Herausgeber/Editor MANFRED BIETAK
ÄGYPTEN UND LEVANTE EGYPT AND THE LEVANT
XVII/2007
XVII 2007
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 12. Oktober 2007
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 978-3-7001-4012-2 ISSN 1015–5104 Copyright © 2007 by Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien Grafik, Satz, Layout: Angela Schwab Druck: Druckerei Ferdinand Berger & Söhne GesmbH, Horn http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/4012-2 http://verlag.oeaw.ac.at
Wien 2007
Die Zeitschrift Ägypten und Levante ist Ä&L abzukürzen. The Journal Egypt and the Levant should be abbreviated E&L.
Inhaltsverzeichnis/Contents
Abkürzungen/Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vorwort/Introduction von/by Manfred Bietak
9
.........................................
11
N. Allon, Seth is Baal – Evidence from the Egyptian Script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
H. Barnard, Additional Remarks on Blemmyes, Beja and Eastern Desert Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
M. Bietak und I. Forstner-Müller, Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht für das Frühjahr 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
E.C.M. van den Brink, R. Gophna and A. Ovadiah, Burial Cave 2 in the Azor-Holon Cemetery: An Early Bronze Age I Tomb with Egyptian Finds . . . . . .
59
I. Finkelstein and E. Piasetzky, Radiocarbon Dating and Philistine Chronology with an Addendum on el-Ahwat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
I. Forstner-Müller, The Colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its Chronological Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
83
I. Forstner-Müller, T. Herbich, W. Müller, Ch. Schweitzer and M. Weissl, Geophysical Survey 2007 at Tell el- Dabca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
97
F. Höflmayer, Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta und ihre Bedeutung für die absolute Chronologie der minoischen Altpalastzeit (MM IB –MM IIB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
107
J.K. Hoffmeier and K.A. Kitchen, Reshep and Astarte in North Sinai: A Recently Discovered Stela from Tell el-Borg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
127
E.S. Marcus, Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription . . . . . .
137
M.A.S. Martin and R. Ben-Dov, Egyptian and Egyptian-Style Pottery at Tel Dan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
191
N.Ch. Math, Eine innere Chronologie der Badarikultur? Möglichkeiten und Aspekte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
205
D. Morandi Bonacossi, The Chronology of the Royal Palace of Qatna Revisited. A Reply to a Paper by Mirko Novák, Egypt and the Levant 14, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
221
T. Mühlenbruch, Die Synchronisierung der nördlichen Levante und Kilikiens mit der ägäischen Spätbronzezeit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
241
H. Refai, Zur Entwicklung der königlichen Jenseitsabsicherung in den thebanischen Totentempeln des Neuen Reiches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
257
R. Schiestl, The Coffin from Tomb I at Byblos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
265
A. Winkels, Restauratorisch-naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von tuthmosidischen Putzen aus cEzbet Helmi / Tell el Dabca – Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung altägyptischer Kalkputztechnik . . . . .
273
E. Yannai, New Typology and Chronology of the Grey Lustrous Wheel Made Ware in Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . .
295
Abkürzungen/Abbreviations Ä&L
Ägypten & Levante. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Archäologie und deren Nachbargebiete, Wien
CRIPEL
Cahiers de recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égyptologie de Lille, Lille
AA
Archäologischer Anzeiger. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Berlin
DFIFAO
Documents de Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire, Le Caire
AAAS
Les annales archéologiques Arabes Syriennes. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire, Damascus
EA
Egyptian Archaeology. The Bulletin of the Egypt Exploration Society, London
AASOR
Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Cambridge, Mass.
E&L
see Ä&L
EEF
Egypt Excavation Fund, London
ADAJ
Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Amman
EES Excav. Mem Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir, London
ADAIK
Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo, Berlin
ESI
Excavations and Surveys in Israel, Jerusalem
GM
Göttinger Miszellen, Göttingen
AHL
Archaeology and History in Lebanon, London
GOF
Göttinger Orientforschungen
AJA
American Journal of Archaeology, New York, Baltimore, Norwood
HA
Hadashot Arkheologiyot, Jerusalem
HA/ESI
Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel, Jerusalem Israel antiquity Authority Reports, Jerusalem
AR
Archaeological Reports, London
ArchDelt
Archaiologikon Deltion, Athen
IAA Reports
AS
Anatolian Studies. Journal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London
IEJ
Israel Exploration Journal, Jerusalem
JAOS
Journal of the American Oriental Society, New Haven, Conn.
