circle” ).

35 36

d)

Fig. 6 Sinai inscriptions no. 28 (a, b–c: details of col. 1 and 3) and no. 29 (d) (a: Sinai I: pl. XII, no. 28; b: ibid., col. 1; c: ibid., col. 3; d: ibid.: pl. X, no. 29, cols. 1–2)

a)

3. A frame

c)

.

SHALOMI-HEN 2006: 151. E.g., PETRIE 1917: pl. XI, nos. 611–612; BEN-TOR 1997:

The fact that the corner is mobile and that the bird can “step out” of the square may have enhanced the feeling of three separate elements. The “half square” may be understood as a free element that could be put in different positions and locations, or not be there at all (e.g., Fig. 5b above). The t examples may have contributed to the location of the “half square” behind the bird’s back. The square frame can be easily dispensed with, especially when an alternative “frame” is created in many cases by other design elements such as the “shrine” motif.36 On an 18th Dynasty sistrum from Deir elBahari the Hwt hieroglyph is exchanged for a different building, a typical shrine (Fig. 8). However, in this example, unlike in the Canaanite versions, the Egyptian artist creates a meaningful iconic variation as he understands the hieroglyphic principle, recognizes the Hwt as an architectural element, and then toys with the icons by exchanging the hieroglyph, which may represent the plan of a building (the little half square could represent a doorway at the side), with the side view of another building, a shrine. On the same sistrum, we see two adjacent

178, 5. For a comprehensive study on this motif, see MLINAR forthcoming.

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 127

a)

b)

Fig. 7 Hathor written with owl or duck; a: sphinx with bilingual inscription from the temple; b: graffito from Rod elcAîr (a: BRIQUEL-CHATONNET 1998: 57, fig. 45 [after a photography by F. Le Saout]; b: Sinai I: pl. XCIII, no. 507)

falcons which are strongly reminiscent of similar compositions on scarabs. An interesting comparison can be observed in Ptolemaic texts from the Hathor temple at Dendera:37 The word “Hathor” is mostly written in the texts in the prototypical way (Fig. 9a). Yet in example b the scribe exchanges the Horus bird with the hieroglyph Hr , “face,” which should be read here only as a phonetic signifier – the iconic meaning “face” should be discarded. In the last example he takes the next step into the realm of “visual poetics,”38 as he changes the prototypical generic Hr icon into the specific face of Hathor, thus referring not only to the phonetic Hr, but also to the full signified ¡wt-Hr, which would otherwise be attained only by adding the Hwt sign. How-

ever, this kind of writing does not create a real redundant information structure, but adds the idea of “Hathor in her shrine,” already hinted at by the 18th Dynasty artist who created the sistrum discussed above. We cannot conclude the discussion without mentioning a small number of examples in which the “half square” sign looks like the Egyptian nTr hieroglyph.39 I would suggest seeing in these rare versions a sort of hypercorrection of a school that recognizes the non-existence of the half-square sign in the Egyptian decorum.40 In all examples of this particular variation, the other hieroglyphs forming part of the decoration of the scarabs are relatively clear and well executed, and adhere to the minimal requirements of what seems to be the “Canaanite decorum” of hieroglyphs.

Fig. 8 Hathor sistrum of the 18th Dynasty (SCHROER 1989: 166, fig. 0150)

Fig. 9 Writings of “Hathor” in the temple of Dendera (a: CHASSINAT and DAUMAS 1972: 174, l. 1; b: ibid.: 174, l. 9; c: ibid.: 174, l. 11)

37

38 39

I am grateful to Claus Jurman for calling my attention to this text. See GOLDWASSER 1995: 60–62 and passim. E.g., PETRIE 1917: pl. XI, nos. 615, 617–618; KEEL 1997:

40

383, no. 820. Another possible example is suggested by Shuval, an unusually big (but broken) scarab from Byblos, see DUNANT 1950: pl. CCI, no. 12087. See also BEN-TOR 1998: 159.

128

Orly Goldwasser

Fig. 10 Scarabs from Tell el-Ajjul (a–b), from the market (Jerusalem) (c), and from Qatna (d) (a: after GIVEON 1985: 67, no. 21/L.1061 with fig.; b: TUFNELL 1984: 277, pl. IX, no. 1470; c: after KEEL 1980: 261, fig. 64; d: AL-MAQDISSI 2001: 152, fig. 7)

Going back to Shuval, he went one step further, suggesting that “the wide-spread occurrence of falcon and falcon-like birds in the scarab iconography of the Middle Bronze Age in Canaan may refer, at least in a large number of cases, to the signified ‘Hathor’ and not to Horus, and thus may be seen as a part of the widespread cult of the ‘Goddess’ in Canaan,41 whoever she was.” What did the Canaanites mean when they drew a “Horus” bird – Horus or Hathor? For the Canaanites, the Egyptian rules of the script were irrelevant and of no interest. The dividing line between a developed script system and a symbolic system (that may use the very same signs) is the adherence of a script to a repetitive closed aggregate of signs. For the script to function successfully, these signs should be as repetitive as possible, as Sethe ingeniously stated already in 1935: “In der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift herrscht, wo wir sie kennen lernen, d.h. zu Beginn der geschichtlichen Zeit, schon ganz allgemein die festgeprägte Form des Begriffszeichens, die das Kennzeichen einer wirklichen Bilderschrift im Unterschied zu der primitiven Bildverwendung der schriftlosen Völker bildet. Jedes einzelne Element der Rede wird durch ein isoliert dastehendes Bild ausgedrückt, das seine Form, seinen Tapus [sic! read: Typus], unter allen Umständen, ohne jede Rücksicht auf den Zusammenhang behält.“42

41

42

43 44

Schroer concludes that the name of the Goddess remains uncertain (SCHROER 1989: 196–197). Hathor is called in Sinai “Baalat”. SETHE 1935: 12. See detailed discussion in GOLDWASSER 1995. See ZIFFER 1998: 33*–88*. Another alluring symbol of the Goddess is the suckling

Every important entity in the Canaanite religious world had a set of symbols belonging to it, besides its full pictorial representation. The Canaanite Goddess had, besides her pictorial representations, a set of symbols intimately connected with her. Some of the symbols are synecdochal representations (pars pro toto – pubic triangle for the whole Goddess) and some metonymic, such as the twig and the dove,43 which were closely related to her.44 The same logic of signification may have been employed by the Canaanites in reaction to the icons involved in the spelling of Hathor’s name. They are not iconic signifiers that should lead the reader to the phonetic signifiers Hwt and Hr, but “free icons” – a square, a bird, and a little corner sign that “belong” to the Goddess. Thus, very frequently the bird is not exactly a falcon, but rather an owl or a duck (see Fig. 7). In one example from Tell el-Ajjul (Fig. 10a), it actually looks like a fledgling duck. On this last scarab, in front of the duck-bird, there is a sign that is reminiscent of the t. The Hwt shrine has turned into a floating shrine on a cobra-boat (a “remnant” of the cobra classifier?). A Horus bird appears below with anx signs and the “corner” sign. In the other examples (Fig. 10b–d) we may find an open square, a stool-like item (h-d-m), or a shrine.45 The corner may “travel around” freely, be repeated or omit-

45

cow; see, e.g., KEEL and UEHLINGER 1998: 40, fig. 31a, and lately ORNAN 2005: 160–163 with bibliography. This image is a logogram in the Egyptian hieroglyphic script with the reading Ams, “to show solicitude,” see GOLDWASSER 2005: 105–106. All the examples above were listed by Shuval.

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 129

Fig. 11 Free-moving “corner” symbols of Hathor on scarabs (a–b: after KEEL 1995: 201, figs. 376–377; c: ibid.: 199, fig. 371)

Fig. 12 New examples of “Hathor-scarabs” (a–c: after KEEL 2004: 90, figs. 65–67)

Chronological and Historical Implications,”46 which contains an article by Othmar Keel on Canaanite motifs on Middle Bronze Age scarabs. Inter alia, he publishes three scarabs from the collection of the Department of Biblical Studies of the University of Fribourg (Fig. 12). These scarabs prove unequivocally that Shuval’s theory is indeed correct. Keel does not fail to perceive the importance of these new examples and writes “This composition reminds the spectator of the traditional Egyptian way of writing the name of the goddess Hathor . . . The falcon with the angle on the B2-head group is probably best understood as a debased (my italics) form of the name of Hathor.”47 EXCURSUS – SINAI INSCRIPTION 28

When this article was in preparation, I received the volume “Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete and the Levant:

An extreme and unusual set of examples of the writing of the word ¡wt-Hr comes from Sinai inscription 28 (Fig. 6a–c), which dates to year 42 of Amenemhat III. This rock-carved inscription from Wadi Maghârah in Sinai is one of the rare inscriptions that contain a grammatical mistake in Egyptian: the indirect object n ¡wt-Hr (col. 5) precedes the direct object.48 The hieroglyphs of the inscription are very awkward, they vary in size and order, and hardly any hieroglyph appears in the same shape twice. Some hieroglyphs are unidentifiable, e.g., the sign after the word “Hathor” in column 5.49 The inscription contains several occurrences of the name of the goddess ¡wt-Hr. Two of them have been set apart for special discussion by us in Fig. 6b–c. The first example (Fig. 6b) from col. 1 of the inscription presents an oversized Horus bird standing above and outside the Hwt sign.50 The Hwt sign

46

49

ted. All three signs together, or only two of them, or even one, may refer in a symbolic way to the Goddess. Indeed, in many Middle Bronze Age scarabs we find not only a representation of the Horus bird by itself, but also “corner” signs as part of the design or the hieroglyphic or “pseudo-hieroglyphic” aggregates of signs (Fig. 11). It is to Menakhem Shuval that credit must be given for the pioneering insight and originality that showed us this otherwise hidden facet of Egyptian-Canaanite cultural contact. It is only due to his untimely death that our debt to him has gone unacknowledged until now. Postscript

47 48

BIETAK and CZERNY 2004. KEEL 2004: 89. Noted in Sinai II: 69, n. g. See also discussion below, p. 144.

50

The text is written in the “expedition paleographical dialect,” see below, p. 132, n. 60, and p. 143–144. Compare here an inscription from Faras, see KARKOWSKI 1981: 78–80.

130

Orly Goldwasser

has become in this case a small square, with a corner in a detached position (as on the scarabs!) and with a relatively big accompanying t sign. Almost the same writing is repeated in column 2. Fig. 6c presents another variation. In this case, the Hwt appears as a square with three squares inside, which are of uneven form. The t appears outside the Hwt and the big Horus bird appears at the end of the combination. In these examples, the writer plays freely on the theme frame + elements inside or outside the frame (the “corner” sign appears in a correct position just once), while a very big, dominant Horus is always hovering above independently, overriding the small Hwt. There is good reason to assume that the writers of this inscription may have been Canaanites with a limited knowledge of Egyptian and hieroglyphs, yet were able to write by themselves. The inscription is made of simple short phrases. The hieroglyphs show the same concepts that were operative in the scarabs of the Middle Bronze Age. The elements work separately: the “corner” is detached from the Hwt and the Horus is strongly visually conceptualized as the dominant element in the name of Hathor. It is easy to detect here an attitude to the signs that is similar to that which we see on the scarabs: the primacy of Horus, his clear detachment from the Hwt sign, and the free-floating half corner. PART TWO – CANAANITES READING HIEROGLYPHS – THE INVENTION OF THE ALPHABET IN SINAI The imaginative “Canaanite reading” of Egyptian hieroglyphs, manifested in the Canaanite scarab production and to some extent in Sinai inscription 28 (Fig. 6a–c), was carried even further. In an experimental and highly creative move, the attitude described in Part I led to one of the greatest inventions in the history of civilization – the invention of what will be later called the “Alphabetic Script.” The “Canaanite reading” is characterized by:

iconic meaning of graphemes in the hieroglyphic script. 2. Use of the loaned grapheme in a “free” way, in a completely different context, and in order to refer to referents in the Canaanite culture or language, with no consideration of the rules of the original Egyptian script. In the “Canaanite reading” procedure which was exemplified in the first part of this article, in the case of ¡wt-Hr, a complex Egyptian hieroglyphic structure, which obtains meaning by the assignment of Egyptian iconic and/or Egyptian phonetic signifieds to iconic signifiers, is put aside. Instead, the parts of the sign are recycled as independent signs and are read anew separately. The Horus bird, the shrine and the “corner” signs become free, unbound elements. They retain their iconic meanings – shrine or square, Horus and corner – and accordingly, they occur in compositions referring to their newly assigned iconic meanings. However, in many cases they are activated at the same time as symbols – each of them (not only the full combination) may refer metonymically to the original whole – Hathor or the Goddess. Other Egyptian signs on Canaanite scarabs may have referred to their iconic meanings alone and not to the Egyptian phonetic signifier/signified prescribed by the hieroglyphic script system. Graphemes that make part of the so-called a-n-r-a group51 (see, e.g., Fig. 1352) are usually identified by scholars as degenerate imitations of Egyptian signs. These signs carry, in Egyptian, meanings such

a)

b)

1. An idiosyncratic Canaanite identification (i.e., according to a Canaanite interpretation) of an

Fig. 13 Examples of a-n-r-a scarabs from Tell el-Ajjul (a) and Jericho (b) (a: after KEEL 1997: 311, no. 615; b: SCANDONE MATTHIAE 2004: 196, fig. 2.7)

51

52

On this type of scarabs, see the recent monograph by Richards 2001.

In Fig. 13 the water sign (N35) is represented by the simplified versions , (as with many other scarabs and small stelae of this period).

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 131

(D36 = icon – forearm), mono-consonant a, (D37 = icon – hand with bread offering), phonetic value rdi, meaning “to give,” (N35 = icon – water) mono-consonant n, (X1 = icon – bread), mono-consonant t, or (D21= icon – mouth), mono-consonant r. However, in “Canaanite reading” these signs might have acquired a purely iconic reading, and thus a different meaning. The hieroglyphs and would mean “giving an offering,” the would mean simply “water” or “drink.” The various signs that look like uneven or may refer literally to “bread,” “cake,” or the like. Thus, this little “inscriptions” may have acquired meaning for the uninitiated user in daily life and especially in the grave, where most scarabs were found.53 Some other signs may have belonged to the pictorial koine of the region, making their way not only through Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions, but also through non-Egyptian media such as the cylinder seals of the 2nd millennium.54 In cases such as anx (S34) and nfr (F35), the signs may have retained their original Egyptian meaning, yet not necessarily the correct or complete Egyptian phonetic reading. In such cases, the beholder may have identified the “meaning” of the sign, but may have translated it to his or her own language.55 In the last examples above, we have already postulated the existence of Egyptian hieroglyphs (signifiers) on scarabs that carry signifieds other than their original, Egyptian-bound signifieds. The road to the reconstruction of the invention of the alphabet is now clear, once an uninitiated as

53

54

55

56

Many a-n-r-a combinations include the Htp “offeringtable” (R4) hieroglyph among the other signs; see, e.g., Fig. 13b. For a discussion on the origin of the ˙tp sign on the a-n-r-a scarabs, see BEN-TOR 1997: 175–176. This sign enhances the meaning “offering”. On the funerary use of scarabs in Egypt and especially in Canaan, see KEEL 1996: 120–121 and BEN-TOR 1997: 187–188. EDER 1995; TEISSIER 1996. In order to explain Egyptian motifs on Syrian cylinder seals and ivory inlays during the 18th and 17th centuries BCE, Bietak suggests movement of Canaanite artists from the Levant to Egypt and back, see BIETAK 1998. Also today the an∆ sign is broadly identified in many parts of the world as an “Ancient Egyptian sign with a positive meaning,” yet hardly anyone knows the ancient phonetic value of the sign. Gardiner, Cerný, and Peet published most of the

eye has released the Egyptian graphemes from the bonds of a script system into being free iconic signs that may acquire new “names” or meanings in a different language or languages. The Protosinaitic script – a short introduction56 The regnal years of Amenemhat III and IV were distinguished by the attention and effort the two kings invested in building up the Delta and strengthening Egypt’s relations with the Canaanite world. Expensive royal gifts were sent to Byblos,57 and the mining and building projects in Sinai reached a new peak. It was at this time that Asiatics began to settle at the site of what would later be ¡wt-wart (Avaris) in greater numbers, probably with the blessings of the Egyptian kings.58 Far from the Delta, bustling activity in Sinai brought together architects, high officials, builders, miners, physicians, scorpion charmers, translators, and many scribes and soldiers of all ranks and levels.59 From the relatively transparent texts from the temple area and the mines, mostly dating from the late Middle Kingdom, we learn of many Asiatics of different ranks that took part in this activity. In the center of the mining area, the Egyptian state erected a temple that was constantly rebuilt and enlarged by the Egyptian official administration and was adorned by royal and private stelae of all sorts. The temple area preserves hundreds of good quality hieroglyphic inscriptions, many of them showing excellently executed hieroglyphs, made by professional scribes trained in

57 58

59

inscriptions in a publication, here cited as Sinai I–II. For a recent book about the temple, with excellent pictures, some new finds, and a history of research at the site, see VALBELLE and BONNET 1996. See LILYQUIST 1993. BIETAK 1996 and ARNOLD, DO. forthcoming, n. 36. Gardiner, Cerný, and Peet suggested that the expeditions to the mines started from the Delta (Sinai II: 16). The pottery that was analyzed by Valbelle and Bonnet comes from the Delta and Canaan (oil-jars); in charge of the expeditions is an imy-r tA-mHw, “overseer of Lower Egypt;” see VALBELLE and BONNET 1966: 57, 18. Not a few soldiers were able to read and write, even if only in a limited fashion, i.e., their knowledge of the hieroglyphs was restricted and they tended to mix hieratic and hieroglyphs; see DARNELL et al. 2005; HAMILTON 2006.

132

Orly Goldwasser

hieroglyphic writing. Yet some private inscriptions were probably written by lesser scribes or by individuals with limited scribal education, as some “mixed” inscriptions testify.60 However, in contrast to desert road inscriptions in Egypt, which are comprised mainly of graffiti, the Sinai corpus, especially those texts originating in the temple area, was executed by professional hieroglyph writers. The Middle Kingdom text corpus in the temple and its surroundings is of special interest. The inscriptions are highly informative and give an overview of the expeditions,61 their members, and their activities. They point to a high level of involvement of the Egyptian state in the mining expeditions. Asiatics, probably of different social levels, are recorded as taking part in these expeditions. At least two expedition leaders openly stress their Asiatic origin, and the famous #bdd, “brother of a HoA n RTnw,” repeatedly appears in the inscriptions as part of the high-level official Egyptian team. Other Asiatics are mentioned on different occasions, and some soldiers appear with an Asiatic coiffure. One Asiatic can even be identified as holding a duckbill axe, a typically Asiatic weapon.62 Some other members of the expeditions have names that are not Egyptian and may be Asiatic. Hundreds of donkeys are mentioned and one may assume that Canaanite donkey drivers and caravan leaders were part of the expeditions. The important group of translators may have included people of Asiatic origin. Nevertheless, it is difficult to assess what proportion of the mining power was Asiatic, and

60

61 62 63

What may be called the “expedition script dialect” was first identified and studied (with a sign list) by ZÁBA 1974. It appears at many desert roads and mining areas, such as Wadi Hammâmât (COUYAT and MONTET 1913; GOYON 1957), Wadi el-Hudi (FAKHRY 1952; SADEK 1980), the Hatnub quarries (ANTHES 1928), Nubia (HINTZE and REINEKE 1989) and Wadi el-Óôl (DARNELL 2002). At the last site, they appear together with the Protocanaanite inscriptions (see DARNELL 2003; DARNELL et al. 2005 and discussion below). On the character of this script dialect in general, see ALI 2002; DARNELL et al. 2005 with bibliography. For a comprehensive list of sites with graffiti in Egypt, see PEDEN 2001. On the expeditions, see SEYFRIED 1981: 153–237. BIETAK 1992: 33–35. On the Asiatics during the Middle Kingdom in Sinai, see CERNÝ 1935, GARDINER 1961. The highest number of donkeys mentioned is 600 (Sinai 110). In Egypt, Asiatic

whether these people had the same “free” status as the Asiatics recorded in the hieroglyphic inscriptions.63 Hieroglyphic inscriptions are also known from the roads to the temple and around the mines, and in Wadi Maghârah and Rod el-cAîr. In Wadi Maghârah are found royal inscriptions from the Old Kingdom, which constitute very early evidence for mining activities at this site. However, the Old Kingdom inscriptions indicate a very different attitude toward the Asiatics. The king is constantly shown in the “Smiting the Asiatics” posture, which is emphatically absent from the Middle Kingdom repertoire in Sinai; the predominance of this posture stands in sharp contrast to the Asiatic-Egyptian coexistence during the late Middle Kingdom in this area. The Protosinaitic inscriptions form the largest collection of Protocanaanite inscriptions found to date. The large number of inscriptions is all the more impressive, given the scarcity of this sort of inscriptions at other sites. Only two one-line inscriptions have been discovered to date in Egypt, at Wadi el-Óôl, and none at any other site in Egypt, although many sites of rockinscriptions and graffiti are well documented. The only other find, the heddle jack from Lahun, remains disputed.64 In Canaan, the earliest dated find, the Lachish dagger, 65 belongs to the Middle Bronze Age IIB period, while other finds seem to follow at a very slow pace – only very short inscriptions containing a few lone signs are attested. The only reasonable explanation for such a

64

65

workers were involved in the tunneling of the Pyramid of Sesostris III; see ARNOLD, DI. 2002: 42–43, pls. 21c, 23a, b–d, 24–26. On the role of the Asiatics in Egypt during the Middle Kingdom, see SCHNEIDER 1998; 2003 and DARNELL et al. 2005: passim. See also AUFRÈRE 2002: 211. ALBRIGHT suggested the Protocanaanite inscriptions were written by Canaanite slaves working in the mines (ALBRIGHT 1966: 21, 138 [bottom]). The heddle is probably a Middle Kingdom find, yet no exact date can be provided; see discussion with bibliography in HAMILTON 2006: 330–331. Sass is of the opinion that “the signs do not resemble Proto-Canaanite letters of any date, let alone the earliest examples;” see SASS 1988: 104. Some scholars question the identity of the script on the dagger. SASS identifies only two signs as Protosinaitic, see SASS 1988: 54. Hamilton has a different understanding of the signs, see HAMILTON 2006: 303–304.

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 133

“boom” in this kind of writing in Sinai is that Sinai was the site of its invention. I would like to return to the suggestion that the “alphabetic” script was born in Sinai. This suggestion was already put forward in the early period of Protocanaanite research, at the beginning of the 20th century, by Gardiner, 66 but was cast aside in favour of various other theories and options.67 In his seminal monograph of 1988, Sass suggested Sinai and the Middle Kingdom to be the possible site and time of the invention of the “alphabetic” script. Yet, in a recent article, he proposes the New Kingdom (around 1300 BCE) as a possible date for the invention.68 Recent years have witnessed the dramatic discovery of the Wadi el-Óôl inscriptions by Deborah and John Darnell. In recent publications, Darnell has stressed his view that the root of the invention should be looked for in the “mixed” expedition scripts, which recorded (mostly on desert roads) names and events in a script containing a mixture of hieroglyphs, cursive hieroglyphs, and hieratic signs in different degrees of mélange.69 In a new book on the Protocanaanite inscriptions, Gordon Hamilton70 summarises his beliefs regarding the origin of the alphabet: the script was invented through the adoption of a mixture of Egyptian “scripts.” Some signs were taken from hieroglyphic prototypes, but others, in his opinion, were borrowed from purely hieratic forms. As some of his comparisons for the Protosinaitic graphemes, mostly from hieratic,71 lead him to postulate an invention date somewhere at the beginning of the 12th Dynasty, he had to suggest another site for the invention, as this date seems too early for Sinai. Hamilton finally cautiously suggests the Delta as the location of the invention. However, Avaris – Tell el-

Dabca,72 the flourishing Canaanite town, did not yet exist at the beginning of the 12th Dynasty, and there are no specific archaeological signs for settlements of Asiatics in significant numbers in this area that early.73 In his most recent discussion, John Darnell also assigns the Wadi el-Óôl inscriptions to the end of the 12th Dynasty. Yet as a result of what he analyses as the borrowing of prototypes from some early 12th Dynasty “cursive hieroglyphs” and hieratic signs in these short inscriptions,74 he places the invention of the alphabet at the beginning of the 12th Dynasty. We shall discuss this dating in more detail below. Some facts and suppositions about the Protosinaitic corpus and its possible producers:

66

73

67

68 69

70 71

72

GARDINER 1916; see also below n. 161. For the history of research, see SASS 1988: 3–7; GIVEON 1982; LEMAIRE 2000. SASS 2004/2005, 2005. DARNELL 2003 and DARNELL et al. 2005. For a bibliography for what I have called the “expedition script dialect,” see above, n. 60. HAMILTON 2006. HAMILTON 2006: 271–272. For his linkage of the Protosinaitic bet to early hieratic forms as his strongest indicator of a date at the beginning of the 12th Dynasty, see ibid.: 289–290. For the history of the site, see BIETAK 1996.