JARCE
Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, New York
JEA
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, London
JEOL
Jaarbericht van het vooraziat.-egyptisch Genootschap, Ex Oriente Lux, Leiden
JNES
Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Chicago
ASAE
Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte, Kairo
AV
Archäologische Veröffentlichungen. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo, Wiedbaden
BAAL
Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises, Beirut
BaM
Baghdater Mitteilungen, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Orient-Abteilung, Mainz
JSP
Judea and Samaria Publication, Jerusalem
BAR International Series British Archaeological Reports, International Series, London
JSSEA
Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, Toronto
BASOR
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, New Haven
LÄ
W. HELCK und E. OTTO (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie, Wiesbaden
BdE
Bibliothèque d’étude, Le Caire
LingAeg
Beiträge Bf.
Beiträge zur ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde, Wiesbaden, Zürich, Kairo
Lingua Aegyptia. Journal of Egyptian Language Studies, Göttingen
MAG
BICS
Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, London
Mitteilungen der Archäologischen Gesellschaft, Graz
MAN
BIFAO
Bulletin de l’lnstitut français d’archéologie orientale , Le Caire
MAN: a record of anthropological science. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, London
M.A.R.I.
BSA
The Annual of the British School at Athens, London
M.A.R.I. Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires, Paris
MÄS
Münchner Ägyptologische Studien, München
BSAE
British School of Archaeology in Egypt
MDAIK
BSFE
Bulletin de la societe française d’égypte , Paris
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo, Mainz
CChEM
Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean, Wien
MDOG
Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft, Berlin
CdE
Chronique d`égypte , Bruxelles
NEAEHL
CMS
MATZ, F., PINI, I., and MÜLLER, W. (eds.) 1964-. Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel. Berlin; 2002-. Mainz am Rhein.
The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (E. STERN ed.), New York
OBO
Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Fribourg-Göttingen
CRAI
Compte rendue de la rencontre assyriologique internationale, verschiedene Orte
OBO SA
Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica, Fribourg
10
Abkürzungen/Abbreviations
OIP
Oriental Institute Publications, University of Chicago, Chicago
SIMA
Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Göteborg, Jonsered
OJA
Oxford Journal of Archaeology, Oxford
SIMA-Pb
OLA
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, Leuven
Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Pocketbook, Lund
OpAth
Opuscula atheniensia. Annual of the Swedish Institute at Athens, Lund
SJOT
Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, Aarhus
PEQ
Palestine Exploration Quarterly, London
SMEA
Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici, Roma
QDAP
Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine, Jerusalem, Oxford
TA
Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv
UF
Ugarit Forschungen, Münster
RA
Revue archéologique, Paris
UMM
RB
Revue biblique, Jerusalem
RDAC
Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, Nicosia
University Museum Monographs, University Museum Symposium Series. University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia
UZK
RdE
Revue d’égyptologie, Paris
Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes, Wien
RlA
Das Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Berlin-New York
WB
RSO
Ras Shamra-Ougarit, Paris
A. ERMAN & H. GRAPOW, Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache 1–5 (Leipzig, 1926–1931)
WVDOG
SAGA
Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens, Heidelberg
Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, Berlin, Leipzig
Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, Hamburg
WZKM
SAK
Wiener Zeitschrift für die kunde des Morgenlandes, Wien
SAOC
Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, Chicago
ZÄS
Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, Leipzig, Berlin
SDAIK
Sonderschriften des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo, Berlin
ZDPV
Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Stuttgart, Wiesbaden
11
Vorwort
Introduction
Von Manfred Bietak
By Manfred Bietak
Das Heft 17 der Zeitschrift enthält 18 Artikel, die ein weites thematisches Feld abdecken. Der Schwerpunkt freilich liegt auf Beiträgen zur Archäologie Ägyptens und der umliegenden Länder, wie es dem Profil der Zeitschrift entspricht. Der österreichische Grabungsplatz Tell el-Dabca ist mit einem aktuellen Vorbericht zur letzten Grabungskampagne im Frühjahr 2007 vertreten (M. Bietak und I. Forstner-Müller), die, nach einer Unterbrechung im Jahr davor, neuerlich dem Palastareal der 18. Dynastie bei cEzbet Helmi gewidmet war. Ebenso wurden die geophysikalischen Prospektionsarbeiten des Areals von Tell elDabca fortgesetzt, und auch die vorläufigen Resultate dieser Untersuchungen sind bereits in diesem Band vorgelegt (I. Forstner-Müller et al.). Bereits länger zurück (1997) liegt die Grabung I. Forstner-Müller’s im Areal A/II im Bereich des namensgebenden Tells. Die unterste Schichte, die damals erreicht wurde, reicht in die späte 12. Dynastie zurück und läßt sich gut mit etwa gleichzeitigen Arealen in den Grabungsflächen von F/I und cEzbet Rushdi korrellieren (“Phase H”). Die Befunde aus dieser Schichte werden von der Ausgräberin unter dem Titel “The colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its chronological implications” vorgestellt. Schließlich befaßt sich auch noch ein naturwissenschaftlich orientierter Beitrag von A. Winkels mit der Erforschung der ägyptischen Kalkputztechnik anhand der thutmosidischen Putze aus cEzbet Helmi. Hosam Refai behandelt mit “Zur Entwicklung der königlichen Jenseitsabsicherung in den thebanischen Totentempeln des Neuen Reiches” ein klassisches ägyptologisches Thema. Zahlreiche weitere Artikel führen jedoch in Randbereiche der Ägyptologie. So untersucht N. Math die Möglichkeiten, eine innere Chronologie der Badarikultur nach dem Vorbild derjenigen der Negadekultur zu etablieren. Der Annalentext Amenemhet II aus Memphis gilt als eine der zentralen historischen Quellen zur 12. Dynastie. In einem weitausgreifenden Artikel analysiert E. Marcus die maritimen Aspekte und Implikationen dieser erstaunlichen Inschrift, deren “historisches Potential” anhand dieser Auswertung wohl exemplarisch aufgezeigt wird.
Volume no. 17 of this periodical contains 18 articles, covering a wide thematic field. However, according to the profile of this journal, the main focus is on contributions to the archaeology of Egypt and surrounding countries. The Austrian excavations at Tell el-Dabca are represented by an up to date preliminary report of the last season in spring 2007 (M. Bietak and I. Forstner-Müller). After an intermission the year before, work concentrated, again, on the palace precinct of the 18th Dynasty at cEzbet Helmi. Likewise, the geophysical survey work of the area of Tell el-Dabca has been continued and the preliminary results of the investigations are published in this volume (I. Forstner-Müller et al.). The excavations of I. Forstner Müller in area A/II of the tell date back to 1997. The lowest stratum reached then dates to the late 12th dynasty and shows good correlation with contemporaneous strata in area F/I and cEzbet Rushdi (“Phase H”). The findings of this stratum are presented by the excavator under the title “The colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its chronological implications”. Eventually, a science orientated contribution by A. Winkels researches Egyptian lime plaster technique according to Thutmoside plaster finds from cEzbet Helmi. Hosam Refai covers a classic Egyptological theme with his article “Zur Entwicklung der königlichen Jenseitsabsicherung in den thebanischen Totentempeln des Neuen Reiches“. However, several other articles deal with marginal themes in Egyptological research. N. Math, for example, examines the possibilities to establish an inner chronology of the Badarian Civilisation according to the example of the one established for the Nagada culture. The annals of Amenemhet II from Memphis are regarded as one of the main historical sources of the 12th dynasty. In a comprehensive article E. Marcus analyses the maritime aspects and implications of this astonishing inscription, thus showing exemplarily the “historical potential” of the inscription. The last mentioned contribution already
12
Vorwort/Introduction