1. The writers show a low level of literacy of any kind. Letters vary in size, direction, and execution, sometimes in one and the same inscription (e.g., Sinai 35875). 2. The writers do not know how to read hieroglyphs.76 Anybody who was even moderately acquainted with hieroglyphic reading rules would not have written or read in the “wrong” direction. Hamilton correctly describes the Protosinaitic inscriptions as “anarchic by Egyptian standards.” 77 Thus, the inventors are only “beholders” or “users” of the hieroglyphs and by no means readers, and accordingly, the search for prototypes in hieratic papyri is methodologically wrong. Hieratic texts are a completely “sealed system” for the uninitiated beholder. The signs are much less iconic, and are difficult to identify. 3. As they did not know Egyptian, the inventors were not at all “distracted” by the mono-consonantal Egyptian option, which was well

74 75 76

77

For the early Middle Kingdom settlement, see CZERNY 1999. DARNELL et al. 2005. E.g., HAMILTON 2006: 357. Briquel-Chantonnet wonders why the “inventors” did not use the Egyptian mono-consonantal signs. BRIQUELCHANTONNET 1998: 58. HAMILTON 2006: 280 and 293. On p. 293, Hamilton describes the inscriptions as of “non-scribal quality, perhaps even amateurish.” Egyptian hieroglyphs should be read against the “face” of the signs (GARDINER 1957: 25–29). Indeed, sportive writings are known in Egyptian, but they are rare, and occur in sophisticated uses.

134

Orly Goldwasser

This break between the icon’s meaning (the letter “name”) and its end use (grapheme with the value of the first segment of the name only) finally caused a weakening of the iconicity level of the whole system, and indeed the correct pictorially meaningful grapheme would gradually change its form and, finally, lose the iconic connection to its “name.” Yet at the beginning, the mnemonic center of the system is the name of the grapheme, which at the early stages hints at the form of the grapheme. And as the relations between the name of the grapheme and its form are not arbitrary, the “name” keeps the road open

for the non-professional writer to remember and recreate the grapheme from his memory. The non-arbitrariness of the script would have been of crucial importance in its early phases. Operating as a “fringe cultural product,” the upkeep and the legacy of the script was not backed up by any institution (e.g., school, temple), and there was no establishment that might have been interested in promoting this popular invention. Sanders correctly refers to the script as “written vernacular.”80 It is not accidental that when the script is finally adopted by the establishment, the letters very quickly lose their last traces of iconicity. Schools, administrative institutions, and their scribes could afford to turn their back on iconicity in favour of a more cursive version, which finally eliminated the connection between the “name” of the letter and its form. Canaanites that would have learned the new script informally during the late Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age were probably far away from Sinai and Egypt (e.g., in Canaan). Yet they could reconstruct and remember the general form of the letters they had learned through the meaning of the names. Thus, it should not be surprising that the “head” grapheme on the Lachish dagger has no Egyptian characteristics,81 while some of the head signs in the Sinai inscriptions still retain traces of Egyptian coiffure. As far as the texts are decipherable,82 it seems that the inventors sought a way to convey their own names and titles and convey their personal relations to the Canaanite gods of their environment, Baalat and El. This cultural self-consciousness may be related to the emerging cultural phenomenon of Canaanite “national identity,” manifested, for example, in the monumental statue from the early Hyksos period in Tell el-Dabca and in other finds from this period, including scarabs.83

78

80

known and used also by the “lower echelon” of writers in Sinai for writing personal names.78 4. The inventors exercised the “Canaanite reading” procedure on signs they chose. For example, they ignored (or perhaps were ignorant of) the Egyptian phonetic reading of the “head” sign (= tp). Rather, they created a totally new sign which was composed of an Egyptian-like icon but refers to the Canaanite name of the icon, i.e., they gave it a new Canaanite phonetic reading – reš. In this way the system is “friendly” to speakers of the Semitic dialects, as the connection between signifier and signified is not arbitrary. Once the Canaanite user remembered the “head,” he would have been able to remember and produce the grapheme which is the picture of a head. At this stage, the inventors introduced a novelty, the fundamental semiotic process typical of the alphabet. The final phonetic reading was reduced to the first segment (i.e., consonant [or syllable]) of the Canaanite “name,” and the iconic signified (the meaning “head”) was discarded. In the case of reš, only the first consonant was retained, viz., r. The final meaning of the grapheme is only r.79

79

E.g., Sinai 92 (see Fig. 18). As a semiotic system, the newly invented script is much simpler than the hieroglyphic system. The same invariable semiotic procedure should be activated on every grapheme. Firstly comes the recognition of the icon, then the regeneration of its “name,” and then a reduction through the acrophonic measure. On the other hand, the hieroglyphic system always presents the reader with a plethora of semiotic processes that could be applied almost on each sign (logogram, phonogram [to be read or discarded as “phonetic complement”], or classifier, etc.).

81 82

83

SANDERS 2004: 25 and passim. For a picture, see SASS 1988: 140. For the latest effort in this direction, see the series of articles by COLLESS (1990, 1991). For a translation attempt of the new inscriptions of Wadi el-Óôl, see WIMMER and WIMMER-DWEIKAT 2001. Neither HAMILTON 2006 nor DARNELL et al. 2005 attempt to translate the texts anew. On this topic, see ARNOLD, DO. forthcoming. For Canaanite “personal piety” on scarabs, see KEEL 1989a: 277.

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 135

The Protosinaitic graphemes and their possible parallels in Sinai hieroglyphs84 Most graphemes which have already been identified in the Protosinaitic script may have found their origins in hieroglyphic prototypes of the late Middle Kingdom in Sinai. A smaller number of graphemes, e.g., p (pe) š (šin), and maybe q (qop) may have had referents not in the hieroglyphic script, but in objects that were part of the workers’ daily life.85 Some graphemes may reflect a combination of hieroglyphic prototypes and an actual referent. Such is the case of the bet grapheme which will be discussed in detail below, p. 143 (see also Table, 2). Our working hypothesis is that the hieroglyphic prototype should resemble the Canaanite grapheme only on the iconic level, as the inventors could not read Egyptian, and thus might have related to the hieroglyphs only as “pictures.” Most of the hieroglyphic prototypes could have been adopted from examples in Wadi Maghârah, Rod el-cAîr, and in the mine area. Nevertheless, some important examples come from inscriptions in the temple area, especially from Sinai 92 (Fig. 18). As four Protosinaitic inscriptions come from the temple area, three on small personal statues, and one on a female sphinx (Fig. 7a86), it seems that at least some of the writers of the Canaanite script had access to the temple area, even if it was restricted.87 Most of the hieroglyphic inscriptions considered by us as sources for prototypes date to the late reigns of Amenenhat III and Amenemhat IV. However, one should keep in mind that many inscriptions (hieroglyphic and probably also Protosinaitic) were most likely lost, and there is no way to calculate what percentage of the original material

84

85

86

GARDINER 1916, ULLMAN 1927, BUTIN 1936, and SASS 1988 advocated the origin of the alphabet in the hieroglyphs of Sinai. The option to see in the signs a combination of “real life” artifacts and a choice from Egyptian hieroglyphs was already put forward by DRIVER 1976: 156–171. This shinx is of great importance since it bears not only a Protosinaitic inscription, but also a short text in Egyptian hieroglyphs. The name of Hathor is spelled with an owl, a typically Canaanite writing. The shape of this owl closely resembles other cursive examples of Middle Kingdom owls from both Sinai and Egypt proper (see, e.g., Figs. 14, l. 2 and 3; 18b, l. 3). This fact may provide a clue to the date of the bilingual monument.

is still available today. Evidently, smaller objects, such as small stelae and other small finds that could be easily moved, were the first to disappear. I have limited my discussion of the Protosinaitic signs to those that have at least several repetitive occurrences in the Protocanaanite repertoire of signs.88 The identified graphemes of the Protosinaitic script with their possible prototypes (numbered according to the Table)89 No. 1

Sinai 377

< (alep) The “name” of the letter means “ox” or “bull.”90 The ox head hieroglyph is well known in Sinai and is very common in desert inscriptions and on small personal stelae in Egypt (e.g., Fig. 14). The hieroglyph is visually very conspicuous as part of the offering formula. Three prominent examples survive in the hieroglyphic corpus in Sinai, Sinai 89 (Fig. 15a, temple, “hieroglyphic item” on an offering-table, see Table, 1a), Sinai 53 (mines, see Table, 1b), and Sinai 500 (Fig. 15b, Gebel Maghârah, see also Table, 1e). No. 2 b (bet) see discussion below, p. 143 No. 3 Sinai 346a d (*dag or dalet) Letter not safely identified.91 The current “name” of the letter, dalet, means “door.” Yet a prominent fish grapheme (dag)

87

88

89

90

91

See below, p. 151. On the topic of the “free movement” of the workers, see PEDEN 2001: 34. There is a long, ongoing debate on several graphemes that appear sporadically in the script. See SASS 1988, and an up to date discussion in HAMILTON 2006. I limit my discussion to identified graphemes. Gimel has not been identified in the Protosinaitic corpus; see SASS 1988: 112; HAMILTON 2006: 53. This sign was already very early identified by scholars in the Sinai repertoire. For bibliography, see HAMILTON 2006: 29–38. The phonetic value of the fish is also still debated, as a number of scholars still see it as the grapheme for s, reconstructing the name of the grapheme as samek; see SASS 1988: 113–114.

136

Orly Goldwasser

Fig. 14 Middle Kingdom stela in the British Museum (LAMBERT 1914: pl. 17, no. 336)

a)

b) Fig. 15 Examples of hieroglyphic sign F1 from Sinai (a: no. 89, b: no. 500) (a: Sinai I: pl. XXV, no. 89, front; b: ibid.: pl. LXXXIX, no. 500)

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 137

which appears frequently in the Protosinaitic inscriptions is taken by most scholars to represent the phoneme d. Both *dag and dalet may carry the acrophonic value d. If the Protosinaitic script indeed represents the first stage of the invention, and if we postulate that the invention occurred in a non-literate level of society, it is possible that at the very beginning two different icons or two graphemes which could carry the final phonetic signified d were “competing” for the representation of the phoneme.92 Sign 21AA in the Table may have carried the value “door” according to some scholars. The “door” letter

may have also had its prototypes in the hieroglyphic script, although it is not an iconically salient sign, (e.g., Sinai 53, line 1, mines, see Table, 21aa) as are the bull, the lampwick, or the fish. However, the very existence of the “door” sign in the Protosinaitic script is still highly debated, and if it exists at all, it has strong affinities with another sign which is sometimes read as Het (see Table, 21BB).93 A highly iconic fish hieroglyph can be seen on an Egyptian inscription from the mines of Serabit el-Khâdim, Sinai 54, line 7, (Fig. 16).94 The inscription dates to year 45 of Amenemhat III. Nevertheless, the fish is not very common in the script, and its selection might have also been promoted by the sphere of “concrete referents.” Hamilton devotes a long discussion to the precise forms of fishes in the different inscriptions, a detailed study that forces him to look for prototypes in hieratic and even in texts of the Old Kingdom.95 As the Protosinaitic texts were written by “amateurs,” and the script is still in its budding iconic form, we cannot expect any uniformity of graphemes – either in size, form, direction (horizontal vs. vertical), or in general resemblance to the original prototype, if there is one at all.96 It seems that each writer recreated from his own memory his “own” fish as he imagined it, or recalled it from the hieroglyphs that he had seen. No. 4

Sinai 354 97

Fig. 16 Stela from the mines (Sinai 54) (Sinai I: pl. XVIII, no. 54)

92

93 94

95

See CROSS and LAMBDIN 1960: 25. HAMILTON (2006: 61) accepts this suggestion. See SASS 1988: 117–121. In this example, according to the rules of the Egyptian script, the fish hieroglyph has only a phonetic value and its iconic value (i.e., “fish”) should be discarded. HAMILTON 2006: 69–73. Later in his text, Hamilton con-

h (he) The standing/walking man with the raised hands. The meaning of the grapheme’s “name” has probably to be connected with a typical, loud call or order emitted by this official when he raised his hands to assemble the people. This is a very conspicuous, distinctive “Sinai hieroglyph” (e.g., Fig. 17a–b [Sinai 114], 17c [Sinai 90], and 18b [Sinai 92], see also Table, 4a–d), which strongly speaks for the development of the Protosinaitic script out of the Middle Kingdom hieroglyphic

96 97

nects the fish to the “symbols of the Delta” which he traces in the repertoire of the signs; ibid.: 316. See also SASS forthcoming. HAMILTON 2006: 84–86, with bibliography. Hamilton mentions the South Canaanite interjection [hoy]. This interjection is well known also in laments of Biblical Hebrew.

138

Orly Goldwasser

repertoire of Sinai.98 Its frequent appearance is very noticeable in inscriptions of this period in Sinai, mainly in lists, and in connection with petty titles, such as Hry-pr, “the overseer of the house,” etc. In Egypt, the hieroglyph rarely appears with this meaning.99 Gardiner, Cerný, and Peet refrain from giving it an Egyptian phonetic reading in the context of Sinai. In their publication they already suggested that “due to its frequent occurrences in the Sinai inscriptions the sign (A28) has passed into the Protosinaitic alphabet.”100 Well acquainted with the gesture and its meaning in their daily life, the inventors gave it a “Canaanite reading.” – hey (!) or the like. The “one legged” versions of the Protosinaitic script might have been born under the influence of the “one legged” hieroglyphic examples (see Table, 4a and c101). The last examples, in their turn, may have been influenced by some cursive versions of (A1) that frequently appear close to the hieroglyph in the inscriptions (e.g., Sinai 114, see Fig. 17a). Another source of inspiration may have been provided by superficially similar looking cursive writings of Ab (U23) or (j)Ab (R15) (e.g, Fig. 14, l. 1)

these signs would have looked very much the same, and could have all served as prototypes for waw (Table, 5a–e). However, in accordance with the “name” of the grapheme, the Canaanites may have understood all these different hieroglyphs as sorts of “hooks.”103 a)

b)

No. 5 Sinai 351 w (waw) The grapheme may have emerged from imitations of the hieroglyphs HD (T3), “mace,” or xrw (P8), “oar,” which were often written horizontally and look very similar to the mace hieroglyph. #rw is part of the common combination mAa xrw, “true of voice,” which is well known in Sinai (e.g., Sinai 142). In Sinai 92 (the long #bdd inscription, see Fig. 18a, l. 1) the sign for hqA (S38), “crook,” looks very similar to the Canaanite waw, and may have also been a source for the “Canaanite reading.”102 Also the hieroglyph Hm (U36), “majesty,” in Sinai 54, l. 1, looks very much like the HD sign (Fig. 16). For the uninitiated, all

98 99 100 101

102 103

BUTIN 1936: 54; SASS 1988: 115. SEYFRIED 1981: 217–218. Sinai II: 67; see also BUTIN 1936: 53–54. An iconically similar hieroglyph can be discerned on the Egyptian stela in Fig. 14, l. 1. However, the meaning and origin there are different. This suggestion was already put forward in SASS 1988: 115. On the problem of the grapheme’s name, see HAMILTON 2006: 90–92.

c)

Fig. 17 Examples of the hieroglyphic sign A1 from Sinai (a: Sinai I: pl. XXXVIII, no. 114, w. face, cols. 10–13; b: ibid.: pl. XXXVI, no. 114, s. edge, lower part; c: ibid.: pl. XXVA, no. 90, lower part)

a)

c)

Fig. 18 The inscription of #bdd, Sinai 92 (a: south edge, b: west face, c: east face) (a: Sinai I: pl. XXVII, no. 92, s. edge; b: ibid.: w. face; c: ibid.: e. face)

b)

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 139

140

Orly Goldwasser

No. 7

Sinai 349 H (Het) A lampwick.104 A very similar hieroglyph which carries the phonetic value H in Egyptian is

common in the hieroglyphic inscriptions of Sinai. The wick and the lamp were probably also in daily use by the workers, yet the upright position (in all Sinai examples known to date) of the sign points to the direct adoption from the hieroglyphic script. The “Canaanite reading” – Harm.105 No. 8 Sinai 379 y (yod) The grapheme prototype is the hieroglyph “forearm” . The meaning of the “name” of the grapheme – “hand.”106 The origin of the sign in the Sinai inscriptions corpus can be very easily found. It is a very common hieroglyph. Moreover, it is part of the cartouche of Amenemhat III. No. 9

Sinai 349 k (kap) The grapheme, as it appears in Protosinaitic,107 points to an origin in the concrete domain of referents.108 No hieroglyphic prototype can be found. The Egyptian palm hieroglyph , (D46, D47) does appear in Sinai, but the fingers hardly show, and the hieroglyph is always horizontal, and, in toto, it looks very different. The Protosinaitic examples in Sinai show a vertical position, which is foreign to the hieroglyphic script system. The meaning of the “name” of the grapheme – “palm.”

of the sign, such as the hieroglyph for 100 (V1), “coil of rope” (e.g., Table, 10c–d). Another possibility is a kind of peasant crook (S39) which was used in connection with flocks.109 Should this be the case, the hieroglyph that could serve as a prototype may be found in examples such as 10a in the Table. The Egyptian reading of 10a is the mono-consonantal phoneme s. The iconic meaning of the sign in the original Egyptian system is (S29), “folded cloth,” yet iconically, the sign may easily be taken by the uninitiated to be a kind of staff, familiar from daily life. The meaning of the “name” of the grapheme – “training instrument (for animals),” “oxgoad.”110 No. 11 Sinai 352, 351 m (mem) The prototype for the grapheme can easily be found in numerous examples of the hieroglyph (N35), “ripple of water,” in Sinai.111 It is important to note that the sign as such does not carry the iconic meaning “water” in Egyptian, but is used for denoting the mono-consonant n. The idea of “water” is represented in the hieroglyphic system by a combination of three signs, one above the other (N35a). Thus, the reading of the hieroglyph as water is another prominent example of “Canaanite reading.” All identified graphemes in the Protocanaanite script (as well as in Egyptian hieroglyphs in Sinai) appear in horizontal position. The meaning of the “name” of the letter – “water.” No. 12

No. 10

Sinai 349, 365a

l (lamed) The sign may be borrowed from a few hieroglyphic signs that share the general layout

n (nun) The snake is based on two very common hieroglyphic prototypes – (I10) and (I9). The snakes are very common in every inscription.112 However, in Egyptian, the two snakes have

104

108

Sinai 353

105 106 107

HAMILTON 2006: 59–60 with fig. 2.14 (pictorial example after FISCHER). HAMILTON 2006: 57–60. See HAMILTON 2006: 115–116. For a possible “Egyptian” variation from Wadi el-Óôl, see below, p. 150.

109 110 111 112

Sass seems to be of a similar opinion; see SASS 1988: 122, and also KAMMERZELL 2001: 121. KAMMERZELL 2001: 121. HAMILTON 2006: 136–137 with bibliography. BUTIN 1936: 55–56. Already BUTIN 1936.

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 141

highly differentiated phonetic readings, and the two sign never merge together, or replace each other. The stands for the mono-consonant D, while the denotes the mono-consonant f. The “Canaanite reading” assigns to the two different signs a single, new phonetic signified – n. The meaning of the “name” of the letter – “fish” (sic).113 No. 13 Sinai 352, 375a a (>ayin) A very common hieroglyph (D4), yet with a very different phonetic reading in Egyptian. The reading of the sign in the hieroglyphic system is usually iri with the meaning “to do.” The Canaanites adopted the salient icon, and through the “Canaanite reading” process returned it to the iconic meaning – “eye.” Inscription 346 has a few examples with no iris (see Table, 13e). Similar examples also exist in the hieroglyphic repertoire of Sinai, where “empty eyes” alternate with the “full eye” representation.114 It is also possible that hieroglyph (D21, meaning “mouth”) was understood by the Canaanites as an “eye without iris.” A similar phenomenon of a mixture of and is known from a scarab of the late 12th Dynasty from Tell elDabca, which carries the name “Sesostris.”115 However, the concrete referent may have also played a role in the creation of this sign. The meaning of the “name” of the letter – “eye.”

Fig. 19 Modern replica of a Middle Kingdom builder’s square, see Table, 14 (after ARNOLD, DI. 1991: 255, fig. 6.5)

with similar shapes but different meanings that do exist in Sinai might have played the role of an iconic prototype for the Protosinaitic sign. However, an unsolved question is what idea or referent the Canaanites had in mind when choosing this icon. The “name” of the letter in this case is very important, and the word pe could carry two central meanings – “mouth,” or “edge.” Another possible noun (variation on “edge”) would be piAt in Ugaritic, or hap in Hebrew, with the meaning “corner.”116 Should the prototype be looked for in the realm of the concrete, a familiar builder’s tool comes to mind, namely, a tool (see Fig. 19) which Arnold calls “builder’s square”117 and which might have been used in the building projects in the temple area, and even in the mines. If the

No. 14

Sinai 353, 357, 375 p (pe) The Egyptian “corner” hieroglyph (O38 and its variants) could have severed as a good prototype for the Protosinaitic grapheme, yet it is a rather rare hieroglyph and is hardly to be found in Sinai. Theoretically, few other signs

113

114

See BUTIN 1936: 53–55. For a discussion of the name of the letter, with ample bibliography, see HAMILTON 2006: 170–171. Also observed by HAMILTON 2006: 182–183. An extraordinary picture from the publication of Valbelle and Bonnet clearly shows a conspicuously “empty eye” in Sinai 53, l. 10, the rock-carved stela in the mines (VALBELLE and BONNET 1996: 122)! See also Sinai 141, l. 7 and 11; Sinai 114 (w. face), l. 7 (mAA).

Fig. 20 A Canaanite scarab from Tell el-Dabca (after MLINAR 2004: 123, fig. 9.7)

115

116

117

The scarab comes from stratum E/3–F. Other parallels are known; see MLINAR 2001: 252–253 with figs. 32–33. For the history of this suggestion that goes back to Sprengling, see HAMILTON 2006: 195, n. 248. Also NAVEH (1997: 25) chooses “corner” after ALBRIGHT. ARNOLD, DI. 1991: 253 with fig. 6.5.

142 Orly Goldwasser

builders were ever engaged in building projects in Egypt, they surely encountered this tool. The form of this tool fits perfectly the word piAt, and might have carried this name in the Canaanite dialect spoken by the inventors. Another option would be the “free corner,” formally part of the name of Hathor, which was commonly used as a “free icon” by the Canaanites on early Canaanite Middle Bronze Age scarabs (see, e.g., Figs. 10, 11, 20, and detailed discussion in Part I, above). No. 16 Sinai 351, 380 q (qop) No hieroglyphic parallel. The Canaanite name of the letter, which means “monkey,” led scholars to identify the Canaanite sign with a somewhat abstract monkey icon. Hamilton sought the prototype in Egyptian wall reliefs.118 If a monkey at all, the origin may be looked for in a “real life” model, a pet monkey or a statue of a monkey, or the combination of the two. The god Thoth had a special importance in Wadi Maghârah,119 and in the Near Eastern type temple at Tell Ibrahim Awad (Old Kingdom), among the ex-votos, a head of a polished baboon statue was found. A new find from Tell el-Dabca, from an offering pit in a palace of the early Hyksos period,120 is a bowl with a drawing of two baboons and a tree. Two beautiful monkeys adore the name of the 13th Dynast king Hetepibre on a mace found in Ebla, and monkeys are also rather common on cylinder seals from the Middle Bronze Age.121 This find may point to the special role of this animal in the Canaanite cultural sphere.

(D2), “face.” (see Table, 17E)123 In correct Egyptian, these hieroglyphs never interchange, and they carry different phonetic values. For the uninitiated, both signs look like representations of a human head. Some conspicuous Egyptian prototypes are reflected in the Sinai repertoire. Meaning of the “name” of the letter – “head.” No. 19 Sinai 365a š (šin) The grapheme has no clear prototype as such in the Egyptian inscriptions in Sinai. Yet a very conspicuous soldier with a similar bow appears in Sinai 23, l. 3 (Wadi Maghârah, see Table, 19a). The original meaning of the “name” of the grapheme was probably “bow.”124 The concrete referent (bow) was certainly a cognitively salient object in the lives of the soldiers and builders at the site. It fits perfectly the social milieu reconstructed by Darnell in his recent publications (compare here the Asiatic soldier with the bow from Beni Hassan, Fig. 21).

No. 17 Sinai 357 r (reS) Two hieroglyphic prototypes are possible.122 Most of the examples clearly follow tp (D1), “head,” but one example may follow Hr

Fig. 21 A Canaanite bowman from the tomb of Khnumhotep II (Beni Hassan, Middle Kingdom) (PRISSE D’AVENNES 1991: pl. II.47)

118

122

119 120 121

HAMILTON 2006: 209–221. In some of his reproductions, the monkeys get some sort of a tail. See also YARDENI 2004: 75. For Thoth in Sinai, see VALBELLE and BONNET 1996: 38. See BIETAK and FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2006, in this volume. For the mace from Ebla, see SCANDONE MATTHIAE 2004: 201, pl. II. For the cylinder seals, see TEISSIER 1996: 51, no. 9; 67, no. 84, and passim.