Der letztgenannte Beitrag führt thematisch bereits in den Bereich der Levante. Aber auch mehrere andere Artikel haben die Archäologie des Syrisch-Palästinensischen Raumes und dessen Beziehungen zu Ägypten zum Gegenstand. E. van den Brink et al. berichten über ein frühbronzezeitliches Grab in Azor mit ägyptischem Material, M. Martin und R. Ben-Tov über ägyptische Keramik aus Tel Dan, und J. Hoffmeier und K. Kitchen über die Verehrung der syrischen Götter Reshep und Astarte im N-Sinai anhand einer neugefundenen Stele aus Tell Borg. Obwohl die Funde aus dem “Royal Tomb I” in Byblos bereits 1928 von Montet publiziert wurden, blieben einige im Sarkophag des Königs Abishemu gefundene zerbrochene Fayence-Einlagen in ihrer Form und Funktion bis heute unerklärt. R. Schiestl ist es nun erstmals gelungen, diese Einlagen sinnvoll zu deuten und zu rekonstruieren. Daraus ergibt sich, daß der steinerne Sarkophag einen hölzernen Innensarg ägyptischen Stils enthalten hat. Aus einem ganz anderen Blickwinkel, nämlich dem des Sprachwissenschaftlers, betrachtet N. Allon einen bestimmten Aspekt ägyptisch-levantinischen Kulturkontaktes, indem er aufzeigt, wie der seit der Hyksoszeit bestehende und in der 19. Dynastie kumulierende Synkretismus zwischen Seth und dem semitischen Gott Baal in der Verwendung des Seth-“Classifiers” (“Determinativ”) in der ägyptischen Schrift reflektiert wird. In die Ostwüste und die S-Grenze Ägyptens führt der Beitrag von H. Barnard, der im Anschluß an seinen Artikel in Ä&L 15 nochmals auf die Thematik der sog. “Eastern Desert Ware” und die Problematik der von ihm abgelehnten Zuordnung zu Blemmyern und Beja-Nomaden eingeht. F. Höflmayer versucht anhand einer neuen, sorgfältigen Auswertung von in Kreta gefundenen ägyptischen Skarabäen eine präzise Definition des chronologischen Verhältnisses der altpalastzeitlichen (mittelminoischen) Phasen zum ägyptischen Mittleren Reich zu geben. Schließlich enthält der Band noch einige Artikel, die nicht in direkter Beziehung zu ägyptischem Material stehen. Nachdem M. Novak in Ä&L 14 einen ausführlichen Aufsatz zur Chronologie des Königspalastes von Qatna publiziert hatte, in dem er die Gründung des Palastes aufgrund der damals verfügbaren Evidenz in die sog. “Mari-Periode” setzte, greift nun D. Morandi Bonacossi die Diskussion erneut auf, und stellt anhand der von der italienischen Mission durchgeführten Detailuntersuchungen dar, daß die Gründung des
leads into the area of the Levant. However, several other articles cover aspects of the archaeology of the Syrian-Palestinian area and interconnections with Egypt. E. van den Brink et al. report about an early Bronze Age burial in Azor with Egyptian material. M. Martin and R. BenTov cover Egyptian ceramics from Tel Dan and J. Hoffmeier and K. Kitchen write about the worship of the Syrian gods Reshep and Astarte on Northern Sinai according to a newly discovered stela from Tell Borg. Several broken faience inlays found in the sarcophagus of King Abishemu in Byblos remained unexplained until now, although the finds of the “Royal Tomb I” were already published by Montet in 1928. R. Schiestl succeeds to explain and reconstruct these inlays for the first time in a meaningful way, showing that the stone sarcophagus contained a wooden inner coffin of Egyptian style. From the rather different viewpoint of a philologist N. Allon highlights a certain aspect of Egyptian-Levantine cultural contact. He shows that the syncretism between Seth and the Semitic god Baal, established in Hyksos times and still ongoing in the 19th dynasty, is reflected in the Egyptian script through the use of the Seth“Classifier” (“Determinativ”). H. Barnard’s contribution leads into the Eastern Dessert and to the Southern frontier of Egypt. He covers, in connection with his article in E&L 15, again the topic of the so-called “Eastern Desert Ware” and the problems of the attribution of this ware to the Blemmyes and Bejanomads, which he rejects. F. Höflmayer tries, with a new and thorough evaluation of Egyptian scarabs found on Crete, to come up with a precise definition of the chronological relationship of the Middle Minoan phases with the Egyptian Middle Kingdom. Furthermore this volume contains several articles not directly dealing with Egyptian material. M. Novak published a comprehensive article in E&L 14 on the chronology of the royal palace at Qatna, dating the foundation of the palace, according to the then available evidence, to the so-called “Mari period”. However, D. Morandi Bonacossi takes up the discussion again and shows, that according to detailed studies conducted by the Italian Mission, the foundation of the palace has to be dated after the Mari-period (transition MB/LB).
Vorwort/Introduction
Palastes erst nach der Mari-Periode (im Übergang von MB/LB) erfolgt sein kann. Daraus folgt freilich, daß es einen älteren Königspalast in Qatna gegeben haben muß, dessen Lage bisher unbekannt ist, der jedoch mit Sicherheit nicht unter dem gegenwärtig vorhandenem Palast zu lokalisieren wäre. Nicht minder kontroversiell diskutiert wird derzeit die Frage der Chronologie der Philister (IA IIIA). Hierzu liefern I. Finkelstein und E. Piasetzky neue Diskussionsbeiträge, welche sich auf neu publizierte 14C-Daten beziehen. E. Yannai legt eine quasi monographische Behandlung der ebenfalls sehr unterschiedlich gedeuteten "Grey Lustrous Wheelmade Ware" in Israel vor, und geht dabei ausführlich auf die zahlreichen offenen Fragen ein, die mit dieser wenig erforschten Ware immer noch verbunden sind. T. Mühlenbruch schließlich gibt einen Einblick in ein Sub-Projektes des großen “SCIEM 2000” Forschungsprojekts zur Chronologie des 2. Jahrtausends im östlichen Mittelmeerraum. Dabei soll der Raum der nördlichen Levante und Kilikiens mithilfe mykenischer Importkeramik an die Chronologie der ägäischen Spätbronzezeit angeschlossen werden. Der Herausgeber hofft, daß der vorliegende Band, der sich durch eine Reihe ganz neuer, aktueller Grabungsberichte, sowie durch einige Beiträge zu derzeit heftig diskutierten Themen auszeichnet, das Interesse einer breiten Leserschaft finden wird.
13
Therefore an older royal palace must have existed at Qatna. The location of the older palace, which cannot be localised under the currently existing palace, remains so far unknown. Not less controversially debated is currently the question of the chronology of the Philistines (IAI–IIA). I. Finkelstein and E. Piasetzky present new contributions to the discussion with reference to recently published 14C dates. E. Yannai presents almost a monograph on the also controversial “Grey Lustrous Wheelmade Ware” in Israel. He highlights several still open questions in connection with this little investigated ware. Eventually T. Mühlenbruch gives an insight into a sub-project of the SCIEM 2000 research programme dealing with the chronology of the 2nd millennium in the Eastern Mediterranean. In the framework of this sub-project it is intended to connect the area of the Northern Levant and Cilicia to the Aegean Late Bronze age with the aid of the study of Mycenaean imported ceramics. The editor hopes, that this volume with contributions ranging from up to date excavation reports to articles on currently hotly debated issues, will be interesting to a broad audience.
SETH IS BAAL -– EVIDENCE FROM THE EGYPTIAN SCRIPT By Niv Allon*
1. INTRODUCTION During the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom, some words related to illness and suffering receive the Seth classifier.1 This phenomenon2 disappears after the Middle Kingdom, and is not found in New Kingdom texts. However, the causes of this evolution in the usage of the Seth classifier have remained elusive. In a recent article, “A Metaphor for Troubled Times,” 3 McDonald surveys this evolution, reviewing the preliminary list compiled by Te Velde4 and adding a few new words to the list. McDonald undertakes a diachronic examination of the occurrences of the words (i.e. mostly with the words appearing with the Seth-deity form ), and suggests that the reasons for this evolution be located in the mytho-political sphere. In the First Intermediate Period, Egypt was divided into small political units, and retrospectively, this was considered as a time of instability and even anarchy. According to McDonald, Seth was taken as a symbol of the misfortunes of this period, being the “ultimate and archetypal disturber of the established order,”5 as a part of his mythological role as the unjustified treacherous enemy of
* Hebrew University Jerusalem. I am grateful to Orly Goldwasser for many fruitful conversations, in which many of the ideas presented here were developed. I would like also to thank Eitan Grossman for his important suggestions and his comments on the English. A full discussion of the words and their occurrences will appear in a future article. 1 I use here the term ‘classifier’ as defined by Goldwasser in her series of articles and books (GOLDWASSER 2002; 2005 and forthc.), rather than determinative. 2 Early on, Polotsky remarked in his publication of the stela of %eka-Yeb: “appearing as such with certain words of evil meaning in some texts of the First Intermediate Period and the Early Middle Kingdom.” He also mentions the examples from Hatnub and from the Letter to the Dead; see POLOTSKY 1930:198. 3 MCDONALD 2007. 4 TE VELDE 1977: 22–26. A preliminary list of Sethian words was collected by Zandee already in his article in 1963, which enumerates the words nSn, Xnnw, qrj, shA,
Horus, who tries to attain dominance over Egypt. In this article, I shall try and draw a first sketch of an idea I have been developing and rethinking over the course of the last year regarding this question. I have come to the conclusion that the question itself should be framed differently: instead of asking why the Seth classifier disappeared from the “negative” words after the Middle Kingdom, I suggest that a more revealing question is why the negative words disappeared from the Sethian category, and why other words found their place in this category. In order to answer this question, I shall try and examine the change that the Sethian category undergoes from three distinct but interrelated perspectives: – The extent of the category, i.e., the set of words that are classified by Seth classifier. – The main semantic clusters of the category. – The central members of the category, i.e., what are the “good examples” of the category.6 2. THE EVOLUTION OF THE CATEGORY In Fig. 1 it is attempted to visually present the diachronic evolution of the Sethian category.7
5
6
7
swhA, and khb; Zandee saw the metaphorical-cognitive meaning of this category, saying: “Solche Gedanken wurden also mit Seth assoziiert,” cf. ZANDEE 1963: 147. MCDONALD 2007: 32. McDonald differentiates between the deity form of the god Seth , and its animal forms: , . For central members and fuzzy edges, see GOLDWASSER 2002: 27–29. nbwty, nbwy, nTrwy, RHwy, and ¤tx which McDonald adds to the list are all epithets of the god Seth, and therefore do not stand in the center of our discussion. The case of bal will be discussed below. In other cases words which are included in the list may find their place there because of strong similarity of signs in Hieratic, such are the sign of the donkey (aA and Htrw): Donkey: , (VOGELSANG & GARDINER 1908: R.64) Seth: , (MÖLLER I, 13; no. 144). Other similar cases are Akrw (see MCDONALD 2007: 36, note a), and probably also the Giraffe (sr, cf. MCDONALD 2007: 36, note p, and mmi, see GOLDWASSER, forthc.).