123

124

BUTIN 1936. HAMILTON prefers to see it as a bet; see HAMILTON 2006: 49. Sass still regards it as a frontal head; SASS 1988: 131. For the name of this letter and its problems, see HAMILTON 2006: 241–244.

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 143

The missing link – the case of bet

Sinai 359, 346a

Sinai 352

Sinai 357

Sinai 346b, 349, 362

Sinai 374, 380125 Of all identified letters in the Protosinaitic script, bet is one of the least-debated. After the identification of the word b-a-l-t by Gardiner (it is still the only word not challenged by different translations), it was accepted by all scholars that the bet sign represents a schematic house. Those scholars who believed that hieroglyphic signs constituted prototypes for the Protosinaitic signs suggested that the Egyptian “house” hieroglyph (O1) and the “shelter” hieroglyph (O4) are sources of the bet sign.126 However, somewhat surprisingly, of all the Protosinaitic versions of the bet, not even one (!) shows a version of the correct Egyptian hiero-

125

126

127

128

Bietak suggests that this example (from inscription 380, discovered by Sass) be seen as a variation of a building with a hurdle-wall enclosing a courtyard which is attached to a building. See the recent discussion of Hamilton, with history of research, HAMILTON 2006: 39–52. SATZINGER (2002: 17) suggests also (O6), and DARNELL et al. 2005 add also (O20). For the definition of this script, variation, and its complications, see FISCHER 1976: 40–44; HAMILTON 2006; DARNELL et al. 2005. E.g., ANTHES 1928; DARNELL 2002. A single variation with a low-part side-opening can be seen on the otherwise nicely executed Hammâmât inscription no. 87, dating to the reign of Sesotris I; see COUYAT and MONTET 1913: 64–65, with pl. 20.

glyphic signs O1 or O4; rather, one finds a plethora of versions of a square sign, sometimes open at the corner and, in a few rare cases, with a clear entrance. The Protosinaitic sign differs from most hieratic, cursive, or “semi cursive”127 variations of the sign, all clearly showing a tendency towards a wide open lower part (e.g., Fig. 17b, col. 2).128 Where does the Protosinaitic bet come from? Sinai 92 is a Serabit el-Khâdim stela positioned at the old pathway to the temple (Fig. 18). The stela is inscribed on all four of its sides. However, the inscriptions differ considerably. The east face of the stela, which was the main side, was inscribed with a hieroglyphic inscription dated to “Year 13” and dedicated to Ptah. The hieroglyphs are of high quality and present a high level of “Egyptianness” (Fig. 18c). The north edge of the stela (a narrow side) contains hieroglyphs of the same good quality as the east face of the stela. The well executed hieroglyphs give the titles of a “god’s treasurer,” a high Egyptian official (his name is lost).129 However, the two additional inscribed sides are very different. Clearly added by a different (later?) hand, the south-edge inscription (Fig. 18a) is paleographically a world apart.130 The handwriting on this side of the stela strongly recalls the different cursive hieroglyphs in mining areas in Egypt, such as Wadi el-Hudi.131 The hand hieroglyph (D47) appears in a version closer to hieratic, and thus represents the “expedition paleographical dialect” mentioned above. This crude “mixed style” is rather rare in the Serabit temple area itself, especially on stelae, and thus it becomes even more exceptional. This inscription

129 130

131

This stela is also of a mixed style, but includes relatively few hieratic versions of signs .Very conspicuous are the numbers on column six of the inscription; see COUYAT and MONTET 1913: pl. 20. Most other inscriptions of semi-cursive hieroglyphs (on the different levels of “semi-cursive,” see FISCHER 1976: 40–43) do not tend to have a square shape but do tend to have an open lower part – e.g., BUDGE 1912: pls. 1–2. A full list of examples has to be reserved for a forthcoming, more exhaustive publication. VALBELLE and BONNET 1996: 18. VALBELLE and BONNET (1996: 76) speak about the typical inscriptions for the four sides of a stela at the site. The #bdd inscriptions fall nicely in this pattern. See FAKHRY 1952.

144 Orly Goldwasser

commemorates the a “brother of the HoA n RTnw, #bdd,” known from other inscriptions as well. This man, carrying the same title, appears again in another inscription as part of a list of Egyptian officials, and is part of the Egyptian establishment and team. His attestations in Sinai span a period of at least two decades.132 It seems that a similar hand is also responsible for the west face of the stela (Fig. 18b), where the name of a certain “young (TAy?) official, Kms,” seems to be repeated. Whoever wrote the text for #bdd (or did he do it himself?) had a special paleographical idiolect, which is not repeated in other inscriptions in the temple. The hieroglyphs are clumsy and show a low level of “Egyptianness.” Nevertheless, for some unknown reason he writes the pr “house” (O1) sign in a very unusual way. The bet repeatedly appears as a mere square, or square with a little opening on the side (e.g., Fig. 18a, l. 4; 18b, l. 8).133 This variant is very rare in the parallel “expedition dialect” in Egypt. However, Serabit Stela 92 is not the end of the career of the “closed O1” in Sinai. It reappears in Sinai inscriptions 28 (see Fig. 6a–c) and 32 (both Wadi Maghârah). Sinai inscriptions 28, 29, and 32 were probably written by a single scribe. Inscription 28 and 29 both date to year 42 of Amenemhat III’s reign. Inscription 28 is almost intact, but very little remains of inscription 29. Nevertheless, one can discern that both were written in the “expedition paleographical dialect,” and both inscriptions

contain very specific idiosyncratic paleographic affinities, even within the framework of the unstable “semi-cursive” script (Fig. 6). In both inscriptions, the kA sign (D28) is written with clearly exaggerated “breasts” (Fig. 6c; Fig. 6d, col. 2).134 The word mfkAt presents an idiosyncratic spelling with an additional A, probably as “phonetic complement” for kA.135 This spelling is uncommon in the inscriptions from the temple area. In the two inscriptions, the Hwt sign possesses a plethora of square iconic variations, unknown from any other inscription in Sinai or Egypt (Fig. 22). It exhibits a typical case of “Canaanite reading” (see detailed discussion in Part I, above). Inscription 28 contains an incorrect grammatical form (see above, p. 129), and at least one sign that cannot be safely identified even if it shows a high level of iconicity ( , see Fig. 6a, col. 5). The sign is read tentatively by the authors of Sinai II as a Htp sign (R4) representing an unusual altar. It may be that Sinai 28, 29, and some other inscriptions from Wadi Maghârah, preserve the tradition of partially literate Canaanite scribes. The hieratic “intrusions” into the text are rather limited in number, yet these writers have their own tradition of Egyptian writing. It is possible that we can trace the buds of this tradition in the earlier inscription from the temple, Sinai 92 discussed above. Moreover, they keep the tradition of the square pr encountered two decades earlier in the inscriptions of #bdd. The scribes from

Fig. 22 Examples of the Hwt sign taken from inscriptions at Wadi Maghârah (a: Sinai I: pl. XII, no. 28, col. 1; b: ibid.: col. 2; c: ibid.: col. 3; d: ibid.: col. 5; e: ibid.: col. 7; f: ibid.: pl. X, no. 29, col. 1; g: ibid.: pl. XIII, no. 30, col. 1)

132 133

134

GARDINER 1961: 47. Sass already mentioned the closeness of these bet variations to Sinai 92, and provides a plate showing the inscription (SASS 1988: 111). However, he did not carry the discussion further. For such a writing of the kA sign as part of the name of

135

Queen Hatshepsut on a scarab, see PETRIE 1917: pl. XXVI, 19. Only one more version with an A is known to me from Sinai. It is a stela dating to year 23 of Amenemhat III. This spelling is not present in the Wb.

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 145

Fig. 23 “Soul house” from a Middle Kingdom tomb (after HAMILTON 2006: 40, fig. 2.4)

Maghârah are more “free” in their idiosyncratic use of the Egyptian hieroglyphs than the writer of Sinai 92. Unlike the case of the temple area, the workers in the mines probably had free access to the Wadi Maghârah inscriptions and to the few (but

beautiful) hieroglyphic inscriptions in the mining area. It is not surprising, then, that most of the repertoire of the Egyptian prototypes for the Protosinaitic graphemes can be detected in these very texts, despite their sometimes unusual use of Egyptian hieroglyphs. However, the creative history of the Canaanite bet grapheme does not end here. There are at least two very clear and non-debated examples of the bet grapheme in Protosinaitic with a clear “entrance” (see above, Sinai 359 and 346a). Until Hamilton’s last publication, no scholar had explained this phenomenon. However, Hamilton ingeniously suggested that these examples reflect a typical “soul-house” – offering tables of the poor in the form of a house, which usually show an “entrance” (see Fig. 23).136 The “soul houses” are common in the Middle Kingdom,137 and are certainly appropriate to the social environment of the miners. No examples of such houses have yet been recorded in the Sinai finds; yet little atten-

Fig. 24 Graffito from Lower Nubia mentioning a MnTw-Htp (ZÁBA 1974: pl. CLXII, fig. 292, no. 170)

136

HAMILTON 2006: 42.

137

For the “soul houses,” see ROIK 1988: 40–50.

146 Orly Goldwasser

tion was given by the early excavators to broken pottery, and many sherds and small finds still await publication. The “soul house” explanation is a clear example of the mixture, in one grapheme, the b, of two referents. One referent comes from the written hieroglyphic examples, and the other from a “real life” object referent. Strong support for the reading of the sign as

a pictorial representation of a “soul-house” offering table comes from a unique example published by Zába (Fig. 24).138 In this rock inscription from Nubia, which he dates to the early 12th Dynasty, a similar sign appears. In a detailed and convincing discussion, Zába proposes that the sign should be read as Htp, “offering-table,” and sees it as a unique variation of the Htp hieroglyph. However, he does not recognize its connection to the special type of offering table depicted here, the “soul house.” In the Protocanaanite case, the signified of the grapheme is “house.” Thus, this specific Protosinaitic grapheme creates the bridge between the traditional offering table (which is well known in Sinai, see, e.g., Sinai 65) and the special type of offering table, “the soul house.” It also shows that this object was understood as a “model of a house” by the Canaanites, as it is used as a signifier for the meaning “house.”139 If identified correctly, it seems that the bet grapheme in Sinai displays a wide variation of forms in the early stage of the script. There might even be one example which depicts a house with two columns (Table, 2F). Only two signs will continue to develop, the “square” variation, and the “courtyard” (O4) variation, which is hardly attested in Sinai. At the end of the day, the “courtyard” version will be the winning form, and it will continue into the first century BCE. Wadi el-Óôl inscriptions as a case of “reproduction”

a)

If Sinai is indeed the place of invention of the Protocanaanite script, the two lines of Wadi el-Óôl may provide an example for a “reproduction” process of the script in a different area (Fig. 25).

b) Fig. 25 Protocanaanite inscriptions from Wadi el-Óôl (a: after DARNELL et al. 2005: 83, fig. 16a; b: ibid.: 75, fig. 2a)

138

For a discussion of the sign, see ZÁBA 1974: 175–176 with figs. 292–293.

139

This very sign survives into the Roman period as a mason’s sign probably also with the meaning “offering table.” See ZÁBA 1974: 175.

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 147

It is difficult to say whether this example of the script is indeed entirely alphabetical, or whether it contains intrusions of some Egyptian principles (e.g., classifiers140), which may have been known to the writers in this area from their closer acquaintance with the Egyptians and the surrounding Egyptian inscriptions. It is difficult to say whether one and the same inscription was even written by the same hand and in the same direction. Concerning the date of the inscriptions, Darnell and his collaborators present a somewhat complicated picture. The date of the actual inscriptions is the end of the 12th Dynasty or beginning of the 13th Dynasty, the heyday of activity in this area. Moreover, Darnell suggests that the inscriptions may be connected to a neighboring inscription of a certain Bbi who is imy-r mSa n aAmw, “general of the Asiatics,” which is dated to the late Middle Kingdom.141 However, the paleographic data as presented by Darnell’s team leads to a much earlier date – early Middle Kingdom. Thus, Darnell et al. end up suggesting that the paleographic data points to the date of the invention, and not to the later, incidental date of the Wadi el-Óôl inscriptions. In this case, the place of invention is neither Wadi el-Óôl nor Sinai, but a hypothetical location providing “a plurality of cultural contexts.” Moreover, this place, in their opinion, should be in Egypt, as they consider the prototypes of the script to be a mixture of borrowing from lapidary hieroglyphs and hieratic signs, a mixture, they believe, could have existed only in Egypt.142 It seems to us that the paleographic data that Darnell presents as anchoring the invention at the beginning of the 12th Dynasty or even earlier should be questioned.

140

141

142

Already suggested in DARNELL et al. 2005: 81. WIMMER and WIMMER-DWEIKAT 2001 regard these texts as mixed inscriptions written partially in a Canaanite dialect, and partially in Egyptian. “Near the main inscription sites in Wadi el-Óôl is a small concentration of hieratic inscriptions, paleographically and onomastically of late Middle Kingdom (probably late 12th Dynasty) date. Two of the texts have a bearing on the presence of Asiatics in the Wadi elÓôl, and appear to have been executed at roughly the same time.” DARNELL et al. 2005: 87. The inscriptions of Sinai present many examples of hieratic intrusions, lapidary hieratic, and even cursive hieratic. It is difficult to understand why this fact is usu-

1. The “head” graphemes All three head signs of Wadi el-Óôl can be interpreted as “reproductions” of the prototype “head.” The resemblance to the hieratic examples presented by Darnell is difficult to follow.143 With some imagination the leftmost head on the horizontal inscription could be a man with a beard. The head grapheme in the vertical line (Fig. 25a) could well be a representation of a head with a Canaanite “mushroom head” coiffure (Fig. 25b). 2. The problem of the vertical mem Examples of vertical Egyptian n hieroglyphs are indeed best known in the early Middle Kingdom Egyptian stelae, as Darnell et al. have correctly shown.144 However, it is a rare phenomenon even at the beginning of the Middle Kingdom, and it appears only as a marginal occurrence in inscriptions which would otherwise be comprised of regular horizontal examples of the hieroglyph n .145 However, the unusual positioning of the mem in the inscription of Wadi el-Óôl (Fig. 25b) may be due to its location in a horizontal line of writing, which keeps only one grapheme on the line, a rather non-Egyptian attitude. I would suggest that in this case, if applying the “Canaanite reading,” the uninitiated may have had in his mind images of other cursive signs that look like a “water” sign positioned vertically. Candidates for such visual borrowing during the late Middle Kingdom in Wadi el-Óôl may be the hieratic vertical ligature for Hr and other ligatures (Fig. 26). 3. The “human” grapheme The human grapheme with two raised arms (once) and one raised arm (twice) may be one and the same grapheme, but may just as well be two different ones. The “one raised arm”

143 144

145

ally overlooked by most scholars. The script of the Middle Kingdom in Sinai will be dealt with in a separate publication. DARNELL et al. 2005: 76. SASS forthcoming: 12–13, refutes this argument by citing the reservations of von Bissing and Sethe about putting too much weight for dating criteria on the unusual vertical position of some hieroglyphic signs. E.g., LIMME 1979: 18, vertical n ( ) only once, at the end of line 3. Otherwise, the hieroglyph n in the normal horizontal position appears 17 (!) times on this small funerary stela. This occurrence is one of the examples mentioned by DARNELL et al. 2005: 78, fig. 6e.

148

Orly Goldwasser

Fig. 26 Egyptian graffiti from Wadi el-Óôl (a: after DARNELL 2002: pl. 109b, no. 28; b: ibid.: pl. 110b, no. 29; c: ibid.: pl. 111b, no. 30)

Fig. 27 Inscription no. 33 from Wadi Maghârah (Sinai I: pl. XII, no. 33)

Fig. 28 Examples for hieroglyphic sign A1 from two graffiti (a: Nubia, b: Wadi Hammâmât) (a: HINTZE and R EINEKE 1989: Part II: 63, no. 195 with fig.; b: GOYON 1957: 94, no. 74)

grapheme (in both inscriptions it looks very similar) resembles all sorts of cursive variations of the classifier (A1) [HUMAN+MALE]. A plethora of variations of this sign is well known through the whole Middle Kingdom, and is also well known in

many variations in Sinai (e.g., Figs. 17a; 27, col. x+4; 28a–b). It also appears on scarabs where it sometimes merges with other “human” signs such as / / (variations of A17), and (A84146) 147 (see Fig. 29). At least in the vertical inscription

146

147

This sign appears on a rare scarab of Amenemhat III (Fig. 29c), which Keel dates to the reign of the king, but which may well belong to the 13th Dynasty or even later, as it already shows the typical “Canaanite” style.

Compare REISNER 1955: 66, fig. 14, nos. 355–357. The date of the scarabs is 13th Dynasty. I thank Christa Mlinar for calling my attention to these examples.

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 149

Fig. 29 Three scarabs with human figures (a: after TUFNELL 1984: 277, pl. IX, no. 1476 [Tell elAjjul]; b: after EGGLER and KEEL 2006: 223, no. 50; c: after KEEL 1997: 793, fig. 34)

Fig. 30 Examples of hybrid hieroglyphic signs (O1+O4+ O6) from Sinai and Wadi el-Hudi (a: Sinai I: pl. XII, no. 33, col. 3; b: ibid.: pl. XI, no. 35, col. 1; c: ibid.: pl. XL, no. 131, edge, col. 2; d: ibid.: pl. LIII, no. 142, n. edge, col. 2; e: FAKHRY 1952: 36, fig. 28, col. 2; f: ibid.: col. 3)

it can be a classifier (for the tentative reading, see below). Also without any knowledge of Egyptian, anybody living in a “hieroglyphic environment” would easily recognize the ubiquitous human classifier. The human classifier has a very salient presence, and in many examples (a phenomenon known in all periods and genres of Egyptian inscriptions) it may be slightly larger than its neighboring signs, or clearly separated from them. The pictorial salience of this classifier is also known in other pictorial writings, such as Luwian.148 Nevertheless, the variation of the man with the two raised arms (Fig. 25b) looks more like the signifier of the Canaanite grapheme h, as it keeps the most important part of the grapheme – the square raised hands.

However, it is important to note that in hieroglyphic inscriptions in Sinai as well as from Wadi el-Hudi in Egypt, there are cases of “hybrid forms,” which are a clear result of a mixture of the hieroglyphs pr (O1) and h (O4) (Fig. 30). Moreover, it seems that the two hieroglyphs were indeed understood as a “minimal building” by the Egyptian scribes, and this closeness of meaning created the hybrids. The Sinai inscriptions of Wadi Maghârah present also a mixture of Hwt (O6) and pr (O1) signs (Fig. 22g, Fig. 30a–c). The bet that resembles the O4 sign in Wadi el-Óôl could be part of the process of sign “reproduction,” where the writer in Egypt presents a sign he knows and understands as “house.” It should also be noted that, according to Hamilton’s publication, a bet based on O4 may have existed in Sinai as well (Fig. 31).

4. The bet of Wadi el-Óôl Another reason for the anteriority of the Wadi elÓôl inscriptions is found by Darnell in the type of bet that appears in the horizontal inscription. This bet, according to Darnell et al., is not known in Sinai, but resembles the later Canaanite bet and the South Arabian bet.149 This fact leads him to suggest that the Wadi el-Óôl bet is the earlier prototype that will surface again in Canaan a few centuries later. Sass correctly questions this reasoning, suggesting that “If anything, these different bets transpose Darnell’s order, for they make the Wadi el-Óôl inscriptions outwardly closer to the 12th-century Lachish bowl fragment than are the Protosinaitic inscriptions.” Sass goes on to suggest that this is just another variant of the bet sign.150

148

149 150

E.g., BUNNES 2005. I am grateful to Benjamin Sass for this reference. DARNELL et al. 2005: 77. SASS forthcoming.

Fig. 31 A special variation of bet in Protosinaitic inscription no. 353 (after HAMILTON 2006: 347, fig. A.17)

150

Orly Goldwasser

5. The “two hands” grapheme I agree with Hamilton, who cautiously suggests that the second and tenth sign in Fig. 25a may be versions of the Egyptian hieroglyph kA (D28).151 In this case, the Canaanite writer could not retrieve from his memory the correct kap grapheme (palm of the hand in upright position [see above, p. 140], no hieroglyphic model!) and, in searching for the image, confused it with another picture with a similar phonetic value and similar meaning – the Egyptian hieroglyph kA, “raised hands with open palms,” that he recalled, maybe even from its very common use on Canaanite scarabs (e.g., Figs. 1b, 11a, 32). The Wadi el-Óôl kA shares with the Middle Bronze Canaanite scarabs the representation of the handpalms as circles. Such an identification may also yield an attractive (even if highly tentative) reading for the vertical inscription (Fig. 25a):152

Fig. 32 Scarab from Tell el-Ajjul with kA sign (after TUFNELL 1984: pl. L, no. 2954)

This translation fits well with most of the short Egyptian inscriptions in the area, as these contain a title followed by a personal name. P-k- Thebes Harsiese B in 825 Thebes Pr Os in Thebes T II's d a Th recluse PrOs

827:21/3 826:22/4

823/25/7

= 1/acc. Pedu- (Pr Os out; Harbast I siese B in] " " "

" " "

821: 9

5

"

"

819:11

III, 7 (Pedubast I, contd.)

813:15 812:16 811:17 810:18 809:19 808:20 807:21

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

806:22

15 = Yr. 1, Iuput I, c/r.

"

"

815

818:12

"

"

" " " "

" " " "

816:14

"

Pr Os back to Thebes

= 1/acc. Pedubast I

(Sh. III, contd.)

Nile level Yr. 12 Yr. 5

815:15 810

814:16 813:17 812:18 811:19 810:20 809:21

(Shoshenq III, contd.)

(Pr Os out; Harsiese B in]

2

820:10

817:13

"

Dyn. 23:

822:26/8 death of Takeloth II

2 3 4

6 (Shoshenq contd.)

820

830

829:19/1 acc. Shoshenq III

824:24/6

Dyn. 23:

820:8

816:12

[..... ditto .....] [Sh III > peace with S?]

825:23/5 Harsiese B in Thebes

822/ 6 821: 7

BC

852:26 851:27

849: 4 848: 5 847: 6 846: 7 845: 8 844: 9 843:10

838:15

HPAs of Amun, etc.

Dyn. 23, etc.

855:23 854:24 853:25

850: 3

842:11

Dyn. 22 main line

BC 856:22

855:23 854:24 853:25

BC

=

3

"

"

4

"

"

5

"

"

6

"

"

7

"

"

8 9 (Pedubast I, contd.) 10 11 12 13 14

"

"

"

"

" " " " "

" " " " "

820

815

810

Kenneth A. Kitchen

306

2. T. II Sole Reign Option & Consequences (856–756 BC) BC

Dyn. 22 main line

Dyn. 23, etc.

804:24

16 = Yr. 2, Iuput I, c/r. 17

803:25

18

802:26

19

801:27 800:28 799:29

20 21 22

798:30

23

797:31 796:32

794:34 793:35 792:36 791:37

24 25 26/1 acc. Shoshenq VI 2 3 4 5

790: 38

6

789: 39

7/1 acc. Osorkon III

805:23

795:33

788:40/1 787: 2 786: 3 785: 4 784: 5 783: 6 782: 7 781: 8 780: 9 779:10 778:11/1

acc. Shoshenq IV

13

776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770:

14 15 16 17 19 19 20

769: 4 768: 5 767: 6 766: 7 765: 8 764: 9 763:10 762:11 761:12 760:13 759:14 758:15 757:16

Pr Os back to The805 bes " " Harsiese B in Thebes Harsiese B in Thebes 800 Takeloth HPA in Thebes

795

Takeloth HPA in 790 Thebes (Pr Os last visit, Thebes)

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

acc. Pimay

acc. Shoshenq V

(Shoshenq contd.)

BC

2

777: 2 3 4 5 6 7/1 2 3

HPAs of Amun, etc.

V,

785

780

Takeloth G (> III), HPA 775

770

21 22 23 24/+1 Takeloth III c/r. 25/+2 Tak. III 26/+3 Tak. III 27/+4 Tak. III 28/+5 Tak. III 29/+6 Tak. III > sole kg 7 Tak. III 8/1 acc. Rudamun 2 3

2. T. II c/r with Sh. III: Option & Consequences (856–756) BC

Dyn. 23, etc.

HPAs of Amun, etc.

808:22

15 = Yr. 1, Iuput I, c/r.

Pr Os back to Thebes

807:23 806:24 805:25 804:26 803:27 802:28 801:29

16 = Yr. 2, Iuput I, c/r. 17 18 19 20 21 22

800:30

23

799:31 798:32

796:34 795:35 794:36 793:37

24 25 26/1 acc. Shoshenq VI 2 3 4 5

792:38

6

797:33

“ ” Harsiese B Harsiese B

Takeloth HPA in Thebes

779:12

13

Takeloth G > III, HPA

778:13/1 acc. Pimay 777: 2 776: 3 775: 4 774: 5 773: 6 772: 7/1 acc. Shoshenq V 771: 2 770: 3 (Shoshenq V, 769: 4 contd.)

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

790

785

780

775

770

23 24/+1 Takeloth III c/r. 25/+2 Tak. III 26/+3 Tak. III 27/+4 Tak. III 28/+5 Tak. III 29/+6 Tak. III > sole kg

765

762:11 761:12

7 Tak. III 8/1 acc. Rudamun

760:13

2

Osorkon F, HPA ?

759:14 758:15 757:16

3 4 5

*

Osorkon F, HPA ? 760

805

795

(Pr Os last visit, Thebes)

767: 6 766: 7 765: 8 764: 9 763:10

BC

Pr Os back to Thebes “ ” Takeloth HPA in 800 Thebes

7/1 acc. Osorkon III 790:40/1 acc. Shoshenq IV 2 789: 2 3 788: 3 4 787: 4 5 786: 5 6 785: 6 7 784: 7 8 783: 8 9 782: 9 10 781:10 11 780:11 12 791:39

768: 5

765

Dyn. 22 main line

760

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology – A Reconsideration 307

Ready-Reckoner - New Libyan Chronology A [Tak II 25 yrs as sole kg] and New Libyan Chronology B [Os II 31 y; Tak II, Sh III c/r.] 3. Final Segment (756–664 BC) common to both Options BC

Dyn. 22 main line

Dyn. 23, etc.

755:18 754:19 753:20 752:21 751:22 750:23

4/1 acc. Shoshenq VII 2 3 4 5 6 7

749:24

8

748:25 747:26 746:27 745:28 744:29 743:30 742:31 741:32 740:33 739:34

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 GW Shepenupt I 20 21/ 1 acc. Iuput II

756:17

738:35 737:36 736:37 735:38/1

acc. Osorkon IV

HPAs of Amun, etc.

Dyn. 25 x/1 acc. Pi(ankh)y 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 GW Amenirdis I 13

2 3 4 5 6 7

3 4 5 6 7 8

728: 8

9

727: 9 726:10

10 11

16 17 18 19 20 P in Egypt 21 (Gt. Stela); 22/1 Tefnakht as "king" 23/2 Tefnakht 24/3 Tefnakht

724:12 723:13 722:14 721:15 720:16 719:17 718:18 717:19

(plea, < Ho12 shea of Israel) (Osorkon IV, 13 (Iuput II, contd.) contd.) 14 15 16 (gift > 17 Sargon II) 18 19 20

716:20/1 715:21/2 714: 3 713: 4 712: 5

Shabako in Egypt Shbtk Nb

755

711: 6 710: 7 709: 8 708: 9 707:10

750

745

740

25/4 Tefnakht 26/5 (P & T, ctd.) 27/6 Tefnakht 28/7 Tefnakht 29/8 Tefnakht 30/9/1 acc. Bakenranef 31/2 Bak 32/3 Bak 33/4 Bak.

21

5 Bk/ 34 P/1/acc. Sh, Nb

22/2(Shabako into Eg.)

6 Bakenranef (end)

735

730

725

720

715

Dyn. 22 main line

701: 2

BC

705

acc. Shebitku; Thrqa in Nub (T sent to Palestine) 700

695

acc. Taharqa in Egypt

689: 2 688: 3 687: 4 686: 5 685: 6 684: 7 683: 8 682: 9 681:10 680:11 679:12

HPAs of Amun, etc.

(Sargon sent to Shbtk, Nub)

700: 3 699: 4 698: 5 697: 6 696: 7 695: 8 694: 9 693:10 692:11 691:12 690:13/1

Dyn. 23, etc.

710

705:12 704:13 703:14 702:15/1

14 15

725:11

BC

706:11

2

734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729:

BC

690

685

680 (Taharqa, contd.)

678:13 677:14 676:15 675:16 674:17 673:18 672:19 671:20 670:21 669:22 668:23 667:24 666:25 665:26 664:27/1 acc. Tantamani; acc. Psam/1 tek I (Dyn. 26)

679

675

670

665

308

Kenneth A. Kitchen

EXCURSUS II: Summary Revised Dates for Dynasties 22–25 Option A Dates BC 945–924: 924–890: (c.892/1: 890–877: 877–852: ( c.865? 852–827: 827–788: 788–778: 778–772: 772–735: 735–715:

Rulers Dynasty 22 Shoshenq I Osorkon I Shoshenq II, c/r Takeloth I Osorkon II Harsiese A Takeloth II Shoshenq III Shoshenq IV Pimay Shoshenq V Osorkon IV

Yrs

Dates BC

21 34 2?) 13 25* –) 25 39 10* 6 37 20

820–795: (c. 806/5: 795–789: 789–761: 766–759: 759–756: 756–736: 736–715: 728–720: 720–715:

Rulers Dynasty 23 Pedubast I Iuput I, c/r Shoshenq VI Osorkon III Takeloth III, part c/r Rudamun As in Option B:– Shoshenq VII Iuput II Dynasty 24 Tefnakht (king) Bakeranef

Yrs 25 2?) 6 28 7 3* 20 21 8 5

Asterisks (*) denote year-numbers that differ from the T.II/Sh III overlap table, A Dates BC 749–716: 716–702: 702–690: 690–664:

Rulers in (N) Egypt

Yrs Dynasty 25 Pi(ankh)y (Kush & Thebaid ) 33 Shabako (715ff. in Egypt) 14 Shebitku 12 Taharqa 26

Adjoint Rulers in Kush

Shebitku (715–702) Taharqa (702–690) (X, then Tantamani? – x/y–664)

Summary Revised Dates for Dynasties 22–25 Option B Dates BC 945–924: 924–890: (c. 892/1: 890–877: 877–847: ( c.865? 847–822: 829–790: 790–778: 778–772: 772–735: 735–715:

Rulers Dynasty 22 Shoshenq I Osorkon I Shoshenq II, c/r Takeloth I Osorkon II Harsiese A Takeloth II Shoshenq III (part c/r) Shoshenq IV Pimay Shoshenq V Osorkon IV

Yrs 21 34 2?) 13 30* –) 25 39 12* 6 37 20

Dates BC

Rulers Dynasty 23 822–797: Pedubast I (c. 808/7: Iuput I, c/r 797–791: Shoshenq VI 791–763: Osorkon III 768–761: Takeloth III, part c/r 761–756: Rudamun As in Option A:– 756–736: Shoshenq VII 736–715: Iuput II Dynasty 24 728–720: Tefnakht (king) 720–715: Bakeranef

Yrs 25 2?) 6 28 7 5* 20 21 8 5

Asterisks (*) denote year-numbers that differ from the T.II sole reign table Dates BC 749–716: 716–702: 702–690: 690–664:

Rulers in (N) Egypt

Yrs Dynasty 25 Pi(ankh)y (Kush & Thebaid ) 33 Shabako (715ff. in Egypt) 14 Shebitku 12 Taharqa 26

Adjoint Rulers in Kush

Shebitku (715–702) Taharqa (702–690) (X , then Tantamani? – x/y–664)

ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY IN EGYPT IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC By Ulrich Luft

Chronology is the skeleton of history. It helps to put events and artefacts in relation to each other in time. This time is not absolute, it is artificial. People have reckoned time in different ways. One method is based on the moon, the other is based on the sun, and another one is based on the stars. All these manners of reckoning were present in the ancient Near East including Egypt in the 2nd millennium BC. We call the mode of reckoning absolute chronology because this system allows establishing the succession of events using the numbers of the Julian calendar. Western researchers have considered the Julian year as a reasonable instrument to prolong the Christian era back before the birth of Christ. The day is the basic unit of chronology. A certain number of days were united to weeks, months, and years. However, the day remained the basic unit. Our day runs from midnight to midnight as the Julian day. Censorinus, a writer of the 3rd century AD was acquainted with the problems of its beginning.1 Naturally, he did not claim that the day was the basic element of the calendar. His main interest focussed on the question of the epochs that are formed by a specified number of days, i.e. the year2 and the month.3 The title of his pamphlet de die natalis “On the Birthday” shows his special interest in the day as

1

2

CENSORINUS 1867 is the principal edition. AUGUST BÖCKH 1864, passim has quoted Censorinus. CENSORINUS 1867, XVIII, 10. Specially the year has found great interest among the scholars. It is natural that IDELER 1825, 126–127. 150–151; BÖCKH 1864, 308–309; GINZEL 1906, 187–188, tried to find out the reasons of the different forms of year. They formed the phalanx of the principal investigators on this field. See also HERODOT II 4: „But as to human affairs, this was the account in which they all aggreed: the Egyptians, they said, were the first men who reckoned by years and made the year consist of twelve divisions of the seasons. They discovered this from the stars (so they said). And their reckoning is, to my mind, a juster one than that of the Greeks; for the Greeks add an intercalary month every other year, so that the seasons agree; but the

chronological unit that he defines as following: “Little remains to say of the day which like the month or the year is partly natural, partly civil. The natural day is the time from sunrise to sunset; his counterpart is the night from sunset to sunrise, however, such a period is called civil day that comprises one rotation of the sky containing one real day and the night. If we say that somebody has lived for 30 days, there are also to add nights too.”4 Censorinus being aware of the different definitions of the day compiles the list of its possible beginnings in Antiquity like before him Pliny: “Astronomers and citizens define such a day in four ways. The Babylonians consider the day from sunrise to sunrise; most of the Umbrian people from noon to noon; Athenians from sunset to sunset; otherwise the Romans estimate the day from midnight to midnight.”5 Pliny explains the last issue more precisely: “the Roman priests and those who define the day in the civil manner like the Egyptians and Hipparch from midnight to midnight.”6 Censorinus and Pliny listed the possibilities of the beginning of the day, while Ptolemy used the Egyptian calendar to fix data in the chronological frame if the data were of Egyptian origin.7 First Ludwig Ideler has drawn the attention to the conspicuous dating when Ptolemy refers to

3 4 5 6 7

Egyptians, reckoning thirty days to each of the twelve months, add five days in every year over and above the total, and thus the completed circle of seasons is made to agree with the calendar”. CENSORINUS 1867, XXII 1–2. CENSORINUS 1867, XXIII 2. CENSORINUS 1867, XXIII 3. PLINIUS 1967–70, II 79. NEUGEBAUER 1975, 559: “The Hellenistic astronomers fully realized the usefulness of the Egyptian calendar for computational purposes”; also PEDERSEN 1974, 124: “Therefore it is the Egyptian Calendar which is the chronological basis for the principal work of Hellenistic astronomy”. Pedersen refers on GINZEL I, 150–152 and PARKER 1950. Similarly argues TOOMER 1984, 9: “He uses the Egyptian year and the era Nabonassar.”

310

Ulrich Luft

data between sunset and sunrise.8 Hence, if Ptolemy wanted to point at an event within the dawn he used the following outline: regnal year with the name of the sovereign, then he introduces the date with the expression “after the Egyptians” (êáôN Ákãõðôßïõò), giving the name of month, the number of the day and after that he adds the number of the next day with the preposition “until” (åkò) and at the end he puts –ñèñïõ “dawn”.9 Since –ñèñïò is joined to the previous date the period is to be included between the first and the second number of day. This is clear by the use of ðñùÀá “first hour” in the following context where Ptolemy first gives the regnal year and after that the allusion on the Egyptians followed by the name of month, the number of the day, and ðñùÀáò “in the first hour”. If the notion of both terms were the same Ptolemy would have used them optionally in both contexts. On contrary, he confirms in one case that the first hour (ðñùÀá) follows the beginning of the day.10 A singular and trustworthy Egyptian data concerning the beginning of the day can be found in the archive of el-Lâhûn of the Dynasty XII. A letter was copied into the temple diary that informed the temple staff of the heliacal rise of Sirius.11 The event is announced in Year 7, i.e. the 7th regnal year of King Senwosret III, for the fourth month of prj.t season, day 16. The message was copied in the third month of prj.t season on day 25. It means that the Egyptians could fix the event in the calendar at least 22 days before its happening. This fact proves the existence of schematic charts that the Egyptians had compiled on the base of the calendar of 365 days. The beginning of the day is of importance defining the given date as the date of the astronomical event or as the date of the feast that generally fell on the day.12 Thus the Egyptians used to differentiate the night before the feast from the feast itself by different dates. A striking sample is the night

8

9 10 11

12 13

PTOLEMY, VI 5 Hei 477 for a date after midnight and VI 5 Hei 478 for a date before midnight. Ideler’s remarks concern the different use of ðñùÀáò and –ñèñïò in the Almagest, see 100–101. For a full discussion of the problem see LUFT 2006, 207–215. E.g. PTOLEMY, IV 9 Hei 329. PTOLEMY 1898, III, 1 Hei 206. Papyrus Berlin P.10012A rt (17) – (21); LUFT 1992, 2.12.7. with literature. For feast-lists connected with dates see LUFT 1992, 2.49. Discussed by WINTER 1951, 10–13.

of the wAgj feast with the date of the first month of the Ax.t season, day 17 and the wAgj feast itself with the date of the first month of the Ax.t season, day 18.13 A further piece of the scroll, i.e. the temple diary of Year 7, is preserved with the entry that the offerings of the feast of the heliacal rise of Sirius entered the temple in the fourth month of prj.t season on day 17.14 Researchers believe that this entry is wrong because it is “fully demonstrated” as Parker states that the beginning of the day happened at dawn: “If the beginning of the Egyptian day is connected with lunar month, then we must seek a lunar phenomenon associated with the morning.”15 I consider this argumentation weak because the connection should be proved first. However, we have evidence for a solar connection of the Egyptian calendar as the year of 365 days is the closest to the tropical year. Leo Depuydt solves the problem in the Solomonic way when he writes that “the Egyptian calendar is not only independent from the moon, but also from the sun.”16 He describes the civil calendar of Egypt that “a lunar calendar is tied to, or subordinated to, another full-fledged calendar, namely the civil one”.17 People organizing the calendar on the lunar basis did not invent a year of 365 days. The result of reckoning with the lunar calendar is a year of 354 or 383 days minus resp. plus one day. Hence the striking solar event in the morning is more convincing than the argument of an indefinite event at dawn. Parker himself refers on Ludwig Ideler,18 Richard Lepsius,19 and Kurt Sethe.20 Lepsius and much clearer Sethe were convinced that the sunrise marked the beginning of the day. Sol certus, luna incerta. I accepted their statements proving them by the double dates of Ptolemy.21 Especially Ptolemy, who has used the Egyptian calendar of 365 days as a useful tool in astronomical reckoning, is a persuading witness in this context. If he is obliged to specify hours instead of the normal angles because

14 15 16 17 18

19 20

21

Papyrus Berlin P.10012B rt (1) – (2); LUFT 1992, 2.13.7. PARKER 1950, §32. DEPUYDT 1998, 18. DEPUYDT 1998, 19. IDELER 1825, 101–102. Ideler speaks on page 102 about the era of Nabonassar. LEPSIUS 1849, 130–131. SETHE 1920, 130–138. The reference is erroneous because Sethe refuses beginning on page 131 Meyer’s thesis that the Egyptian day has begun at dawn. LUFT 1987.

Absolute Chronology in Egypt in the First Quarter of the Second Millennium BC

he quoted samples recorded in previous periods, he gives equinoctial hours, daily hours, and hours of the night. That shows an uncertainty in terminology still in the 2nd century AD. The definition of the beginning of the day has a consequence for chronological computing. Comparing the Egyptian calendar with the Julian one by chronological reasons, one has to count the days till the end of the year. The sum of days to the end or to the beginning of the year multiplied by four results the number of years elapsed since the previous coincidence or passing by till the next coincidence of the heliacal rise of Sirius in both forms of year. One day more counted results an error of four years. Rolf Krauss refused my paper on the beginning of the day in 1990.22 The reason is obvious: If Krauss would have accepted the beginning of the day he had to reckon with one day more until the end of the Egyptian civil year. The result is, calculating the distance of the Sothic date observed in Elephantine to lunar dates of the Lahun archive, an average derivation of one day. Anthony Spalinger adopted anew Parker’s view in 1992.23 He discussed the hours and the term HD-tA in different sources, but he did not distinguish between Egyptian sources of the classical, post-classical and Greek-Roman periods.24 Hence, evidence of the Esna temple that was decorated in the Roman period is not striking because the use of hours was established by this time. Further the religious context should remind of prudence. The Egyptians made several endeavours to

22 23 24

25

26

27

KRAUSS 1990, 54–55. SPALINGER 1992, 156. Spalinger questioned my position that I take Ptolemy for a full witness without considering his period. I see a difference between the use of hours and the use of the civil year. Evidence of the first is lacking. Ptolemy has explained the custom with the statement: “We have used our common year reckoning. As one day is intercalated every four years, the events of the stars fall on the same day for a long period.” IDELER 1825, 149: Ptolemy, Star Appearances, introduction. Ideler refers to a text that Buttmann has edited. It is, however, not certain that Ptolemy means the Egyptian civil year with the expression when he continues that the date shifts every four year by one day. It reveals the Julian year. LIDDELL-SCOTT 1996, 1780; LASSERE 1966, 214–215, rightly discusses the authorship of Eudoxos. CENSORINUS 1867, XVIII 10. Theon has in his commen-

311

organize the night by star clocks or by the division of twelve hours, but in the daily life, I mean in the organisation of work, hours do not appear. The term HD-tA was used in the same unspecified manner as we do it. Today, for some people the morning ends by noon, for others the morning is restricted onto the period around the sunrise. The administration needed the calendar to organize the work, to put dead-lines for taxes, to move people for a timed work etc. When the Greeks detected the impact of the two calendars they invented the Sothic period in a rather schematic way. Shortly, it was said that every 1460 years the heliacal rise of Sirius, in Greek transliteration Sothis of the Egyptian %pd.t, coincides with the beginning of the Egyptian year. The figure 365 as the number of days in the Egyptian year is considered to be quite wanted in Antiquity.25 It means that the heliacal rise of Sirius fell on one day of the Egyptian year for four years. Eudoxos of Cnidos was said to have been the first using the term ôåôñáåôçñßò yet in the 4th century BC.26 Censorinus naturally knows and translates the term in Latin as quadriennium: “Their civil year has only 365 days without nothing intercalating. Thus their four-year-epoch is shorter by approximately one day with the result that the beginning returns by 1461 years”.27 Censorinus naturally reviews the Egyptian year in comparison to the Julian year that was in use more than two centuries. Greek writers took the heliacal rise of Sirius for the beginning of the Egyptian year. A scholiast to Aratos Phainomena has connected the heliacal

tary on Ptolemy’s Hand Tables (Ðñï÷åßñïõò êáíüíïõò) precisely compared the two calendars: “En effet, puisque l’année qui nous est donnée selon les Grecs ou les Alexandrins est de 365 jours ¼ et que l’année selon les Egyptiens est, comme nous l’avons dit, de 365 jour seulement, il est clair que tous les quatre ans cette dernière prend un jour d’avance sur l’année alexandrine, et que, tous les 1460 ans, elle prend 365 jours en avance, soit une année selon les Egyptiens; alors les Alexandrins et les Egyptiens commencent à nouveau l’année ensemble, puis les jours et les mois, le temps compté selon les Egyptiens ayant pris une année entière d’avance. Le retour périodique en question, qui se produit tous les 1460 ans au départ d’origine quelconque, a eu lieu la cinquième année du règne d’Auguste, de sorte qu’à partir de ce moment, les Egyptiens ont recommencé à prendre chaque année une avance d’une quart de jour.” Translation of TIHON 1978, 303.

312

Ulrich Luft

rise of Sirius with the beginning of the inundation and the zodiac sign Leo putting the rise in the 11th hour.28 Sirius and its rise are consecrated to the goddess Isis, he said, clearly in allusion on the Hellenistic goddess Isis. The statement is to be understood in the terms of the Julian year: the 11th hour is the equinoctial hour of the Julian calendar. Diodorus also connected Isis with Sirius quoting of an encomium that Burton compared with the hymn of Cyme.29 Servius in his commentary of Aeneas gives a more mythical explication of the relation between the beginning of the inundation and Isis. The goddess shuttles her sistrum as symbol of the inundation.30 The philosopher Porphyry who was Plotin’s pupil situated the heliacal rise of Sirius in the zodiac sign of Cancer,31 but both signs were named as the period of the heliacal rise of Sirius.32 Porphyry called the New Year’s day New Moon (íïõìçíßá), but the term is not restricted on the Moon because some times the expression êáôN óåëÞíçí was added.33 Naturally, Censorinus is acquainted with the problem fixing the heliacal rise of Sirius on the first day of the month Thoth, being the Egyptian New Year’s day, but added the shifting of the civil calendar in relation to the tropical year.34 He is who has given an necessary hint on the last coincidence of the beginning of the Egyptian year with the heliacal rise of Sirius recording that he lives in 100th year after the coincidence.35 He did not say which year of the tetraeteris it was but I can imagine that it was the last year of the tetraeteris. Computing lunar eclipses of the time of Hadrian assured that the tetraeteris ran from 136

to 139 AD.36 Ludwig Borchardt has put the tetraeteris from 139 to 142 AD37 supporting his argument by coins with the figure of a phoenix.38 In the time of Marcus Aurelius the chronographer Vettius Valens said that the Egyptians began their year by Thoth 1, their natural year by the rise of the canicula.39 This statement nourished the guess that the Egyptians used two forms of the year one beside the other. Unfortunately, Egyptian evidence lacks for the third and second millennium BC. Geminus stated that the Egyptian abstaining was consciously maintained when he wrote that the Egyptians did not want that the offerings were fixed on one time.40 This reason is a rather sophisticated one as well as the king’s oath not to alter the length of the year.41 The next step of establishing the absolute chronology is to equate the given Egyptian date with the Julian date. Since the Julian calendar did not exist before the first century BC the equation is completely hypothetical. The problem could be solved by exploring the Sothic period also unknown before the introduction of the Julian calendar in at least 29 BC when Octavian saved the calendar reform of Caesar. The known late attempt to correct the length of the Egyptian year is an argument for the unwillingness of the Egyptians to acknowledge the deviation of about six hours a year. This view recorded also in the Greek tradition is proved by the failed attempt to adjust the Egyptian year to the tropical year in 238 BC,42 but in this time too the Greek side wanted to do so, not the Egyptian partners. They, on the other hand, did not accept the proposed change. Thus the knowl-

28

34

29

30 31

32

33

Scholia in Aratum v. 152, quoted by GINZEL I 1906, 161; BÖCKH 1863, 309; IDELER 1825, 125. 172; text edited by MARTIN 1974, 155–156. DIODORUS 1888, I 27.4; text also in IDELER 1825, 125; BONNEAU 1964, 266; BERGMAN, 39–40; comm. by BURTON 1972, 114; cf. MÜLLER 1961, 33–35. Diodorus lived in the first century AD while the hymn belongs to the first or second century. BERGMAN 1968, 104. Porphyry de antro nympharum cap. 24, quoted by BONNEAU 1964, 269; IDELER 1825, 126. 171–172; text edited by HERCHER 1858. GEMINUS 1975, VIII 16, quoted by IDELER 1825, 95. 133; text edited by AUJAC 1975: Dositheos July 19; Meton July 21; Euktemon and Eudoxos July 23; Kallippos July 26; Euktemon vaning of the star July 28; quoted by BÖCKH 1863, 59; GINZEL I 1906, 188–189. See LIDDELL & SCOTT 1996, 1183: “new moon: the first day of the month”.

35

36 37 38

39

40

41

42

CENSORINUS XVIII 10; quoted by GINZEL I 1906, 187; BÖCKH 1863, 308–309; IDELER 1825, 126. 151; text edited by CENSORINUS 1642 and CENSORINUS 1867. CENSORINUS XXI 10–11 with the corrected date XIII Cal. that NEUGEBAUER 1975, 781 ascribes to SCALIGER 1609. PTOLEMÄUS 1963, 463–464. BORCHARDT 1935, 15. The coins date between the 2nd and the 6th year of Antonin Pius, i.e. they scatter over two tetraeteris. Coins presented by DUTILH 1893, 347. Canon chron. P. 8 ed. Lips., quoted by IDELER 1825, 126. 171; text edited also by BAINBRIDGE 1648. GEMINUS VIII 16, quoted by IDELER 1825, 95. 133; text edited by AUJAC 1975. Nigidius Figulus (ed. SWOBODA, 124), quoted by BONNEAU 1964, 367. Text Urk II 138; for the date see PARKER 1976, 186–189.