16
Niv Allon
8
nSnj, ‘storm, rage’ sSn, ‘storm’
9
jsd, ‘dribble, saliva’
OK jnD, ‘to be sick’
nqm, ‘to be afflicted’ mr, ‘pain, to be ill’
FIP
MK
10 nSnj, ‘storm, rage’ Xnn(w),‘disruption, rswt, ‘dream’ chaos, tumult’
qrj, ‘storm, clouds’
jh, ‘suffer, feel poorly’11
nSnj, ‘storm, rage’ SIP
nqmt, suffering’
swhi, ‘to vaunt, to 13 boast’
qrj,‘storm, clouds’ 14
naS, ‘to be strong, to 15 roar’
nma, ‘to be partial’ 16 one sided’
hmhmt, ‘war-cry’
12
nSnj, ‘storm, rage’ NK
Xnn(w), ‘disruption, chaos, tumult’
Fig. 1a The Sethian Category according to Chronological Distribution
8
9
10
11
sSn is attested with the Seth classifier twice in PT 1270d and in Urk. I, 183; the word appears only four times according to HANNIG 2003: 1239–1240 and DZA 29.613.350, but in the latter without a Seth classifier. SETHE 1962: 258. The word jsd is attested with the Sethian classifier only in PT 261a in the Unas Pyramid, cf. CF. TE VELDE 1977: 85. This one occurrence has already been discussed at length by SIMPSON 1966, pl IX; SZPAKOWSKA 1999 and MCDONALD 2002, who proved, I believe, the sign to be the deity form of the god Seth. jh appears only once with a Seth-classifier. McDonald dates the occurrences of the word jh in the pEdwin Smith with the Sethian classifier to the Old Kingdom as “it is generally acknowledged that P. Edwin Smith goes back to an older original manuscript” (MCDONALD 2007: 29, note 14). Nevertheless it may be dangerous to date the classifier to a non-existing older manuscript. The Coffin Texts allow us to see many cases in which a classi-
12
13
14
15
16
fier is changed by the copier of the text. Therefore it would be preferred to retain the dating to the end of the Second Intermediate Period (ALLEN 2005: 70). nqm is attested with the Seth classifier only once in the New Kingdom according to MCDONALD 2007: 36, note k. swhi is listed by TE VELDE 1977:23–24; cf. GARDINER 1909: 28 for a discussion on this word. qrj is attested twice in the New Kingdom with the Seth classifier in L. Ahmose-Henut-Tjemehu, Tb 39: 63, and pJwja: 152, Tb 17 (BACKES in TLA, August 2007); qrj appears also with the Seth-deity form in the Amenemope Onomasticon, cf. AEO I: 5*, 10. naS according to TE VELDE 1977:25 and GOLDWASSER forthc; MCDONALD reads this word as aS, cf. MCDONALD 2007:36, note d. Although McDonald refers to sources in which nma appears with a Seth classifier already in the Middle Kingdom, I could not find such examples, cf. MCDONALD 2007: 35.