Absolute Chronology in Egypt in the First Quarter of the Second Millennium BC

edge of the derivation seems to lack in the Egyptian consciousness or if it would have been present in Egyptian thought it was neglected. Greek astronomers detected the cause of shifting of the Egyptian year in relation to the tropical year.43 Many researchers are convinced that the Egyptians precisely observed the movement of the stars and the moon. It is possible that they did so, but there is no evidence. If somebody would take the star clocks as proof he should explain their context too. The star clocks were invented to organize the night, I mean, for the dead. In the netherworld watches would have their own pace. The figure 3644 connects the star clocks to a year of 360 days, but the Egyptians made the experience that 360 days is to short until the next inundation. Hence they joined five days to their year that were called “days upon the year”. The principle is clear: the Egyptians did not use fractions of day. Thus the year consists of 365 units called day, i.e. one daily turn of the earth. Observation was not the Egyptian lifestyle, rather subordination under the natural and social order, called Maat. The eventuality of observing celestial events was excluded from their speculation and not the basis of their thinking. In 1885 von Oppolzer’s investigations on the Sothic cycle showed the result that its length shortens running with the time.45 Then the Greek tradition of 1460 years for a cycle appeared to be prolonged at least by four years. Von Oppolzer lowered the number of years to 1456 which figure was accepted by the astronomer Paul Viktor Neugebauer who compiled astronomical charts suitable for historians too.46 However, it turned out that the figure decreased by average two years to present as the English astronomer Ingham has calculated in the 1960ties47 scrutinizing the scheme to a chart of 1456, 1454, and 1452 years to present. Historians took 139 AD as starting point and counted with 1460 years from this point. Consequently, they

43

44 45 46 47 48 49

50

I have taken for sure that Meton knew the cause yet in 432 BC, see LUFT 1989, 218 note 6. The figure varies, see PARKER – NEUGEBAUER. VON OPPOLZER 1885, 557–584, especially 579. NEUGEBAUER 1925, cahier III. INGHAM 1969, 36–40. LUFT 1989, 226–228. Theon quoted by IDELER 1825, 136; LEPSIUS 1849, 169–174; GINZEL I 1906, 193. ½ëéáêüò, a quibusdam dicitur, et ab aliis ½ èåï™ díéáõôüò., CENSORINUS 1867, XVIII 10; in commentary 1642, 136: id est, Solis. XXI 11 he states that „quare

313

used the factor 4 within the interval of two coincidences. The result shows about six years more, the result was 1872 BC for the year in question, i.e. Year 7 of King Senwosret III of Dynasty XII. This result is not precise because researchers did not take into consideration that the Sothic cycle was shorter than 1460 Julian years. Thus starting from Year 136 AD as the first year of the tetraeteris the coincidence would repeat in –1316 and –2771. For the interval between the two coincidences it is appropriated to use a factor less than 4 for multiplying the days between the given date and the end of the Egyptian year. I have explained this method in a paper published in 1989.48 The calculation of the Sothic period with 1460 years in Antiquity is proved by the statement of Theon that 1605 years elapsed from Menophris until the beginning of the reign of Diocletian in 284 AD. The calculation is in accord with the calculation from 139 AD.49 Unfortunately, Censorinus did not give the number of years elapsed “since Menophris”, but his statement that he writes in the 100th year of the great year also called sun year50 clearly reveals that he considered the year as a period, not as point. Censorinus gives a hint when the event happened in the Julian year: “However – he writes – their beginning – he means the years after Nabonassar and Philipp – coincides with the first day of the month that the Egyptians call Thoth which happened seven days before the calends of July in this year”.51 He gives also the date of the coincidence 100 years before when he said that “the same day happened 12 days before the calends of August”. The disturbing number 12 apparently was emended by Scaliger yet in 1609.52 The antique tradition was not so precise as two Latin and one Greek sources may demonstrate.53 Starting from Censorinus’ date the year 139 AD was the first match of the coin-

51 52 53

scire etiam licet, anni illius magni, qui, ut supra dictum est, et solaris et canicularis et dei annus vocatur, nunc agi vertentem annum centesimum”. CENSORINUS 1867, XXI 10. PTOLEMÄUS 1963, 701. SOLINUS XXXIII 13, quoted by BONNEAU 1964, 42, worked about the mid 3rd century AD he said that “the priests regard this time for the birth of the world, that is between 13 und 11 days before the calends of August.” PALLADIUS 1898, quoted by GINZEL I 1906, 188, bishop of the turn to the 5th century refers to the 14th day before the calends of August, that means the 19th

314

Ulrich Luft

cidence counting back from 239 AD and taking into consideration that the tetraeteris happened between 136 and 139, further that the Sothic period was shorter than 1460 years accepting Ingham’s decreasing figures the years –1316 and –2771 are most reasonable the first years of a tetraeteris in which the heliacal rise of Sirius coincides with the first day of the Egyptian year. Since the given date of the Middle Kingdom falls between two coincidences the factor 3.98 should be used. The result is –1866, a year of a tetraeteris between the two pertinent coincidence. The heliacal rise of Sirius was probably observed in the same way that Muslims do it nowadays. A Muslim calendar is available in the previous year showing all lunar feasts of the coming year. In spite of that the Muslim world is waiting for the announcement of the end of the holy month Ramadan by the sheikh of Mecca. A similar situation could be reconstructed for the 18th century BC revealing the few evidence of the period. First, there is the announcement of the heliacal rise of Sirius to the staff of the mortuary temple of King Senwosret II in el-Lâhûn for a precise date. Second, the event was announced, i.e. it could be calculated before. Third, the data belongs to a certain place. Four, Jannine Bourriau has published a stele of the Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge where the nomarkhes is waited by people assembled in front of the Memphite temple that he assures the astronomical event.54 Hence, researchers should take into consideration that the date could be corrected within the civil calendar from time to time. However, the Egyptians did not consider the heliacal rise of Sirius as the beginning of the year; they took it as sign of the approaching inundation that put a lot of tasks on the provincial administration.

Much ado rose concerning the angle of observation and the place of observation. As I have demonstrated that chronology is a calendar matter, not an astronomical one, astronomy is restricted onto the development of the calendar. Once established the Egyptians maintained the calendar without intercalation to correct the derivation of six hours a year. Hence the local appearance of the star was more important for the local administration. It is why I think that the date of el-Lâhûn is tied to the latitude of the Memphite region because the star appeared approximately one day later in accord with the advancement of the inundation with one degree of latitude from South to North. The place of the observation was additionally supported by relating the Sothic date to lunar dates of the archive in my book of 1992. In 2003 I only want to emphasize the priority of the dates in their relation.55 The Sothic date is a date of long space because it appears twice on the same day of the Egyptian calendar during 2008 Julian years. On the other hand, lunar dates repeat in the Egyptian calendar every 25 years that means four times in one century. Hence the lunar date can only back up the long timing date. Concerning the angle of observation I have taken into consideration that the astronomical events were supposedly calculated according to a scheme. Working with lunar dates of the Lâhûn archive I made the experience that there was no lunar calendar in use before Year 9 of Senwosret III. All lunar dates are expressed in the terms of the Egyptian civil calendar of 365 days. Thus, the Egyptian administration has used lunar dates only to appoint feasts as well as lunar months to organise the work in the temple.

of July. HEPHAISTION 1973, I 23, Hephaistion of Thebes who lived in the fourth century AD considered the 25th day of Epiphi being the day of the heliacal rise of Sirius. HEPHAISTION 1973, VI–VII considered as regest of Ptolemy, Apostelesmaticorum. If Hephaistion has used

the data of Ptolemy as the editor Pingree assumes the date would fall in a year between 10 and 20 AD. BOURRIAU 1982, 51–53. LUFT 2003.

54 55

Absolute Chronology in Egypt in the First Quarter of the Second Millennium BC

315

Bibliography ARATUS see MARTIN.

KRAUSS, R.

AUJAC, G.

1990

1975

Géminos. Introduction aux phénomènes, Paris.

BAINBRIDGE, J. 1648

Canicularia. Una cum demonstratione ortus Sirii heliaci pro parallelo inferioris Aegypto, auctore Johanne Gravis (Graeves), Oxford.

LASSERE, F. 1966

BERGMAN, J. 1968

Ich bin Isis. Studien zum memphitischen Hintergrund der griechischen Isisaretalogien, Uppsala.

Vorläufige Bemerkungen zu Seth und Horus/ Horusauge im Kairener Tagewählkalender nebst Notizen zum Anfang des Kalendertages, BSEG 14, 49–56. Die Fragmente des Eudoxos von Knidos, Texte und Kommentare, 4, Berlin.

LEGRAND, PH.-E. 1936

Hérodote histoires, Paris.

BÖCKH, A.

LEPSIUS, K.R.

1863

1849

Ueber die vierjährigen Sonnenkreise der Alten, vorzüglich den Eudoxischen, Berlin.

Chronologie der alten Aegypter, Berlin.

LINDENBROGIUS, H. (ed.)

BONNEAU, D.

1642

1964

LLOYD, A.B.

La crue du Nil. Divinité égyptienne à travers mille ans d’histoire, Paris.

BORCHARDT, L. 1935

Die Mittel zur zeitlichen Festlegung von Punkten der ägyptischen Geschichte und ihre Anwendung, Kairo.

BOURRIAU, J. 1982

Three Monuments from Memphis in the Fitzwilliam Museum, JEA 68, 51–59.

1975

1989

Illahunstudien IV: Zur chronologischen Verwertbarkeit des Sothisdatums, SÄK 16, 217–233.

1992

Die chronologische Fixierung des ägyptischen Mittleren Reiches nach dem Tempelarchiv von Illahun, Veröffentlichungen der Ägyptischen Kommission Nr. 2, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Kl., Sitzungsberichte 598th vol., Wien.

2003

Priorities in Absolute Chronology, 199–204, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium B.C., CChEM 1, Wien.

2006

Rund um den Beginn des ägyptschen Tages, 207–215, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN, A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, OLA 149.1, Wien.

Diodorus Siculus. Book 1, a commentary, Leiden

CENSORINUS see HULTSCH and LINDENBROGIUS. DEPUYDT, L. 1998

Civil Calendar and Lunar Calendar in Ancient Egypt, OLA 77, Leuven.

DUTILH, E.D.J. 1893

BIE 3rd series 3, 347.

EUDOXOS see LASSERE. GEMINUS see AUJAC. GINZEL, F.K. 1906

Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, vol. I, Leipzig.

Herodotus, book II, Etudes préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Egypte romain 43, Leiden.

LUFT, U.

BURTON, A. 1972

Censorinus De die natali, Lugduni Bat.

MANITIUS, K. (tr.) – NEUGEBAUER, O. (eds.) 1963

Ptolemäus, Handbuch der Astronomie, Leipzig.

MARTIN, J.

HEPHAISTION see PINGREE.

1974

HERCHER, R. (ed.)

MÜLLER, D.

1858

1961

Scriptorum graecorum bibliotheca, Paris.

HULTSCH, F. (ed.), 1867

Censorini De die natali liber, Leipzig.

IDELER, L. 1825

Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, Leipzig.

INGHAM, M.F. 1969

The Length of the Sothic Cycle, JEA 55, 36–40.

KAISER, W. 1957

Zur inneren Chronologie der Naqadakultur, Archaeologia Geographica 6, 69–77.

Scholia in Aratum vetera, Stuttgart. Ägypten und die griechischen Isis-Aretalogien, Abh. Leipzig 53/1, Berlin.

NEUGEBAUER, O. 1975

A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, Berlin – Heidelberg – New York.

NEUGEBAUER, P.V. 1925

Hilfstafeln zur Berechnung von Himmelserscheinungen, I–III, Leipzig.

OPPOLZER, TH. V. 1885

Über die Länge des Siriusjahres und der Sothisperiode, Sitzungsberichte Wien math.-nat.. Kl. II, Abt. 90, Wien, 557–584.

316

Ulrich Luft

PARKER, R.A. 1976

The Sothic Dating of the Twelfth and Eighteenth Dynasties, 177–189, in: Studies in Honour of George R. Hughes, SAOC 39, Chicago.

PEDERSEN, O. 1974

A Survey of the Almagest, Acta Historica Scientiarum Naturalium et Medicinalium 30, Odense.

PINGREE, D. (ed.) 1973

Hephaistionis Thebani Apostelesmaticorum libri tres, Leipzig.

SPALINGER, A. 1992

Night into Day, ZÄS 119, 144–157.

THEON see TIHON. TIHON, A. 1978

Le petit commentaire de Théon d’Alexandrie aus Tables faciles de Ptolémée (histoire de texte, édition critique, traduction), Studi e testi 282, Vaticano.

TOOMER, G.J. (tr.) 1984

Ptolemy’s Almagest, London.

PLINY, C.

WINTER, E.

1967–70 Plini Secundi naturalis historiae libri 37. Post Ludovici Lani obitum recogn. et scripturae discrepantia adiecta ed. Carolus Mayhoff, vols. 1–6, Stuttgart.

1951

PTOLEMAIOS see MANITIUS – NEUGEBAUER and TOOMER. SCHMITT, J.C. (ed.) 1898

Palladii Rutilii Tavri Emiliani viris illustris opus agriculturae, Leipzig.

Das ägyptische Wag-Fest, Diss. Wien.

WRIGHT W.C. (ed.) 1913/1923 The works of the Emperor Julian, 1–3, The Loeb Classical Library, London.

THE PRINCIPLE OF THE BAYESIAN METHOD By Franz Weninger, Peter Steier, Walter Kutschera, Eva Maria Wild *

INTRODUCTION The Bayesian statistical method has now been used for about ten years in radiocarbon dating. It has become a widely used and commonly accepted method to consider additional information about the samples within the calibration process. (For details on the standard calibration procedure for radiocarbon age determination see e.g. BOWMAN 1990.) In most cases, the available additional information is the knowledge about time relations of the samples, derived from stratigraphic conditions. Depending on the shape of the calibration curve the common calibration procedure may produce calibrated ages with much larger uncertainty ranges than that of the uncalibrated radiocarbon ages. For instance large wiggles in the calibration curve enlarge the uncertainty of the calibrated age considerably, as shown in details below. Including additional information within the calibration process by means of Bayesian statistics can compensate for this increase of the uncertainty. Although the Bayesian method is widely used, it is often difficult for the user to get a clear idea about the detailed procedure underlying the method. Therefore, it is our intent to give a simple description of the basic mechanism of the method in this article. Formulas, avoided in the text, are presented in a short appendix.

calibration curve that gives the relation between the uncalibrated – the so-called conventional – radiocarbon age based on the measured 14C/12C ratio of the sample, and the calibrated (true) age Q. The calibration curve used in this example is an artificial one, chosen to support our example. (It is also assumed that this calibration curve has no uncertainty attached to it, while in reality it does have a finite width due to the procedure to establish the calibration curve itself.) The units for the numbers of both radiocarbon age and calibrated age are given in years Before Present (yr BP; present corresponds to 1950 AD). Note, that the calibrated age on the horizontal axis of Fig. 1 – and also in all analogue figures – increases from the left to the right. This presentation of calibrated ages is not very common, but for the following discussion it is better to envision increasing ages on both axes. Age calibration of a single sample means to find the so-called likelihood function L1, that shows how well a particular true age Q fits to the measured radiocarbon age x1. The procedure to

HOW THE BAYESIAN METHOD WORKS First Example Before entering into Bayesian statistics, let us first have a look at the normal calibration process of a single radiocarbon sample. We start with a radiocarbon measurement with a known uncertainty. On the vertical axis in Fig. 1, x1 indicates the measured radiocarbon age surrounded by a Gaussian-shaped probability function, that gives the uncertainty of the radiocarbon date x1 due to the measurement error. The function m(Q) is the *

VERA Laboratory, Institut für Isotopenforschung und Kernphysik, Universität Wien, Währinger Straße 17, A1090 Wien.

Fig. 1 The principle technique to calibrate a single radiocarbon age. The single sample calibration or ‘likelihood function’ L1 shows how well a particular calendar age Q fits to the measured value x1. Technically this function is produced by transforming the Gaussian shaped probability distribution of the radiocarbon measurement to the axis of the calibrated age, by using the calibration curve m(Q). Note that an artificial calibration curve is used here to produce an obvious example

318

Franz Weninger, Peter Steier, Walter Kutschera, Eva Maria Wild

Fig. 2 First example: There are two samples with radiocarbon ages x1 and x2 and the additional information that sample 1 is younger than sample 2. By independent calibration, we get two likelihood functions L1 and L2. Obviously, only the peaks marked with arrows agree with the assumed chronological order

get this likelihood function is very simple. One only has to take the value of the Gaussian probability function around x1 for each position on the radiocarbon age axis and to apply this value to the corresponding position on the calibrated age axis, as given by the calibration curve. This procedure is illustrated by the dashed lines for two positions in Fig. 1. (Please note that only the shape of the probability function carries the information relevant to our discussion. Therefore, we don’t use units on axes characterising probabilities.) The shape of the likelihood function L1 clearly shows the main problem of radiocarbon calibration. Due to the wiggle in the calibration curve, the likelihood function is dispersed and produces two regions on the true or calibrated age scale that match the measured radiocarbon age. It cannot be clarified from which of the two time ranges the sample originates by investigating one sample only. Now we assume a second sample yielding the uncalibrated radiocarbon age x2. In Fig. 2 one can see both radiocarbon ages x1 and x2 and the likelihood functions of the two samples L1 and L2. Furthermore, we assume that sample 1 is younger than sample 2, which is a common type of additional information provided by a stratigraphic situation of an archaeological excavation. Obviously, only the marked peaks of L1 and L2 in Fig. 2 agree with this given chronological order and the other parts of the likelihood functions should be suppressed. What we need, is a method that can

Fig. 3 First example (continued): a) The two-dimensional likelihood function L, that is the product of both singlesample likelihood functions L1 and L2. b) The prior (or ‘a priori’) probability A, containing the available additional information on the true sample ages Q1 and Q2. In our example, sample 1 is known to be younger then sample 2. So, the prior probability is high when Q1 < Q2 (left of the diagonal), otherwise it is low (right side). c) The posterior probability P is the product of likelihood function L and prior probability A. Consequently, all regions where the prior probability is low are suppressed, which can clearly be seen. Finally, the marginal posterior probabilities P1 and P2 are the probabilities for the age of each single sample. They are the projections of the two-dimensional posterior probability P to the sample age co-ordinates. (For details see text.)

The Principle of the Bayesian Method 319

deal with such additional information in a general mathematical way. The Bayesian statistics is exactly the mathematical formalism which is needed to utilise this additional information. In the first step, the two likelihood functions are multiplied point by point, resulting in the two-dimensional likelihood function shown in Fig. 3a. On the edges of the plane spanned by the two axis of true or calibrated age Q1 and Q2, the normal likelihood functions L1 and L2 as explained above (Fig. 2) are shown again. Each value of the two-dimensional function is the product of the corresponding values of L1 and L2. The meaning of this two-dimensional likelihood function is now a probability of age combinations. The function value at a particular point in the plane, e.g. with age co-ordinates Q1 = 3350 yr BP and Q2 = 3400 yr BP, indicates the degree of agreement of this particular age combination with the set of measured radiocarbon ages (x1 and x2). In this example we get a two-dimensional function. In general the dimensionality of the likelihood function – and also the prior and posterior function discussed below – is equal to the number of radiocarbon samples, and can be quite high. High dimensional functions are definitively a problem for our imagination, nevertheless the principal mechanism of the Bayesian method remains the same. Therefore we will continue with our two-dimensional example for better understanding. The reason for using multi-dimensional functions lies in the fact that it is a convenient way to introduce the additional information mentioned above into the procedure. In Fig. 3b the prior (‘a priori’) probability function A is shown. This function is the two-dimensional representation of the additional information about the sample ages derived from the stratigraphy. In this example, sample 1 is known to be younger than sample 2. Therefore the prior probability is high for all combinations of age Q1 and age Q2 where Q1 is less than Q2 (left of the diagonal in Fig. 3b) and otherwise it is low (right side of Fig. 3b). Having found the prior probability, the next step is to combine it with the two-dimensional likelihood function established above, which contains the information from the radiocarbon measurements. This is easily done by taking the product of the two functions, that means to multiply the values of the likelihood function and the prior function for each position in the twodimensional co-ordinate plane. The result is the

posterior function P, shown in Fig. 3c. This function gives now the probability for any particular combination of the sample ages Q1 and Q2 to be the true one, including both, the information from measurement and the additional information from stratigraphy. In our example, three of the four peaks of the two-dimensional likelihood function are located in the region with low prior probability and therefore are strongly suppressed within the posterior function. The last step in our procedure is to go back from the multi-dimensional co-ordinate space representing age combinations to usual probabilities for the single samples again. This is done by projecting the multi-dimensional posterior function P to the sample age co-ordinates, getting the so-called marginal posterior probabilities P1 and P2 of the single samples, also shown in Fig. 3c. They give the probability that a considered sample has a particular true age based on both, measurements and stratigraphic information. This is the result we intended to achieve. In Fig. 4 we finally compare the initial single calibration likelihood functions L1 and L2 with the resulting marginal posterior probabilities P1 and P2. It is shown very clearly, that only these peaks remain within the posterior probability, that fulfil the condition that sample 1 is younger than sample 2, according to our prior knowledge. This is exactly what we claimed ini-

Fig. 4 First example (continued): Comparison of the single sample likelihood functions L1 and L2 that contain no prior information (a) with the marginal posterior probabilities P1 and P2 including the prior information (b). Only these peaks remain within the posterior probability fulfilling the condition that sample 1 is younger than sample 2, according to the existing prior knowledge

320

Franz Weninger, Peter Steier, Walter Kutschera, Eva Maria Wild

Fig. 5 Second example: Again we take two samples with radiocarbon ages x1 and x2. L1 and L2 are their likelihood functions obtained by independent calibration

tially based on a qualitative consideration that the Bayesian method should produce. So, in our simple example, the method works very well, and it can be assumed, that the Bayesian method is applicable in other situations as well. Second Example Let us discuss shortly a second – also artificially constructed – example, similar to the one described above, but now using a different kind of prior information. Again we restrict ourselves to only two radiocarbon measurements for the reason of simplified visualisation. Fig. 5 shows the determination of the single sample likelihood functions, as already explained above. Due to all possible combinations of the three peaks of L1 with the two peaks of L2 there six peaks arise in the multi-dimensional likelihood function, shown in Fig. 6a. Unlike the first example, we now assume that sample 1 is older than sample 2 by a particular known value with a given uncertainty. This leads to the shape of the prior probability shown in Fig. 6b, looking like a wall with Gaussian cross section. Analogous to the first example, building the product of the multi-dimensional likelihood function L and the prior function A lets only this peak remain within the posterior function P that fulfils the prior condition. Or in other words, only this peak in the multi-dimensional co-ordinate plane remains, that originates from the combination of regions in the single calibration likelihood functions L1 and L2 having the required age difference. Building the marginal posterior probabilities as explained above, it is

Fig. 6 Second example (continued): a) Two-dimensional likelihood function L, and single-sample likelihood functions L1 and L2. b) Prior probability A, containing the additional information on the true sample ages Q1 and Q2. Unlike the first example, we now assume that sample 1 is older than sample 2 by a particular known value with a given uncertainty (60 ± 20 yr). This leads to the form shown of the prior probability, which looks like a wall with Gaussian cross section. c) Two-dimensional posterior probability P and marginal posterior probabilities P1 and P2. (For details see text.)

again clearly shown that all regions are suppressed that do not match the required condition (Fig. 7).

The Principle of the Bayesian Method 321

Fig. 7 Second example (continued): Comparison of the single sample likelihood functions L1 and L2 (a) with the marginal posterior probabilities P1 and P2 (b). Analogous to the first example, again only the peaks that are in agreement with the prior knowledge remain within the posterior probability which means that sample 1 has to be 60 ± 20 years older than sample 2

Third Example – a ‘Real-World’ One An early investigation, where Bayesian statistics were used in conjunction with radiocarbon dat-

ing was performed by BUCK et al. 1994 for an excavation of an Austrian Bronze Age village. We use here the radiocarbon dates and the stratigraphic relations investigated in this work to show a realistic application of the Bayesian method. Naturally in a real-world application, the situation is more complex then in the artificial examples previously shown. Now we have ten-dimensional functions according to a sample number of ten, a lot of wiggles in the real calibration curve, and a more complex prior information (see Fig. 8). However, the method works just the same way as explained above. Fig. 8a shows the pattern of the overlapping uncertainty ranges of the radiocarbon dates of ten measured samples, indicated by their Gaussian probability distributions, as well as the relevant section of the radiocarbon calibration curve (IntCal 04 by REIMER et al. 2004). Part (b) in Fig. 8 gives a symbolic representation of the stratigraphic relations, which must be read in the following way: Sample 10 is known to be younger than sample 9 and 9 is known to be younger than 8. The samples 3, 4, 6 and 7 are all known to be older than 8, but the age relation between them is unknown. Again, sample 3 is

Fig. 8 Third example: In a real-world application the situation is more complex then in the artificial examples shown in the previous figures. Now we have functions within a ten-dimensional mathematical space, many wiggles in the real calibration curve and more complex prior relations. The time relations between the individual samples based on the stratigraphic information are given in (b): sample 10 is known to be younger than sample 9, sample 9 younger than 8. Samples 3, 4, 6 and 7 are all known to be older than 8, but the relationship between them is unknown. Again, 3 is younger than 2 and so on. The data are taken from BUCK et al. 1994 from an excavation of an Austrian bronze age village

322

Franz Weninger, Peter Steier, Walter Kutschera, Eva Maria Wild

Fig. 9 Third example (continued): Single sample calibration without prior information (a), compared with the outcome of the Bayesian method, including the prior information (b). Once again parts of the probability distributions that are not in agreement with the prior knowledge are suppressed

younger than 2 and so on. Nearer to archaeological terms, the stratigraphy contains two phases. The younger one contains the sequence 8-9-10, the older one the sequences 1-2-3 and 5-6 and additionally the samples 4 and 7. Across these sequences (e.g. sample 3 vs. 5) no relation is known. In Fig. 9 we show a comparison of the likelihood functions from single sample calibration and the marginal posterior functions produced by the Bayesian method for each sample, analogous to Fig. 4 and Fig. 7 in the previous examples. It is not necessary to discuss these functions in detail, there can easily be seen two qualitative aspects. First, the time ranges of possible ages turn out to be much smaller in the posterior functions then in the likelihood functions. Second, the regions are shifted in accordance to the stratigraphic relations. This can be seen when looking e.g. at sample 8. As mentioned above, sample 8 has to be younger then the samples 3, 4, 6 and 7. So, roughly spoken, all these samples try to shift the posterior function of sample 8 to the younger side of the age scale. This is what one sees when comparing the likelihood function (Fig. 9a) and posterior function (Fig. 9b) of sample 8. Of course, both of the effects described have again one basic reason: the suppression of all parts of the (multi-dimensional) posterior function, which do not agree with the prior probability, i.e. the stratigraphical information.

Although we have seen that a large number of samples does not change the method in principal, there is a non-negligible technical difference, which will be discussed below. For further reading about the application of Bayesian methods in radiocarbon dating see e.g. BUCK et al. 1991, BRONK RAMSEY 1995, 1998, BRONK RAMSEY et al. 2004, STEIER and ROM 2000. GIBBS SAMPLING, THE KEY NUMERICAL FEASIBILITY

TO

For the simple examples with only two samples measured, we had to deal with two-dimensional functions. If we suppose to work with 100 points on each of the two age co-ordinates within the numerical calculations, this leads to 1002 = 10 000 points within the co-ordinate plane spanned by two age co-ordinates. So, all functions have to be evaluated at 10 000 points. This is for sure no problem for a computer. But if we suppose now that there are 15 samples and we again use 100 points on each age axis, we get 10015 = 1030 points to be evaluated for our now 15-dimensional functions. Therefore, it is not possible any more to calculate these functions point by point. Fortunately, a very efficient Monte-Carlo method can solve this problem, the so-called Gibbs sampling. The principle of doing the calculations with a Monte Carlo method is to evaluate not all points in the multi-dimensional co-ordinate space, but

The Principle of the Bayesian Method 323

only a number of randomly drawn ones. It would not, however, be very efficient to draw the points really randomly out of the multi-dimensional space, because many points would lie in areas where the posterior function is nearly zero, as one can imagine when looking at Fig. 3c or Fig. 6c. These points would be useless, because they do not contribute to the resulting marginal posterior functions. In contrast, the Gibbs sampling finds a pattern of points in the multi-dimensional coordinate space where the density of the points reproduces the probability function investigated. These points can be found by evaluating only one-dimensional slices within the multi-dimensional probability function. These slices are conditional probabilities with all dimensions but one fixed. The procedure is the following: One starts with calculating a slice e.g. in the first dimension, choosing all other co-ordinates arbitrarily. This slice represents a probability distribution along the first dimension and out of this distribution a position on the first co-ordinate is randomly drawn. Next, a further slice is calculated along the second dimension, located at the position of the first draw. All other co-ordinates stay the same. This procedure is repeatedly performed. When reaching the last co-ordinate it jumps back to the first and iterates all over. With each change of any co-ordinate a new point is found. It can be shown theoretically, that the density of their pattern converges to the probability function processed. Within the Bayesian method, Gibbs sampling is used to find the marginal posterior probabilities of the samples. As explained previously, the marginals are projections of the multi-dimensional posterior probability to the single sample coordinates. Mathematically, they are evaluated by an integration – or summation when done numerically – over the age co-ordinates of all other samples. With the Gibbs sampling method this summation can easily be done by projecting every selected point onto the corresponding positions on each sample co-ordinate and adding them up. This produces the correct marginal probability distributions, because the density of the points represents already the probability to be integrated. So we only have to run the Gibbs sampling on the multi-dimensional posterior probability. And the great advantage is, that there is no need to evaluate all points of the posterior function before, because the method uses only onedimensional slices of the function. Therefore, the use of Gibbs sampling makes

Bayesian statistics numerically feasible, allowing it to become a powerful tool in radiocarbon calibration widely used today. For more details to Gibbs sampling and related numerical methods see e.g. GILKS et al. 1996. FINAL REMARK We hope that this work shed some light on a method which – although intrinsically complex – is very useful for the reduction of the well-known uncertainties of standard radiocarbon dating. Of course, there are many detailed aspects and specialised applications of the method, as well as various questions and problems that are not mentioned in this article. APPENDIX: BASIC MATHEMATICAL RELATIONS Here we present the mathematical formulation of the Bayesian method used in this article. The equations are particularly given for the second example described in the text.

The variables used are exactly the same as in the text: x1 and x2 are the uncalibrated radiocarbon ages of sample 1 and 2 with their measurement errors s1 and s2. Q1 and Q2 are the calibrated true ages of the to samples and m(Q) is the radiocarbon calibration curve. L1(x1*Q1) (read: “the probability L1 of x1 given Q1”) and L2(x2*Q2) are the one-dimensional likelihood functions for single sample calibration. The notation L1(x1*Q1) means, that L1 is the conditional probability to measure the value x1 when having a

324

Franz Weninger, Peter Steier, Walter Kutschera, Eva Maria Wild

true age Q1. L(x1,x2*Q1,Q2) is the multi-dimensional likelihood function. A(Q1,Q2) is the prior probability for the special case, that Q1 is known to be older then Q2 by a particular age difference d with an uncertainty sd. Further P(Q1,Q2*x1,x2) is the multi-dimensional posterior

probability. This is the conditional probability, that the particular combination of age Q1 and age Q2 is the true one, when having measured x1 and x2. Finally, P1(Q1*x1,x2) and P2(Q2*x1,x2) are the marginal posterior probabilities of the true age of sample 1 and sample 2.

Bibliography BOWMAN S.

BUCK C.E., LITTON C.D. and SHENNAN S.J.

1990

1994

Radiocarbon dating – (Interpreting the past). British Museum Publications Ltd, London.

BRONK RAMSEY C.

A case study in combining radiocarbon and archaeological information: the early Bronze Age settlement of St. Veit-Klinglberg, Land Salzburg, Austria. Germania 72(2), 427–447.

1995

Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37(2), 425–430.

GILKS W.R., RICHARDSION S. and SPIEGEL-HALTER D.J. (eds.)

1998

Probability and dating. Radiocarbon 40(1), 461–474.

REIMER P.J. et al.

BRONK RAMSEY C., MANNING S.W. and GALIMBERTI M. 2004

Dating the volcanic eruption at Thera. Radiocarbon 46(1), 325–344.

BUCK C.E., KENWORTHY J.B., LITTON C.D. and SMITH A.F.M. 1991

Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity 65 (1991), 808–821.

1996

2004

Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice, London.

IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46(3), 1029–1058.

STEIER P. and ROM W. 2000

The use of Bayesian statistics for 14C dates of chronologically ordered samples: a critical analysis. Radiocarbon 42(2), 183–198.

EGYPT & TIME By Malcolm H. Wiener

The papers and subsequent discussions at this fine workshop, while establishing no major breakthroughs in the chronology of Ancient Egypt, succeeded in clarifying a number of major issues while simultaneously illuminating events in the Third Intermediate Period. Indeed, the papers by David A. Aston, Gerard P.F. Broekman, Dan’el Kahn and Kenneth Kitchen concerning the T.I.P. seemed almost a parallel conference that discussed in detail historical and chronological issues within the period, without impacting Egyptian chronology in general since all of the speakers accepted c. 945 B.C. as the time of the accession of Shoshenq I. At the 2003 SCIEM conference, Rolf Krauss set forth a strong case based on lunar observation data for an accession in 943 B.C. (In press. I am grateful to R. KRAUSS for sharing his text).1 Kenneth Kitchen’s paper (presented in absentia in final form after the conference) addressed many contentious chronological issues within the T.I.P. and presented his current position with respect to the whole of Egyptian historical chronology, relying largely on texts and “dead reckoning” of reigns. The dates proposed have received widespread general acceptance and are propounded as well in the paper by Manfred Bietak. The paper by Vera Müller presented a general overview of all periods and various approaches, scientific as well as textual, cautioning against placing total reliance on proposed absolute astronomical dates.

1

Egyptian textual evidence (KITCHEN 1986; 1991; 1996) provides a date not later than 941 B.C., and probably a little earlier (KITCHEN, this volume). A major building program in the temple of Karnak at Thebes was begun by Shoshenq I in Year 21 of his reign, according to a rock stele found in the sandstone quarries at Gebel Silsila (CAMINOS 1952; KITCHEN, this volume). The building program, left unfinished presumably because of the death of Shoshenq the following year, included a relief recounting a major campaign in Israel and perhaps in Judah. Correspondingly, the Hebrew Bible in I Kings 14:25 states that Shishak seized the Temple treasure of Jerusalem in the 5th year of the reign of Rehoboam, king of Judah. Correlations with Assyrian annals from

THE THIRD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD AND THE TWENTY-FIFTH DYNASTY The fine papers on the genealogy and history of the Third Intermediate Period and Twenty-fifth Dynasty speak for themselves. The T.I.P–Twentyfifth Dynasty framework established through the heroic efforts of Ken Kitchen in particular, Morris Bierbrier and others was subject to vigorous challenge on many points of detail. Dan’el Kahn’s proposal that Manethonian absolute dates in the period around 700 B.C. are in error by a few years supports the long-held understanding that Manetho’s sources were better for some periods than others. THE NEW KINGDOM Workshop papers and discussions of the New Kingdom raised two challenges to the current widely accepted absolute chronology placing the accession of Ramses II at 1279 B.C., of Tuthmosis III at 1479 B.C. and of Ahmose I and the beginning of the New Kingdom c. 1539 B.C. The first challenge came in a paper by David Aston, who argued that the reign of Tuthmosis IV should be lengthened considerably beyond the decade (c. 1400–1390 B.C.) now generally allotted because of the number of tomb chapels constructed and officials recorded during his reign, plus the significant change in pottery styles during his reign and the preceding reign of Amenophis II (c. 1427–1400

the reign of Shalmaneser III establish Hebrew Biblical monarchic dates from the beginning of the Divided Monarchy in c. 931–30 B.C. (see KITCHEN, this volume). Accordingly, if the proposed new lunar observationbased date of 943 B.C. for the accession of Shoshenq I is correct, then either the campaign in Judah occurred in Year 18 rather than Year 20 of his reign, followed by a delay of two years until the inauguration of the building program containing the stele describing the campaign, or the 5th year of Rehoboam should be placed in 923 B.C. rather than 925 B.C. as proposed by THIELE (1951; 1983) and KITCHEN (1986; 1996; this volume) on the basis of Biblical accounts of the lengths of interconnecting reigns in Israel and Judah.

326

Malcolm H. Wiener

B.C. on the generally accepted chronology). In the discussion following David Aston’s paper, I commented that periods of prosperity uninterrupted by war, drought or plague in a land as wealthy as Egypt could have witnessed much building activity and expansion in administration, and that the rate of change in pottery in all societies is irregular and dependent on many factors, including foreign influences, tastes of rulers and users or consumers versus the extent to which certain shapes and patterns of decoration came to denote the contents of containers, i.e., as trademarks, thus tending toward stability. The length of the reign of Tuthmosis IV has been the subject of considerable past discussion. Thirty years ago, E. Wente and C. Van Siclen published an important article arguing for a 34year reign for Tuthmosis IV and a high Egyptian chronology placing the reign of Tuthmosis IV between 1419 and 1386 B.C. and the accession of Tuthmosis III in 1504 rather than 1479 B.C. (WENTE and VAN SICLEN 1976). In 1991 B. Bryan, in the expanded version of her 1980 dissertation on the reign of Tuthmosis IV, argued that while there was abundant evidence for Tuthmosis IV through his 8th year, there was none thereafter, adding that a brief reign was supported by astronomical evidence and the Manetho Kinglist. Bryan concluded that the reign of Tuthmosis IV was unlikely to have gone beyond 12 years at the most. E. Wente then graciously stated that he accepted Bryan’s position (pers. comm., for which I am most grateful). A brief reign for Tuthmosis IV is also favored by K.A. Kitchen. Rolf Krauss believes that astronomical sightings in the 23rd and 24th years of Tuthmosis III firmly fix the year of his accession at 1479 B.C. (forthcoming) and hence require a brief reign for Tuthmosis IV. Further astronomical evidence is available in the form of a lunar observation in Year 52 of Ramses II, consistent only with an accession date of 1279 B.C. within the period required both by Near Eastern correlations and by “dead reckoning” via the addition of the regnal years of subsequent rulers (KRAUSS forthcoming and this volume). Furthermore, Karl Jansen-Winkeln argued in his paper that on the basis of genealogical data regarding average life spans even a date of 1279 B.C. appeared to be earlier than might be anticipated and that accordingly a 25-year increase to the higher lunar cycle date seemed contraindicated. It will be interesting, therefore, to see whether David Aston’s contribution to this workshop will change the communis opinio.

The second challenge to the now standard chronology of the New Kingdom went to the heart of the issues raised at this workshop. Franz Weninger, Peter Steier and Walter Kutschera in their paper presented radiocarbon dates of seeds collected at Tell el-Dabca from early New Kingdom, Second Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom strata. At Tell el-Dabca two determinations from the C/2 stratum of the post-Hatshepsut Tuthmosis III period gave central dates of 1620 B.C. and earlier, far too early on textual, archaeological and astronomical grounds (BIETAK, this volume). Moreover, the radiocarbon determinations showed very poor agreement between the originally calibrated and the quasi-Bayesian-sequenced time range in radiocarbon terms (see below). There is an old saying in radiocarbon dating that “one date is no date,” reflecting the uncertainty inherent in any single 14C determination. Here perhaps one may say the same of two dates, when they are of this nature. The 14C dates obtained from seeds from the early New Kingdom strata are also far earlier than the dates established through the study of texts and astronomical observations. The absolute dates for these strata and for the New Kingdom in general cannot move very much from those stated above, not only for the reasons previously stated but also because of the correlations with the chronology of the ancient Near East fixed via the correspondence of Amenophis III and Akhenaten with Near Eastern rulers whose dates are known to within about a decade. Confirmation of the firm foundation of Near Eastern chronology was provided recently by the discovery at Assur of correspondence between the twelfthcentury B.C. rulers Ninurta-apil-Ekur of Assur and Meli-Shipak of Babylon (FRAHM n.d.), thus confirming the overlap of these reigns as required by the independent chronologies of Assur and Babylon set forth over 30 years ago by J. BRINKMAN (1972, 272–273; 1976, 31–33; 1977). The work of Brinkman (which of course utilized the records contained in the vast number of fired clay tablets produced in the Near East) took the chronologies of Assyria back to around 1430 B.C. with a possible error range of about a decade. The recent extensive reworking of the evidence by H. GASCHE (2003) has reaffirmed Brinkman’s conclusions back to the last quarter of the fifteenth century B.C. with only minor variation; for example BRINKMAN (1977) placed the reign of Enlil-nasir II in c. 1430–25 B.C., whereas GASCHE (2003, 210 n. 17) gives regnal dates of

Egypt & Time 327

1422–17 B.C. Further discussion of the 14C measurements from New Kingdom strata is contained in the concluding section of this summary dealing with radiocarbon dating problems in general. THE SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD Apart from radiocarbon dates from the relevant strata, discussions of the Second Intermediate Period are provided by Kim Ryholt and Chris Bennett. Both stress the high degree of chronological uncertainty which prevails. Ryholt’s paper reports that the damaged figure in the Hyksos summation in the Turin Kinglist is in fact more compatible with the reading “140 years” than “108 years,” although the latter cannot be entirely ruled out. Ryholt further notes that it would be unwise in any event to place much confidence in the Turin Kinglist for the obscure Fifteenth Dynasty, considering that for the better-documented Twelfth Dynasty the Kinglist is hard to reconcile with the contemporary sources of information (RYHOLT 2004 and pers. comm. of 5 January 2006). Bennett’s paper notes that the surviving portions of the Turin Kinglist covering the late Second Intermediate Period are particularly difficult to reconcile with the Manethonian tradition. The Turin Kinglist, contained on about 300 fragments of papyrus now housed in the Turin Museum, provides what was intended as a complete list of Egyptian kings since the creation beginning with gods and semidivine mythic figures. In its scope and intention, the list is a unique document from the Pharaonic period. The list is written on the reverse of a discarded tax register of the thirteenth century B.C., but whether the list was written in the same century or later is unclear (RYHOLT 2004). Would adding 32 years to the Hyksos in accordance with Ryholt’s tentative suggestion raise dates overall or merely reduce the duration of the Fourteenth Dynasty accordingly? Ryholt believes that the Fourteenth Dynasty at Avaris in the Nile Delta begins very soon after the end of the Twelfth Dynasty in Thebes, whereas Manfred Bietak thinks that the Fourteenth Dynasty in the Delta did not begin until the latter part of the Thirteenth Dynasty located in Memphis. Critical evidence strongly favoring the Bietak position is provided by studies of pottery typology and, in particular, scarabs (ALLEN, ALLEN and BEN-TOR 1999). Bietak notes among other arguments that major occupation of the Uronarti fort in Nubia during the Thirteenth Dynasty is established by

the pottery and by scarabs with close Hyksos parallels, contrary to Ryholt’s view that the occupation belongs in the Fourteenth Dynasty. The duration of the Hyksos period is of interest for Aegean chronology, for interconnections generally, and (at the margin) for the compatibility of 14C determinations with archaeological evidence. As for the Aegean, an alabaster lid with the cartouche of the Hyksos ruler Khyan was found by Sir Arthur Evans at the Palace of Minos at Knossos. Kim Ryholt’s work strongly supports the position that Khyan was the fourth of the Hyksos rulers, and not the first, as the late Olga Tufnell thought (TUFNELL 1984). Evans believed the alabaster lid came from a secure Middle Minoan IIIA context at Knossos (EVANS 1921). Colin Macdonald has suggested in a recent article that the context could be MM IIIB rather than IIIA (MACDONALD 2003, 40), whereas Peter Warren believes Evans’ case for a IIIA context remains convincing (pers. comm. of 4 February 2005). The Aegean Long Chronology, supported by Sturt Manning and others, requires that Khyan rule during LM IB (accepting that he is the fourth Hyksos and not the first, which would make the discrepancy far worse still). In this case both Evans’ description of the findspot and Macdonald’s reinterpretation must be completely wrong and/or the lid must have migrated downward as a result of some now unrecognizable LM II rebuilding in the area in which it was found. The Khyan lid is one of countless archaeological contexts (if one considers all of the relevant Cypriot pottery) which would have to move by roughly a century to accommodate a seventeenth-century date for the eruption of Thera as proposed by some (though disputed by others) on the basis of radiocarbon determinations (pro: MANNING 1999; BRONK RAMSEY, MANNING and GALIMBERTI 2004; contra: WIENER 2003). Raising the date of Khyan even by a generation (made possible if one assumes that most of Ryholt’s 32-year addition comes in the last three Hyksos reigns) would do little to resolve this difference. Similarly, the extension of the Hyksos period in toto by about 32 years would affect only slightly the absolute dates of the various strata at Dabca and of the Cypriot pottery they contained, or the dating of Canaanite sites on the basis of interconnections with Dab ca (B IETAK 2003; BIETAK, KOPETZKY and STAGER forthcoming. Of course there would be no effect on the dating of Late Bronze Age Cypriot pottery styles including

328

Malcolm H. Wiener

White Slip I, a piece of which was found in the Volcanic Destruction Level at Thera). The paper by Chris Bennett presents a probing analysis of the textual evidence for the Second Intermediate Period, to which is added critical evidence gathered from genealogy and prosopography. Bennett has been able to construct a network of family trees centered on the governors of El-Kab that spans the period from the mid-Thirteenth to the early Eighteenth Dynasty and includes synchronisms with several kings in this period. Bennett reports that the evidence so obtained “suggests that the Theban state broke away from the 13th dynasty a few decades before the end of that dynasty, and that the Theban dynasty lasted some decades longer than is usually supposed” (BENNETT 2005). Bennett has also explored the implications of a proposed Sothic (rising of Sirius) date for anchoring Dynasty Sixteen and Seventeen, which he considers a single dynasty (BENNETT 2002). The date comes from an unusual and surprising source and location – a rock graffito from Djebel Tjauti (DARNELL and DARNELL 2002, 49–52). Kim Ryholt, however, in his paper to this workshop presented a detailed argument that the graffito did not record a Sothic date at all. Skepticism has also been expressed in this regard by James Allen of the Metropolitan Museum (forthcoming), although no one has yet proposed an alternative reading for the graffito. Sothic date aside, Bennett’s conclusions concerning the succession of governors at El-Kab, which require a minimum distance of about ten generations between Sebekhotep IV to Hatshepsut, argue against lowering the dates of the preceding Middle Kingdom, a subject to which we now turn. THE MIDDLE KINGDOM, FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD AND OLD KINGDOM The absolute chronology of the Middle Kingdom and hence earlier periods depends largely on Egyptian Sothic and lunar observations and our understanding of them. Written records play an important role within each period. Interconnections with the Near East may provide additional information via connections to cedar- and juniper-based dendrochronology and to increasing numbers of high-precision Near Eastern radiocarbon dates as described by Ezra Marcus in his paper to this workshop. With respect to Middle Kingdom astronomical dating, this workshop saw the continuation of an ongoing, long-standing debate. The paper by Rolf

Krauss refined his lunar-based argument for a low chronology which would place Year 7 of Senwosret III in 1831–30 B.C., consistent with his dating of the Illahun Papyrus Sothic observation, which Krauss believes was recorded at Elephantine in Upper Egypt rather than at Memphis/Illahun as is commonly held, or at Thebes. The fundamental analysis of Parker in 1950 proposed 1872 B.C. for Year 7 of Senwosret III, with subsequent adjustment to 1866 B.C. by LUFT (1992, 114 n. 46) and VON BECKERATH (1997, 45, 132–134). Parker placed the reign of Senwosret III between 1878 and 1843 B.C.; von Beckerath and Kitchen prefer 1872–53/52 B.C. while Luft favors 1873–54 B.C. (VON BECKERATH 1997; KITCHEN 2000). Krauss’ reading of the astronomical evidence, on the other hand, leads to proposed regnal dates of 1837–19 B.C. (KRAUSS forthcoming). The Turin Canon, compiled more than 500 years later, gives thirty-plus years. Luft believes the astronomical evidence for a shortened 19-year reign of Senwosret III is controlling (LUFT 1992, 114 n. 46; 2003, 202). LUFT in 1992 also cited W.K. SIMPSON (1984) who argued for shortening the reign of Senwosret III because of the then lack of epigraphical evidence after Year 19, but in the same year FELIX ARNOLD (1992) published a control note from a limestone building block inside the king’s pyramid at Dahshur which recorded a Year 30 (see also DIETER ARNOLD 2002, 59) and in 1996 J. Wegner published control notes on building blocks from the mortuary temple of Senwosret III that continue up to Year 39. Reconciling the foregoing evidence with Illahun Papyrus Berlin 10055 (KAPLONY-HECKEL 1971), where a “Year 19” is followed with a “Year 1” in the same hand, requires a co-regency of Senwosret III and his successor Amenemhat III of 20 years. (I am most grateful to Dorothea Arnold for reminding me of the history and commentary concerning the control notes and the Illahun Papyrus.) In contrast to Krauss’ paper, Ulrich Luft strongly defends a high Middle Kingdom chronology on astronomical grounds, arguing for the correctness of both the Sothic date for the reign of Senwosret III and the Illahun lunar observations as set forth by Parker (while also contending for a 19-year reign for Senwosret III on the basis of astronomy, as noted above). Andrew Shortland, Christopher Bronk Ramsey and Thomas Higham’s paper also contends that the Illahun observations and the generally accepted understanding of them seem well