17
Seth is Baal – Evidence from the Egyptian Script
OK pryt, ‘crisis’(?)17
18
mnt, ‘to suffer’
FIP
MK
Hrrt, ‘Hereret’
20
shA,‘to be in confusion’19
xAt, ‘disease’
21
kAhs, ‘to be harsh’
SIP 22
shA, ‘to be in confusion’
NK
snm, ‘rainstorm’
26
23
pxpx, ‘storm’
srq, ‘snow’
khb(w), ‘to harm, rage’
khA, ‘shout, bellow’
XAXAtj, ‘storm’
nhs,(the Seth 27 animal?)
24
25
nhnh, ‘to roar’
awn , ‘to rob, despoil’ 27a
Fig. 1b The Sethian Category according to Chronological Distribution continued
17
18
19
20
21
pryt is a hapax legomenon, cf. FCD: 91, and MCDONALD 2007: 34 citing POLOTSKY 1930: 23,1.9. MCDONALD enumerates two attestation of Hrrt with the Seth classifier, cf. MCDONALD 2007:28–29. Te Velde names two different words under with a quite similar writing: (10) , shA, ‘to be in confusion, to confound’ (FCD: 237) and (12) swhA, ‘to break up (of ship; FCD:217)’. I agree with McDonald’s decision to treat these two words as one, cf. MCDONALD 2007:36. The only occurrence of the latter is in GARDINER 1909: 2.11, where it is translated as ‘gone adrift.’ GARDINER analyzes the word as the same word as shA, ‘to be in confusion,’ cf. GARDINER 1909: 28 and TE VELDE 1977: 23–24. xAt appears only once with the Seth classifier, in Hatnub, cf. MCDONALD 2007: 30. According to MCDONALD, kAhs can be omitted from the list, because of confusion with the dog classifier, which is the common classifier of the word, cf. MCDONALD 2007: 36, note s.
22
23
24
25
26
27
27a
pxpx appears also only once, according to TE VELDE 1977: 24–25 and DZA 23.463.700. srq is a Semitic loan word cf. HOCH 1994: 264. It appears only once with the Seth classifier in the Amenemope Onomasticon, cf. AEO I, *6, no.20. MCDONALD mentions only the animal form of Seth occurring with XAXAtj. It appears in the Amenemope Onomasticon, with Seth-deity form, cf. MCDONALD 2007: 36; DZA 28.191.780; AEO I: 5*,11. I have found only one occurrence of nhnh with a Seth classifier: Wb II 286; DZA 25.184.010. snm(w) is attested twice, both in the 18th Dynasty cf. Urk. IV, 84 and 386. nhs appears only once with the Seth classifier, cf. MCDONALD 2007: 35, 36 note h. I am not sure that McDonald’s argument concerning the different writing in pNu is relevant, as we may well be dealing with a different version. GOLDWASSER 1995: 103; awn appears in a rather late text pPushkin 127, 2:5, dated to the 21st dynasty, cf. Caminos 1977: 3–4.
18
Niv Allon
2.1 The Extent of the Category During the New Kingdom the number of words which take the Seth classifier increases dramatically (7 in the First Intermediate Period and 5 in the Middle Kingdom versus 16 in the New Kingdom), although one observes the disappearance of words related to disease and suffering. 2.2 The Main Semantic Clusters Whereas after the Middle Kingdom one of the main semantic clusters of the category28 disappears, some old-new clusters emerge in the New Kingdom. The words in the New Kingdom can be divided into two main semantic clusters. One semantic cluster is Aggressive behavior, including words such as Xnn, ‘disrupt,’ khb ‘to harm, rage,’ khA ‘shout, bellow.’ Another -– even bigger -– semantic cluster is Weather Disturbances, reflected in words such as srq, ‘snow,’ smnw ‘rainstorm,’ qrj ‘storm, clouds,’ nSnj ‘storm, rage,’ XAXAtj, and pxpx, both bearing the meaning ‘storm.’ Under the category of weather disturbances one should include the new subcluster of Uproariousness, with such words as hmhm ‘war-
MK
cry,’ nhnh ‘to roar,’ and shA ‘to roar, to disturb,’ through the idea that a common phenomenon of a storm is Thunder. The development in the semantic clusters can also be seen, as we begin to map the adjacent and overlapping categories, through the question which classifier can interchange with the Seth classifier in each period (Fig. 229). The disappearance of the illness-suffering cluster is also indicated by the shift in the possibilities for alternative classification of words from the relevant semantic domains. The Seth classifier no longer interchanges with the “evil bird”30 (GARDINER 1957: 471 G37) or the “pustule” (GARDINER 1957: 539 Aa1), which is an alternative classifier for illnesses. One of the typical features of the Seth classifier during the New Kingdom is that in many of the cases it doesn’t appear alone.31 It is usually accompanied by the [WEATHER] classifier, (GARDINER 1951: 485 N4), or by the (GARDINER 1957: 455 [POWERFUL ACTIVITY], D40) and (GARDINER 1951: 444 A24), the latter stressing the more anthropomorphic attributes of the deity.