Egypt & Time 329

based. Krauss’ lunar calculations would result in an end date for the Twelfth Dynasty and the Middle Kingdom in 1760–59 B.C., compared to high chronology dates of 1786 B.C. (PARKER 1950, 63–69), 1794/3 B.C. (VON BECKERATH 1997), 1795 B.C. (KITCHEN 2000, 46–47, 49), 1796 B.C. (LUFT 1992, 114 n. 46), and 1803 B.C. (RYHOLT 1997, 184–197). Bennett’s conclusions concerning the Second Intermediate Period mandate a high Middle Kingdom chronology as well (BENNET 2002), and Ryholt’s paper points in the same direction in reemphasizing his prior support for the high Middle Kingdom chronology. Apart from the papers at this workshop, Fabian Boudville (The Egyptologists’ Electronic Forum: [email protected], 29 March 2005) has argued that Krauss’ date of 1760/59 B.C. for the end of the Middle Kingdom would shorten the Thirteenth Dynasty unreasonably by allowing an average reign of only 2.4 years for the many shortlived but well-attested kings and that an Elephantine locus for the Sothic sightings adopted by Krauss is much less likely than a Thebes or Memphis observation point, either of which would yield a higher date. Gary Greenberg has also supported the standard Middle Kingdom high chronology, with the Twelfth Dynasty beginning in 1991 and ending in 1786 B.C. (GREENBERG 2002; 2003–2004, 53. Substituting an Illahun papyrus date of 1866 for 1872 B.C. brings the inception date of the Twelfth Dynasty down to 1985 B.C.). Shortening the reign of Senwosret II to nine years as suggested by the lack of evidence to date for any year beyond Year 8 would result in a beginning year of 1981 B.C., while the Greenberg ending date of 1786 B.C. assumes a 39-year reign for Senwosret III with only a three-year coregency (GREENBERG 2003–2004, 37–40. So brief a co-regency is difficult to reconcile, however, with the other evidence cited). A further indication that the Thirteenth Dynasty covers a substantial period of time rather than the brief period suggested by Krauss is provided by the extended stratified sequence from the Metropolitan Museum excavations at Dahshur conducted by Dieter and Dorothea Arnold (DOROTHEA ARNOLD 1982; pers. comm. of 8 February 1996 from Dorothea Arnold, for which I am most grateful). Manfred Bietak notes that a long time span for the Thirteenth plus Fourteenth Dynasties is further suggested by the stratigraphy at Tell elDabca, where strata G/4, G/1–3, F, E/3 and early E/2 fall in this period (I am most grateful to

Manfred Bietak for this observation and for other comments on this section of my paper as well). In sum, the weight of scholarly opinion from various directions is heavily against Krauss’ low Middle Kingdom chronology. The radiocarbon dates reported by Weninger, Steier and Kutschera at this workshop, would imply a higher chronology still, since their analysis of the seed measurements from Thirteenth Dynasty strata at Dabca produced dates similar to the majority view astronomical dates for the Twelfth Dynasty. Questions posed by the Dabca 14C determinations are considered in the final section of this summary. With regard to the First Intermediate Period and the Old Kingdom, various radiocarbon determinations have sometimes yielded dates higher than traditional chronologies, as noted in the paper by Hendrik Bruins (see also BRUINS and MOOK 1989, 1025; BRUINS 2001, 1150–1153; VAN DER PLICHT and BRUINS 2001, taking account as well of Near Eastern radiocarbon dates and Egyptian interconnections). Here, however, traditional Egyptological chronologies clearly lack precision, and indeed appear more fluid than is often acknowledged, with the F.I.P. and the Sixth Dynasty presenting particular difficulties. Adding together the estimated reign lengths of known rulers leaves open the possibility of additional rulers or periods of interregnum. The Turin papyrus is incomplete in the section covering the First Intermediate Period and the Manethonian report of “70 rulers in 70 days” can hardly be taken literally; rather it suggests that 70 names had been recorded with no way of knowing whether some or all were local rulers who overlapped. Analyses of charcoal used in Old Kingdom pyramid construction (HAAS et al. 1987; BONANI et al. 2001; NAKHLA et al. 1999) produced some radiocarbon determinations with dates centuries earlier than conventional dates, but the presence of old wood is suspected. The Andrew Shortland et al. paper noted that the 14C measurements in question produced both dates that were consistent with the standard chronology and dates hundreds of years older perhaps representing old carbon, and contended that the two sets of dates should not have been averaged. (For additional Old Kingdom radiocarbon dates, see MANNING 2006) L. DEPUYDT (2000) has analyzed a papyrus from the Abusir mortuary temple of the Fifth Dynasty king Neferefre as containing a Sothic date which would place his reign more than

Fig. 1 Comparison of Tell el-Dabca phases to the chronologies of Ashkelon, Tell el-cAjjul, Cyprus and the Levant, including a reference to the 1645 ±7 Greenland ice-core signal (after BIETAK 2003, fig. 1)

330

Malcolm H. Wiener

Egypt & Time 331

half a century earlier than conventional dating (KITCHEN 2000, 47–48). Some adjustment of traditional dates for the First Intermediate Period and the Old Kingdom is clearly possible. (Vera Müller’s paper entitled “How Fixed is Egyptian Historical Chronology Really?” provides a general overview of this question and many of the problems considered by the workshop.) THE CHALLENGE OF BAYESIAN-FILTERED RADIOCARBON DATES A leitmotif of this workshop has been the challenge posed to traditional Egyptological dating by the presentation of radiocarbon dates from Tell elDabca in the Nile Delta said to be generally 100–150 years older than the dates previously assigned to the contexts in which the dated shortlived samples were found. Fig. 1 (BIETAK 2003) presents the Tell el-Dabca archaeological data in detail, together with interconnected archaeological data of chronological significance from Canaan, the Levant, Cyprus and the Aegean. Fig. 2 sets forth the radiocarbon determinations available as of the date of the workshop (I am greatly indebted to Walter Kutschera for allowing me to present his preliminary data here. Additional measurements and analysis will be presented at the 19th International Radiocarbon Conference at Oxford [2006].) In a comment from the floor, Peter Stadler reported that the radiocarbon samples from Miletus on the coast of Anatolia that he was measuring also gave some dates about 100 years too early in comparison with the traditional chronologies. The same shift has been claimed but disputed with regard to Aegean determinations (MANNING 1999; WIENER 2003; WIENER forthcoming). While most participants in the workshop appeared to accept both the existence of the difference and the fact that there was at present no explanation, two members of the workshop, Ezra Marcus and myself, questioned this consensus on the ground that the radiocarbon evidence from Dabca appeared unconvincing. The fact that the dates from the seeds recovered from post-Hatshepsut Tuthmosis III strata at Dabca were hundreds of years too early for dates which are closely fixed by textual and genealogical data from Egypt and the Near East, and perhaps absolutely fixed by astronomy, has already been noted above, and indeed the radiocarbon analysis indicates that there is very poor agreement between these actual 14C measurements and the dates proposed after Bayesian sequencing, as Walter Kutschera noted.

The radiocarbon dates for the early New Kingdom strata are also far too early in terms of well-established New Kingdom dates. No 14C data have been presented to date from phases L or K, which cover the Sothic dates generally accepted for the 7th year of Senwosret III (nor, for that matter for phase I, which would correspond to the Sothic plus lunar date proposed by R. Krauss). One seed measurement for Thirteenth Dynasty level G/4 resulted in a Bayesian-filtered range of dates centering close to the Twelfth Dynasty 1872–66 B.C. span for the 7th year of Senwosret III. Moreover, three seed measurements from later Dabca Thirteenth Dynasty phases G/1–3, after Bayesian sequencing, overlap the 1872–66 B.C. range to some extent. Thus the Bayesian-sequenced radiocarbon dates proposed conflict with all views of the astronomical evidence. With respect to some of the other radiocarbon determinations obtained from seed samples at Tell el-Dabca, the bottom of the two sigma calibrated range encompasses the dates which would be strongly preferred on textual, genealogical and astronomical evidence in the absence of radiocarbon dates, as noted by Ezra Marcus in the discussion. The incompatibility of the New Kingdom 14C dates proposed with all the other New Kingdom evidence was discussed above. Accordingly, it is appropriate to review some of the problems inherent in radiocarbon dating, beginning with the process of Bayesian “sequencing.” We may begin by noting the improvements in the past few years in the OxCal statistical programs employed by the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory. Walter Kutschera described the current OxCal program as the “Mercedes Model” as compared to the “Model-T Ford” of past decades. Of course the statistical model employed is a critical component of precision radiocarbon dating given the amount of raw data generated. The paper presented by Franz Weninger on behalf of himself, Peter Steier and Walter Kutschera noted that 15 samples for each year over 100 years would produce a total number of data points of 1030. Accordingly, statistical methods are employed to create conditional probabilities by taking slices through each dimension of the data, and then examining the density points. Christopher Bronk Ramsey reported that further refinements were forthcoming in the form of a new version of the OxCal program employing Metropolis-Hastings Markov chain Monte Carlo modeling on a Webbased platform, in place of the step functions used previously.

332

Malcolm H. Wiener

Preliminary information on 14C measurements at Tell el-Dabca by W. KUTSCHERA et al., private communication 2 range after sequencing

Tell el-Daba Phases

N 1–3

M

L

Historical Chronology of Egypt

2100

2000

K

I H

G 4

G 1–3

F

Middle King do m

1900

1800

E 3

E 2

E 1

D 3

D D D 2 1.2 1.1

Hyksos

1700

1600

C 3

C 2

C 1

Ne w King do m

1500

1400

Calendar Date [BC] ? THERA ? Fig. 2 Comparison of calibrated two sigma 14C ranges with the historical chronology of Egypt and the corresponding Tell el-Dabca phases

Of course no statistical package is bias free, and it may be worthwhile by way of illustration to note one of the difficulties inherent in the model. Suppose that a group of 14C determinations from well-stratified seeds give age ranges before present which intersect an oscillating portion of the calibration curve for two decades in Century I and one decade in Century II. All else being equal, the OxCal program would give a probability of a date in Century I twice that of a date in Century II. In the absence of statistical interpretation, one might simply conclude that dates in both Century I and Century II are consistent with the radiocarbon evidence, and turn to the textual and archaeological evidence, if any. The Bayesian approach makes explicit that there are twice as many radiocarbon-appropriate years in Century I than Century II, and assuming as a Bayesian “prior” that each year is equally likely, gives a “mild weighting” to Century I irrespective of how many or how few samples are measured (BRONK RAMSEY, pers. comm. of 19 December 2005, for which I am most grateful. Discussions of various issues arising from the application of Bayesian or quasi-Bayesian Probability Theory to radiocarbon

dates may be found in MARCUS, this volume; WIENER 2003; WIENER forthcoming; CAVANAGH as quoted in WIENER 2003, 391 n. 148; SCOTT 2000; WHITELAW 1996). In an ideal world, each seed cluster or other sample measured would be suitable for and subject to either repeated measurements or longer than typical measurement times (depending on the method employed) and also to repetition of pre-treatment on different parts of a sample. In practice, decisions as to duration or repetition of measurements are often made by laboratory technicians in light of the nature of the initial scatter of determinations and the difficulties presented by the sample, subject always to the constraints of available time and cost, which is itself time-dependent. The number of samples tested worldwide is great, with Groningen, for example, processing 4000 samples annually (VAN DER PLICHT and BRUINS 2005). Between 1994 and 2000, over $1,000,000 was spent by English Heritage alone on radiocarbon dating of samples from the British Isles (BAYLISS and BRONK RAMSEY 2004, 26–27). The amount spent worldwide on radiocarbon dating today may well exceed

Egypt & Time 333

$1,000,000 annually. Submitting samples from excavations for 14C determinations is now de rigueur, but unfortunately many submitted samples are of little value; e.g., pieces of charcoal where there is no indication of the relation of the charcoal to the outer bark of the tree, and/or samples whose context is unclear. More effort devoted to fewer, but well-chosen, samples would seem the better course. Of course all statements concerning radiocarbon measurements and dates assume the uniform distribution of radiocarbon in the earth’s atmosphere at any one time, and hence the absence of distorting regional variation, seasonal variation, or old carbon in the sample measured, as noted below. Such statements assume as well the correctness of the decadal determinations of whichever calibration curve is employed, against which the samples tested are compared. A risk exists that some consumers of radiocarbon data may not realize that a “66.67% probability” in the stylized example given constitutes only a mild preference or that the probabilities stated for radiocarbon determinations do not encompass the probability of non-uniform radiocarbon distribution in the atmosphere nor the possible presence of old carbon in the sample nor the contingent nature of some decades of the calibration curve. Simply put, the probabilities stated for radiocarbon determinations are measurement probabilities, not date probabilities. The opportunity provided by this workshop to clarify such questions through discussion across disciplines was clearly of value. Certainly the calibration curve, the critical input for the OxCal program, is itself an imperfect construct. The committee of leading 14C authorities charged with producing the INTCAL04 revision of the calibration curve concluded that the previously utilized Gaussian bell-curve distributions were insufficient to capture the inherent uncertainty of 14C determinations of radiocarbon ages, and recommended extending the one sigma range by a factor of 1.3 in presenting 14C ages. The correction reflects only the uncertainties of radiocarbon measurement itself, and does not include the problems posed by calibration curve oscillations, regional variations, some of them episodic, or the potential presence of old carbon in the sample tested, as for example when the burning of a structure containing wood causes old carbon to become mixed with a seed sample.

Moreover, the INTCAL04 committee concluded that the risk of error in the individual decadal or duodecadal radiocarbon determinations comprising the INTCAL98 calibration curve was such that overall reliability would be improved by incorporating information from measurements from the preceding and following three decades of the calibration curve into each decadal segment of the curve. The potential sources of error included the limited amount of measurement of each segment by the Seattle and Belfast laboratories, the small number of samples measured for each decade or duodecade and the fact that modern methods of pre-treatment were not then employed. As a consequence, the 14C determinations of the Seattle and Belfast laboratories produced inconsistent results for certain decades as well as determinations later recognized as faulty. Recent measurements of the data for certain critical decades, including comparisons with measurements of the Gordion sequence of wood of closely known dendrochronological date, have produced significant improvements in the data base. The smoothing of the data as described in the INTCAL04 calibration curve is intended to diminish the risk of major error in the measurement of each specific decade, but it will necessarily introduce some distortion in the decadal data, particularly where information is borrowed from decades where the calibration curve is rapidly changing. Moreover, the smoothing of the data automatically reduces the wiggles on which wiggle-matching depends, and accordingly the INTCAL98 calibration curve, whatever its flaws, will continue in use for certain purposes. With regard to the radiocarbon measurements from Tell el-Dabca, the process of Bayesian “sequencing” occupies center stage, with the stratigraphic order in which the measured seed samples appeared providing the sole external data. The statistical process (greatly but not falsely simplified) involves slighting any part of the distribution (date range) from a seed measurement that is inconsistent with the range obtained from the radiocarbon measurement of a seed or seeds higher or lower in the stratigraphic excavation sequence. Unlike 14C determinations from a dendro sequence, when the number of years between decadal tree-ring segments tested is known and the tree rings in any sequence or series of overlapping interconnected sequences do not move in relation to one another, the number of years separating Bronze Age archaeological strata is

334

Malcolm H. Wiener

usually unknown. Furthermore, the seeds recovered from them and measured radiometrically may move between strata as the result of human, animal, plant or geological activity, even as a result of post-depositional earth movement apparent only to micromorphologists. Two seed samples may be separated by a destruction level, so that one sample will appear to be clearly earlier in date than the other, but the number of years separating the samples will not be known. Suppose that the seeds from which the 14C determinations have been taken are in fact close in date, in the same decade or in a relatively flat part of the calibration curve where the actual date difference cannot be accurately determined by radiocarbon dating. Attempting to provide meaning for otherwise somewhat inchoate radiocarbon determinations via sequencing in such circumstances runs major risks. M. SCOTT (2000) summarized the general position as follows: “Bayesian analysis is not a ‘cure-all’; it has costs, not least the specification of the prior. This is not easy and even in those situations where we think we are not making any strong assumptions, there may be hidden complications.” As Christopher BRONK RAMSEY (2005) has noted, no two practitioners are likely to apply the Bayesian model in the same way to the same data. Of course radiocarbon measurements for the century comprising the decadal measurements between 1625 B.C. and 1535 B.C. – essentially the Hyksos period – must contend with the oscillation of the calibration curve in these years, depicted in Fig. 3. The foregoing caveats (and to some extent those stated below) to the proposed Dabca 14C dates are open to the major objection that to the degree such distorting factors exist, their effects should be random, whereas the results obtained purportedly produce somewhat uniform ranges of dates 100–120 years earlier than generally accepted New Kingdom, Second Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom dates presented by the other papers in this conference. Such an objection appears at least partly circular, however, inasmuch as the radiocarbon dates prior to Bayesian sequencing are largely lacking in structure (although at their central points tending

2

Another example from a Nilotic environment of radiocarbon determinations inconsistent with perceived stratigraphy for the period 2150–1450 B.C. is provided by a series of thirteen dates at Kerma in Nubia (HONEG-

somewhat earlier than standard dates) as noted above. Moreover, the New Kingdom dates which fall into the same general purported pattern and provide a central date of c. 1620 B.C. for postHatshepsut Tuthmoside levels and similarly inappropriate dates for the early New Kingdom cannot be correct in any event and the 14C measurements obtained from seeds from Thirteenth Dynasty phases give dates which overlap the widely accepted astronomical dates for the Twelfth Dynasty (LUFT and SHORTLAND et al. in this workshop). Accordingly, the objection posed may be reversed by inquiring whether, given that the radiocarbon dates proposed are putatively 100–150 years too early for the Tuthmoside era, the early New Kingdom and the Thirteenth Dynasty, there may be some systemic factor at work affecting the radiocarbon dates. Apart from the risk of creating false positives through Bayesian analysis noted by Ezra Marcus in his comment at this workshop and considered above, physical problems arising from the possible presence of old carbon and from regional variation, sometimes exacerbated by climatic conditions, can affect radiocarbon measurements. A theoretical potential problem area for seed measurements from riverine environments reported in the literature should be noted in passing, although the evidence is as yet slight and the significance questionable. Groundwater from rivers and marshes is a recognized source of old carbon. While plants absorb the bulk of their carbon from the atmosphere via their leaves, a small amount comes directly from the soil through their roots (WIENER forthcoming, citing GEISLER 1963; YORGALEVITCH and JANES 1988; STOLWIJK and THIMANN 1957; SKOK, CHORNEY and BROECKER 1962; SPLITTSTOESSER 1966; ARTECA, POOVAIA and SMITH 1979). Whether plants almost totally dependent on Nile waters might be affected is unknown.2 14C determinations from Amarna-period seeds have not resulted in dates earlier than those established through non-radiocarbon methodologies. A more conspicuous problem for radiocarbon dating of Egyptian seed samples is posed by the phenomenon of regional variation in 14C measurements. Regional variation may take two forms:

2005). The radiocarbon dates from Kerma were obtained from charcoal rather than seeds, however; accordingly, the anomalies noted may have resulted from the presence of old wood.

GER

Egypt & Time 335

3800 3700

Int Cal04

3600

Radiocarbon Age BP

Int Cal98 3500 3400 3300

2s

3200 3100 3000 2900 2800 –2000 –1900 –1800 –1700 –1600 –1500 –1400 –1300 –1200 –1100 –1000

Calender Date BC Fig. 3 Comparison of INTCAL98 and INTCAL04 calibration curves, with the addition of a two sigma range in the span between 1500 and 1650 (after S. MANNING in: The Thera (Santorini) Volcanic Eruption and the Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Bronze Age, a companion website to MANNING 1999, http://www.arts.cornell.edu/classics/Faculty/SManning_files/testoftime.pdf)

general differences, as yet inadequately understood, between regions – e.g., Northern vs. Southern Hemisphere or (less significantly), Old World vs. New World – and variation due to ongoing differences in climate or changes in climate affecting the growing season of plants in relation to the annual carbon cycle. As to general regional differences, no one can say with confidence why measurements of Southern Hemisphere tree segments of known date are older than Northern Hemisphere tree segments of known date by an average of 41 ±14 years over the last millennium, but with wide differences within the period (MCCORMACK et al. 2002; STUIVER et al. 1998, 1046) or why bristlecone pine measurements from the western United States of known date show a 37 ±6 year shift from European oak of the same known date (REIMER et al. 2004, 1033). Proposed explanations for the Northern vs. Southern Hemisphere disparity include 1) the fact that more of the Southern Hemisphere is covered by water; 2) the escape of carbon from a sink of carbon around 17,000 years old in the Weddell Sea in Antarctica; and 3) upwellings of old carbon from El Niño episodes in the Pacific Ocean (LERMAN, MOOK and VOGEL 1970; OLSSON 1979; 1987; KNOX and MCFADGEN 2001; KEENAN 2002). The hypothetical possibility of old carbon from the Mediterranean periodi-

cally affecting Egyptian 14C dates has been discussed by D. KEENAN (2002), but no method has been proposed for testing this hypothesis. As to regional seasonal variation, consider the instructive example of the discrepancy between Anatolian and European radiocarbon determinations from tree-ring segments almost certainly from samples from the same respective decades in the ninth–eighth centuries B.C. KROMER et al. (2001) propose that a marked climate change in Anatolia in this period delayed the growing season of the Anatolian trees (see also MANNING et al. 2001). P. Reimer, the director of the Belfast Laboratory and lead investigator of the INTCAL04 calibration curve revision, has described succinctly the process at work: “14C is primarily produced at high latitudes in the lower stratosphere by the collision of cosmic ray-produced neutrons with nitrogen. During periods of high solar activity, distortion of Earth’s geomagnetic field by the solar wind prevents charged particles from entering the atmosphere and little 14C is produced, whereas 14C production peaks during periods of low solar activity (solar minima). The atomic 14C is quickly oxidized to 14CO2 and enters the troposphere during the late spring, a period of high stratospheric-tropospheric exchange. By the next spring, the higher 14C concentration

336

Malcolm H. Wiener

in the atmosphere has been well mixed and diluted by exchange with other carbon reservoirs, particularly the surface ocean. The German trees, which grow mostly in the mid to late summer, take up more 14CO2 during photosynthesis than do the Mediterranean trees, which grow in the spring and early summer.” (REIMER 2001, 2495). The growing seasons of Egyptian seeds and the European oak trees which form the basis of the calibration curve are clearly quite different, for almost all Nile plants grow in winter to early spring and the European oaks in mid-spring to early summer. Of course we lack information about climate events, if any, in Egypt between 1900 B.C. and 1450 B.C. which could have had an effect on 14C determinations analogous to the putative cold period in ninth–eighth century B.C. Anatolia. (In the preceding First Intermediate Period, we have harrowing accounts of the suffering caused by the cessation of the Nile floods.) Unfortunately, it is easier to state the problems inherent in radiocarbon dating than to assess whether, or to what extent, the problems may have affected the radiocarbon dates from any particular site, such as Tell el-Dabca. As the concluding discussion at the workshop made clear, most partici-

pants felt that the resolution of the apparent chronological conflict between the radiocarbon measurements from Dabca, on the one hand, and the evidence from astronomy, archaeology and texts on the other must await future developments. A well-known scientific proverb instructs us that “if your data need a heavy dose of statistics to yield results, obtain more data,” and accordingly we look forward to results of additional analyses of seed samples from Dabca now underway at the Vienna Environmental Research Accelerator Institute (VERA). Nevertheless, at this fine workshop the productive interaction of radiocarbon physicists and statisticians with experts in Egyptian astronomy, chronological texts and history and with archaeologists working throughout the Near East, in the supportive ambiance of the VERA Institute, promoted interdisciplinary understanding, facilitated probing exchanges and opened important channels of communication. The foundation for future progress across disciplines in Egyptian chronology is now in place. Acknowledgments I thank Jayne L. Warner and her associates Erin Hayes and Catriona McDonald for their research assistance in the preparation of this paper.

Bibliography ALLEN, J.P.

ARTECA, R.N., POOVAIA, B.W. and SMITH, O.E.

forthc. The Second Intermediate Period in the Turin Kinglist, Proceedings of the Colloquium, The Second Intermediate Period: Current Research, Future Prospects, British Museum, 14–16 July 2004, London.

1979

ALLEN, J.P., ALLEN, S. and BEN-TOR, D. 1999

BAYLISS, A. and BRONK RAMSEY, C. 2004

Seals and Kings, review of The Political Situation in Egypt During the Second Intermediate Period c. 1800–1550 B.C., by K.S.B. Ryholt, BASOR 315, 47–74.

ARNOLD, DIETER 2002

The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret III at Dahshur: Architectural Studies, New York. Keramikbearbeitung in Dahschur 1976–1981, MDAIK 38, 25–65.

ARNOLD, F. 1992

New Evidence for the Length of the Reign of Senwosret III? GM 129, 27–31.

Pragmatic Bayesians: A Decade of Integrating Radiocarbon Dates into Chronological Models, 25–41, in: C.E. BUCK and A.R. MILLARD (eds.), Tools for Constructing Chronologies: Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries, Lecture Notes in Statistics 177, London.

BENNETT, C. 2002

A Genealogical Chronology of the Seventeenth Dynasty, JARCE 39, 123–155.

2005

Genealogy and the Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period, Abstract of paper presented at Egypt and Time, SCIEM2000 Workshop on Precision and Accuracy of the Egyptian Historical Chronology, Vienna, 30 June–2 July 2005. http://www.sciem 2000.info/Egypt/abstract/bennett.html.

ARNOLD, DOROTHEA 1982

Changes in Carbon Fixation, Tuberization, and Growth Induced by CO2 Applications to the Root Zone of Potato Plants, Science 205, 1279–1280.

Egypt & Time 337

BIETAK, M.

DEPUYDT, L.

2003

2000

Science versus Archaeology: Problems and Consequences of Aegean High Chronology, 23–33, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000-EuroConference, Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, CChEM 4, Vienna.