NK
Pustule
Weather
Weather
Seth
Evil Inferior
Seth
Powerful Activity
Powerful Activity
Voice and Uproariousness
Fig. 2 The Seth category and its adjacent categories during the Middle and the New Kingdoms.
28
29
Goldwasser discusses the different semantic clusters of the category in GOLDWASSER 1995: 99–103; cf. also MCDONALD 2000: 79 and MCDONALD, 2007. For a further discussion of the Sethian category, cf. GOLDWASSER 2005:107–109. An illustration of the interchangeability of the Sethian category. The bold letters represent the prominence
30
31
and the size represents the amount of words which can be placed in both categories. The category of the “Evil Bird” is discussed thoroughly by DAVID 2000. From the New Kingdom on, many words tend to take a few classifiers instead of one.
Seth is Baal – Evidence from the Egyptian Script
19
When rethinking the material presented here, it seems that the Sethian category undergoes an interesting shift in its size, its semantic clusters, and its prototypical values in the New Kingdom. And although McDonald’s article suggests an interesting explanation for the phenomenon of omission of the negative attributes related to illness and suffering, this is only a partial explanation. The category experiences a more substantial change. The answer, I believe, can be found in the fig-
ure of Seth himself, which undergoes remarkable changes in this period, which reaches its peak apparently during the 19th–20th Dynasty, with three kings naming themselves after him (Sety I, Sety II and also Sethnakhte; however, this rise in his status can be traced already to the Second Intermediate Period, when through a process of syncretism Seth was identified with the god Baal.33 Baal, who is well known by the name BaalHaddu from the texts found at Ugarit (Ras-Shamra), appears originally as an epithet of the god Hadad (or Haddu, Addu etc), whose cult had begun to spread in the ancient Near East as early as the third millennium BCE. Baal has characteristics of the god Hadad, who was known throughout the region for his violent and fierce attributes, but the former also has local attributes associating him strongly with fertility, and as such, comprises both revival and growth on the one hand, and withering and decay on the other. 34 Evidently, Baal was known in Egypt as early as the 13th Dynasty, although possibly by his “former” name as Hadad. Moreover, the Seth-Baal cult in Avaris continued to exist throughout the Hyksos Period into the New Kingdom, as the temple of Seth of Avaris was functioning continuiosly until the Ramesside period.35 According to the 400 Year Stela, it began to function already some 70 years before the Hyksos Period.36 His warrior aspect is expressed in the myth of Baal and Yam, in which Baal defeats the divinity of the seas, rivers, lakes, and the subterranean abyss, Yam, and gains his kingship.37 Papyrus Astarte38 contains an Egyptian version of this myth dated to the reign of Amenophis II, which according to Schneider “seems to sketch Baal as a prototype of belligerent Kingship.”39 Baal was promoted to the status of
32
34
2.3 Central words in the Seth Category32 Although the Seth category exists from the Old Kingdom onward, the center of the category remains weak until the New Kingdom. Only in this period do words begin to move to the center of the category, as most of their occurrences appear with the Seth classifier. During the Middle Kingdom even nSnj, ‘storm, rage,’ which is a constant member in the category, appears only in about a third of the occurrences with the Seth classifier. Other members such as mr, jnD and Xnn are only fringe members in the category, i.e, they are classified mostly by other classifiers and belong to Seth only very marginally. This situation changes in the New Kingdom, as in the center of the category stand the words shA, khA and khb, Xnn and nSnj. These changes indicate that the strengthening semantic clusters result in a change in the prototypical value in the New Kingdom of the category, when Seth becomes a “better example” of two values – Aggressive behavior (shA, khA, khb, Xnn) and Weather disturbances (nSnj, XAXAtj). 3. SETH IS BAAL
33
For a full discussion of the terms ‘central’ words and ‘fringe members’ and their applications to the Egyptian scripts, cf. Goldwassser 2002; for a general discussion of the terms, see LAKOFF 1987. The title Baal derives from the root bal which means “husband,” “owner,” ”Lord” etc, due in part to the storm-