BIETAK, M., KOPETZKY, K. and STAGER, L.

EVANS, A.J. 1921

The Palace of Minos at Knossos, Volume 1, The Neolithic and Early and Middle Minoan Ages, London.

FRAHM, E. n.d.

forthc. Stratigraphie compare nouvelle: The synchronization of Ashkelon and Tell el-Dabca, in: J.-C. MARGUERON, P. DE MIROSCHEDJI and J.-P. THALMANN (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (ICAANE), Paris 2002.

Sothic Chronology and the Old Kingdom, JARCE 37, 167–186.

Inscribed Objects http://assur.de/Themen/new_ excavations/Ashur2001/inscribed/inscribed.html.

GASCHE, H. 2003

La fin de la première dynastie de Babylone: une chute difficile, Akkadica 124, 205–220.

GEISLER, G. Morphogenetic Influence of (CO2 + HCO3 –) on Roots, Plant Physiology 38, 77–80.

BONANI, G., HAAS, H., HAWASS, Z., LEHNER, M., NAKHLA, S., NOLAN, J., WENKE, R. and WÖLFLI, W.

1963

2001

GREENBERG, G.

Radiocarbon Dates of the Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments in Egypt, Radiocarbon 43, 1297–1320.

2002

BRINKMAN, J.A. 1972

Foreign Relations of Babylonia from 1600 to 625 B.C.: The Documentary Evidence, AJA 76, 271–281.

1976

A Chronology of the Kassite Dynasty, 6–34, in: Materials and Studies for Kassite History, Volume 1, A Catalogue of Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to Specific Monarchs of the Kassite Dynasty, Chicago.

1977

2005

Dating the Volcanic Eruption at Thera, Radiocarbon 46, 325–344.

Near East Chronology: Towards an Integrated Time Foundation, Radiocarbon 43, 1147–1154.

2005

1971

2002

The Need for a Calibrated Radiocarbon Chronology of Near Eastern Archaeology, Radiocarbon 31, 1019–1029.

The Reign of Thutmose IV, Baltimore.

CAMINOS, R.A. 1952

Gebel Es-Silsilah No. 100, JEA 38, 46–61.

DARNELL, J.C. and DARNELL, D. 2002

Construire une chronologie dans la vallée du Nil, l’example de Kerma en Nubie, Dossiers d’Archeologie 306, 44–53.

Theban Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian Western Desert, Volume 1, Gebel Tjauti Rock Inscriptions 1–45 and Wadi el-Hôl Rock Inscriptions 1–45, Chicago.

Ägyptische Handschriften, Part 1, Wiesbaden.

Why Early-historical Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean Are Too Early, Radiocarbon 44, 225–237.

KITCHEN, K.A. 1986

The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.), 2nd edition, Warminster.

1991

The Chronology of Ancient Egypt, World Archaeology 23, 201–208.

1996

The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.), revised 2nd edition, Warminster.

2000

Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt (Absolute Chronology I): The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a Current Assessment, 39–52, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. Proceedings of an International Symposium at Schloss, Haindorf, 15–17 November

BRYAN, B.M. 1991

Radiocarbon Chronology and the Historical Calendar in Egypt, 585–606, in: O. AURENCHE, J. EVIN and F. HOURS (eds.), Chronologies du Proche Orient/Chronologies in the Near East. Relative Chronologies and Absolute Chronology 16,000–4,000 B.P., BAR IS 379, Oxford.

KEENAN, D.J.

14C

BRUINS, H.J. and MOOK, W.G. 1989

1987

KAPLONY-HECKEL, U.

BRUINS, H.J. 2001

HAAS, H., DEVINE, J., WENKE, R., LEHNER, M., WÖLFLI, W. and BONANI, G.

HONEGGER, M.

Improving the Resolution of Radiocarbon Dating by Statistical Analysis, 57–64, in: T.E. LEVY and T. HIGHAM (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, London.

BRONK RAMSEY, C., MANNING, S.W. and GALIMBERTI, M. 2004

2003–2004 Manetho: A Study in Egyptian Chronology, Warren Center, Pennsylvania.

Appendix: Mesopotamian Chronology of the Historical Period, 335–348, in: A.L. OPPENHEIM (ed.), Ancient Mesopotamia. Portrait of a Dead Civilization, Chicago.

BRONK RAMSEY, C.

Manetho’s Twelfth Dynasty and the Standard Chronology, Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 29, 58–73.

338

Malcolm H. Wiener

1996 and at the Austrian Academy, Vienna, 11–12 May 1998, CChEM 1, Vienna.

OLSSON, I.U. 1979

The Radiocarbon Contents of Various Reservoirs, 613–618, in: R. BERGER and H.E. SUESS (eds.), Radiocarbon Dating, Berkeley.

1987

Carbon-14 Dating and Interpretation of the Validity of Some Dates from the Bronze Age in the Aegean, 4–38, in: P. ÅSTRÖM (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th–22nd August 1987, Part 2, Gothenburg.

KNOX, F.B. and MCFADGEN, B.G. 2001

Least-squares Fitting Smooth Curves to Decadal Radiocarbon Calibration Data from AD 1145 to AD 1945, Radiocarbon 43, 87–118.

KRAUSS, R. forthc. An Egyptian Chronology for Dynasties XIII to XXV, in: M. BIETAK and E. CZERNY (eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May–1st of June 2003, CChEM 9, Vienna. KROMER, B., MANNING, S.W., KUNIHOLM, P.I., NEWTON, M.W., SPURK, M. and LEVIN, I. 2001

Regional 14CO2 Offsets in the Troposphere: Magnitude, Mechanisms, and Consequences, Science 294, 2529–2532.

LERMAN, J.C., MOOK, W.G. and VOGEL, J.C. 1970

14C in Tree Rings from Different Localities, 275–301, in: I.U. OLSSON (ed.), Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology. Proceedings of the 12th Nobel Symposium, Stockholm.

LUFT, U. 1992 2003

Remarks of a Philologist on Egyptian Chronology, Ä&L 3, 109–114. Priorities in Absolute Chronology, 199–204, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – EuroConference, Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, CChEM 4, Vienna.

PARKER, R.A. 1950

REIMER, P.J. 2001

The Palace of Minos at Knossos, Athena Review 3/3, 36–43.

2004

Test of Time, Oxford.

2006

Radiocarbon Dating and Egyptian Chronology, 329–357, in: E. HORNUNG, R. KRAUSS and D.A. WARBURTON (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Handbook of Oriental Studies 83, Section 1, The Near and Middle East.

MANNING, S.W., KROMER, B., KUNIHOLM, P.I. and NEWTON M.W. 2001

Anatolian Tree Rings and a New Chronology for the East Mediterranean Bronze-Iron Ages, Science 294, 2532–2535.

MCCORMAC, F.G., REIMER, P.J., HOGG, A.G., HIGHAM, T.F.G., BAILLIE, M.G.L., PALMER, J. and STUIVER, M. 2002

Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale for the Southern Hemisphere: AD 1850–950, Radiocarbon 44, 641–651.

IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP, Radiocarbon 46, 1029–1058.

RYHOLT, K.S.B. 1997

The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period c. 1800–1550 B.C., Copenhagen.

2004

The Turin Kinglist, Ä&L 14, 135–155.

SCOTT, M. 2000

Bayesian Methods: What Can We Gain and at What Cost? Radiocarbon 42, 181.

SIMPSON, W.K. 1984

MANNING, S.W. 1999

A New Twist in the Radiocarbon Tale, Science 294, 2494–2495.

REIMER, P.J., BAILLIE, M.G.L., BARD, E., BAYLISS, A., BECK, J.W., BERTRAND, C.J.H., BLACKWELL, P.G., BUCK, C.E., BURR, G.S., CUTLER, K.B., DAMON, P.E., EDWARDS, R.L., FAIRBANKS, R.G., FRIEDRICH, M., GUILDERSON, T.P., HOGG, A.G., HUGHEN, K.A., KROMER, B., MCCORMAC, G., MANNING, S., BRONK RAMSEY, C., REIMER, R.W., REMMELE, S., SOUTHON, J.R., STUIVER, M., TALAMO, S., TAYLOR, F.W., VAN DER PLICHT, J. and WEYHENMEYER, C.E.

MACDONALD, C.F. 2003

The Calendars of Ancient Egypt, SAOC 26, Chicago.

Sesostris III, cols. 903–906, in: W. HELCK and W. WESTENDORF (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5, Wiesbaden.

SKOK, J., CHORNEY, W. and BROECKER, W.S. 1962

Uptake of CO2 by Roots of Xanthium Plants, Botanical Gazette 124, 118–120.

SPLITTSTOESSER, W.E. 1966

Dark CO2 Fixation and Its Role in the Growth of Plant Tissue, Plant Physiology 41, 755–759.

STOLWIJK, J.A.J. and THIMANN, K.V. 1957

On the Uptake of Carbon Dioxide and Bicarbonate by Roots and Its Influence on Growth, Plant Physiology 32, 513–520.

STUIVER, M., REIMER, P.J., BARD, E., BECK, J.W., BURR, G.S., HUGHEN, K.A., KROMER, B., MCCORMAC, F.G., VAN DER PLICHT, J. and SPURK, M. 1998

INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000–0 cal BP, Radiocarbon 40, 1041–1083.

NAKHLA, S., HAWASS, Z., BONANI, G., WÖLFLI, W., HAAS, H., LEHNER, M., WENKE, R., NOLAN, J. and WETTERSTROM, W.

THIELE, E.R.

1999

1951

Dating the Pyramids, Archaeology 52/5, 26–33.

The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. A Recon-

Egypt & Time 339

struction of the Chronology of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, Chicago. 1983

Studies on Scarab Seals 2, Scarab Seals and their Contribution to History in the Early Second Millennium B.C., Warminster.

VAN DER

PLICHT, J. and BRUINS, H.J.

2001

Radiocarbon Dating in Near-Eastern Contexts: Confusion and Quality Control, Radiocarbon 43, 1155–1166.

2005

VON

Quality Control of Groningen 14C Results from Tel Rehov: Repeatability and Intercomparison of Proportional Gas Counting and AMS, 256–270, in: T.E. LEVY and T. HIGHAM (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, London.

BECKERATH, J.

1997

Chronologie des Pharaonischen Ägypten. Die Zeitbestimmung der ägyptischen Geschichte von der Vorzeit bis 332 v. Chr., Mainz.

WEGNER, J.W. 1996

1976

The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, new revised edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

TUFNELL, O. 1984

WENTE, E.F. and VAN SICLEN, C.C., III

The Nature and Chronology of the Senwosret III – Amenemhat III Regnal Succession: Some Considerations Based on New Evidence from the Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III at Abydos, JNES 55, 249–279.

A Chronology of the New Kingdom, 217–261, in: J. JOHNSON and E.F. WENTE (eds.), Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes, SAOC 39, Chicago.

WHITELAW, T. 1996

Review of The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: Archaeology, Radiocarbon and History, by S. MANNING, Antiquity 70, 232–234.

WIENER, M.H. 2003

Time Out: The Current Impasse in Bronze Age Archaeological Dating, 363–399, in: K.P. FOSTER and R. LAFFINEUR (eds.), METRON: Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Conference, New Haven, Yale University, 18–21 April 2002, Aegaeum 24, Liège and Austin.

forthc. Times Change: The Current State of the Debate in Old World Chronology, in: M. BIETAK and E. CZERNY (eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May–1st of June 2003, CChEM 9, Vienna. YORGALEVITCH, C.M. and JANES, W.H. 1988

Carbon Dioxide Enrichment of the Root Zone of Tomato Seedlings, Journal of Horticultural Science 63, 265–270.

UNTERSUCHUNGEN DER ZWEIGSTELLE KAIRO DES ÖSTERREICHISCHEN ARCHÄOLOGISCHEN INSTITUTS Herausgegeben in Verbindung mit der Kommission für Ägypten und Levante der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften von MANFRED BIETAK

Band I

MANFRED BIETAK, Tell el-Dabca II. Der Fundort im Rahmen einer archäologisch-geographischen Untersuchung über das ägyptische Ostdelta. Wien 1975.

Band II

LABIB HABACHI, Tell el-Dabca and Qantir I. The Site and its Connection with Avaris and Piramesse. Aus dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von EVA MARIA ENGEL. Unter Mitarbeit von PETER JÁNOSI und CHRISTA MLINAR. Wien 2001.

Band III

JOACHIM BOESSNECK, Tell el-Dabca III. Die Tierknochenfunde 1966–1969. Wien 1976.

Band IV

MANFRED BIETAK und ELFRIEDE REISER-HASLAUER, Das Grab des cAnch-Hor, Obersthofmeister der Gottesgemahlin Nitokris (mit einem Beitrag von ERHART GRAEFE). Wien 1978.

Band V

MANFRED BIETAK und ELFRIEDE REISER-HASLAUER, Das Grab des cAnch-Hor, Obersthofmeister der Gottesgemahlin Nitokris. Teil II (mit Beiträgen von JOACHIM BOESSNECK, ANGELA VON DEN DRIESCH, JAN QAEGEBEUR, HELGA LIESE–KLEIBER und HELMUT SCHLICHTHERLE). Wien 1982.

Band VI

DIETHELM EIGNER, Die monumentalen Grabbauten der Spätzeit in der Thebanischen Nekropole (mit einem Beitrag von JOSEF DORNER). Wien 1984.

Band VII

MANFRED BIETAK, Tell el-Dabca IV. Stratigraphie und Chronologie (in Vorbereitung).

Band VIII

MANFRED BIETAK, unter Mitarbeit von CHRISTA MLINAR und ANGELA SCHWAB, Tell el-Dabca V. Ein Friedhofsbezirk der Mittleren Bronzezeit mit Totentempel und Siedlungsschichten. Wien 1991. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie, Bd. 9.

Band IX

EIKE M. WINKLER und HARALD WILFLING, Tell el-Dabca VI. Anthropologische Untersuchungen an den Skelettresten der Kampagnen 1966–69, 1975–80, 1985. Wien 1991.

Band X

JOACHIM BOESSNECK und ANGELA VON DEN DRIESCH, Tell el-Dabca VII. Tiere und historische Umwelt im Nordost-Delta im 2. Jahrtausend anhand der Knochenfunde der Ausgrabungen 1975–1986. Wien 1992.

Band XI

KARL KROMER, Nezlet Batran. Eine Mastaba aus dem Alten Reich bei Giseh (Ägypten). Österreichische Ausgrabungen 1981–1983. Wien 1991.

Band XII

MANFRED BIETAK, JOSEF DORNER, HANS EGGER, JOACHIM BOESSNECK und URSULA THANHEISER, Tell el-Dabca VIII. Interdisziplinäre Studien (in Vorbereitung).

Band XIII

PETER JÁNOSI, Die Pyramidenanlagen der Königinnen. Untersuchungen zu einem Grabtyp des Alten und Mittleren Reiches. Wien 1996.

Band XIV

MANFRED BIETAK (Hrg.), Haus und Palast im Alten Ägypten. Internationales Symposium 8. bis 11. April 1992 in Kairo. Wien 1996.

Band XV

ERNST CZERNY, Tell el-Dabca IX. Eine Plansiedlung des frühen Mittleren Reiches. Wien 1999.

Band XVI

PERLA FUSCALDO, Tell el-Dabca X. The Palace District of Avaris, The Pottery of the Hyksos Period and the New Kingdom (Areas H/III and H/VI), Part I. Locus 66. Wien 2000.

Band XVII

SUSANNA CONSTANZE HEINZ, Die Feldzugsdarstellungen des Neuen Reiches – Eine Bildanalyse. Wien 2001.

Band XVIII

MANFRED BIETAK (Ed.), Archaische Griechische Tempel und Altägypten, Internationales Kolloquium am 28. November 1997 im Institut für Ägyptologie der Universität Wien. Mit Beiträgen von DIETER ARNOLD, ANTON BAMMER, ELISABETH GEBHARD, GERHARD HAENY, HERMANN KIENAST, NANNO MARINATOS, ERIK ØSTBY und ULRICH SINN, Wien 2001.

Band XIX

BETTINA BADER, Tell el-Dabca XIII. Typologie und Chronologie der Mergel C-Ton Keramik. Materialien zum Binnenhandel des Mittleren Reiches und der zweiten Zwischenzeit. Wien 2001.

Band XX

MANFRED BIETAK and MARIO SCHWARZ (Eds.), Krieg und Sieg. Narrative Wanddarstellungen von Altägypten bis ins Mittelalter, Interdisziplinäres Kolloquium, Langenlois, Schloß Haindorf, 29.–30. Juli 1997. Wien 2002

Band XXI

IRMGARD HEIN und PETER JÁNOSI, Tell el-Dabca XI, Areal A/V, Siedlungsrelikte der späten Hyksoszeit. Mit Beiträgen von K. KOPETZKY, L.C. MAGUIRE, C. MLINAR, G. PHILIP, A. TILLMANN, U. THANHEISER, K. GROSSCHMIDT. Wien 2004.

Band XXII

NADIA EL-SHOHOUMI, Der Tod im Leben. Eine vergleichende Analyse altägyptischer und rezenter ägyptischer Totenbräuche. Eine phänomenologische Studie. Wien 2004.

VERLAG DER ÖSTERREICHISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN

Band XXIII

DAVID ASTON in collaboration with MANFRED BIETAK, and with the assistance of BETTINA BADER, IRENE FORSTNERMÜLLER and ROBERT SCHIESTL, Tell el-Dabca XII. A Corpus of Late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period Pottery. Part I: Text; Part II: Plates. Wien 2004.

Band XXIV

PETER JÁNOSI, Giza in der 4. Dynastie. Die Baugeschichte und Belegung einer Nekropole des Alten Reiches, Band I, Die Mastabas der Kernfriedhöfe und die Felsgräber. Wien 2005.

Band XXV

PETER JÁNOSI, Structure and Sicnificance. Thoughts on Ancient Egyptian Architecture. Wien 2005.

Band XXVI

GRAHAM PHILIP, Tell el-Dabca XV. Metalwork and Metalworking Evidence of the Late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period. Wien 2006.

forthcoming

MANFRED BIETAK, NANNÓ MARINATOS and CLAIRY PALIVOU, Taureador Scenes in Tell el Dabca (Avaris) and Knossos (with a contrubution by Ann Brysbaert)

forthcoming

IRENE FORSTNER-MÜLLER, Tell el-Dabca XVI. Die Gräber des Areals A/II von Tell el-Dabca.

forthcoming

VERA MÜLLER, Tell el-Dabca XVIII. Opferdeponierungen in der Hyksoshauptstadt Auaris (Tell el-Dabca) vom späten Mittleren Reich bis zum frühen Neuen Reich. Teil I: Katalog der Befunde und Funde; Teil II: Auswertung und Deutung der Befunde und Funde.

forthcoming

ROBERT SCHIESTL, Tell el-Dabca XVII. Die Palastnekropole von Tell el-Dabca. Die Gräber des Areals F/I der Straten d/2 und d/1.

BERICHTE DES ÖSTERREICHISCHEN NATIONALKOMITEES DER UNESCO-AKTION FÜR DIE RETTUNG DER NUBISCHEN ALTERTÜMER Herausgegeben von der Kommission für Ägypten und Levante der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften durch MANFRED BIETAK

Band I

MANFRED BIETAK und REINHOLD ENGELMAYER, Eine frühdynastische Abri-Siedlung mit Felsbildern aus Sayala – Nubien. Wien 1963. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Denkschriften, Bd. 82.

Band II

REINHOLD ENGELMAYER, Die Felsgravierungen im Distrikt Sayala – Nubien. Teil I: Die Schiffsdarstellungen. Wien 1965. Denkschriften, Bd. 90.

Band III

MANFRED BIETAK, Ausgrabungen in Sayala – Nubien 1961–1965. Denkmäler der C-Gruppe und der Pan-Gräber-Kultur (mit Beiträgen von KURT BAUER, KARL W. BUTZER, WILHERLM EHGARTNER und JOHANN JUNGWIRTH). Wien 1966. Denkschriften, Bd. 92.

Band IV

KARL KROMER, Römische Weinstuben in Sayala (Unternubien). Wien 1967. Denkschriften, Bd. 95.

Band V

MANFRED BIETAK, Studien zur Chronologie der nubischen C-Gruppe. Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte Unternubiens zwischen 2200 und 1550 v. Chr. Wien 1968. Denkschriften, Bd. 97.

Band VI

FATHI AFIFI BEDAWI, Die römischen Gräberfelder von Sayala Nubien. Wien 1976s. Denkschriften, Bd. 126.

Band VII

EUGEN STROUHAL und JOHANN JUNGWIRTH, Die anthropologische Untersuchung der C-Gruppen- und Pan-Gräber-Skelette aus Sayala, Ägyptisch-Nubien. Wien 1984. Denkschriften, Bd. 176.

Band VIII

MANFRED BIETAK und MARIO SCHWARZ, Nagc el-Scheima, eine befestigte christliche Siedlung, und andere christliche Denkmäler in Sayala – Nubien. Wien 1987. Denkschriften, Bd. 191.

Band IX

MANFRED BIETAK und MARIO SCHWARZ, Nagc el-Scheima. Teil II. Die Grabungsergebnisse aus der Sicht neuerer Forschungen. Wien 1998. Denkschriften, Bd. 255.

In Vorbereitung: EUGEN STROUHAL und ERICH NEUWIRTH, Die anthropologische Untersuchung der spätrömischen-frühbyzantinischen Skelette aus Sayala, Ägyptisch-Nubien. EUGEN STROUHAL und ERICH NEUWIRTH, Die anthropologische Untersuchung der christlichen Skelette aus Sayala, Ägyptisch-Nubien.

VERLAG DER ÖSTERREICHISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN Edited by MANFRED BIETAK and HERMANN HUNGER

Volume I

MANFRED BIETAK (Ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium BC. Proceedings of an International Symposium at Schloß Haindorf, 15th–17th of November 1996 and at the Austrian Academy, Vienna, 11th–12th of May 1998, Wien 2000.

Volume II

VASSOS KARAGEORGHIS (Ed.), The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Proceedings of an International Conference organized by the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, in Honour of Malcolm Wiener. Nicosia 29th–30th October 1998, Wien 2001.

Volume III

MANFRED BIETAK (Ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant. Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material. Vienna, 24th–26th of Jannuary 2001. Wien 2002.

Volume IV

MANFRED BIETAK (Ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – EuroConference, Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001. Wien 2003.

Volume V

CELIA BERGOFFEN, The Cypriot Bronze Age pottery from Sir Leonard Woolley’s Excavations at Alalakh (Tell Atchana). Wien 2004.

Volume VI

HERMANN HUNGER and REGINE PRUZSINSZKY (Eds.), Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited. Proceedings of an International Conference of SCIEM 2000, Vienna 8th–9th of November 2002. Wien 2004.

Volume VII

ULRICH LUFT, Urkunden zur Chronologie der späten 12. Dynastie: Briefe aus Illahun. Wien 2006.

Volume VIII

MANFRED BIETAK and ERNST CZERNY (Eds.), Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete, and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications. Papers from a Symposium, Vienna, 10th–13th of January 2002. Wien 2004.

Volume IX

MANFRED BIETAK and ERNST CZERNY (Eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May–1st of June 2003.

Volume X

KATHRYN O. ERIKSSON, The Creative Independence of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. An account of the archaeological importance of White Slip ware in assessing the relative chronology of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the island's historical links with the societies of the Eastern Mediterranean during this period.

Volume XI

PETER FISCHER, Tell Abu al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley. Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Wien 2006.

Volume XII

PETER FISCHER (Ed.), The Chronology of the Jordan Valley during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Pella, Tell Abu al-Kharaz and Tell Deir cAlla. Wien 2006.

Volume XIII

IRMGARD HEIN (Ed.), The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, Conference held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 5th–6th November 2004. Vienna 2007.

Volume XIV

FLORENS FELTEN, WALTER GAUSS and RUDOLFINE SMETANA (Eds.), Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Salzburg, 31st of October–2nd November 2004. Vienna 2007.

forthcoming

JACQUELINE PHILLIPS, Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in their Chronological Context: A Critical Review.

VERÖFFENTLICHUNGEN DER ÄGYPTISCHEN KOMMISSION Begründet von FRITZ SCHACHERMEYR † Herausgegeben von MANFRED BIETAK

Band 1

GÜNTHER HÖLBL, Ägyptisches Kulturgut auf den Inseln Malta und Gozo in phönikischer und punischer Zeit. Wien 1989. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. KLasse, Sitzungsberichte, Bd. 538.

Band 2

ULRICH LUFT, Die chronologische Fixierung des Mittleren Reiches nach dem Tempelarchiv von Illahun. Wien 1992. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. KLasse, Sitzungsberichte, Bd. 598.

Band 3

PETER JÁNOSI, Österreich vor den Pyramiden. Die Grabungen Hermann Junkers im Auftrag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien bei der großen Pyramide in Giza. Wien 1997. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. KLasse, Sitzungsberichte, Bd. 648. VERLAG DER ÖSTERREICHISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN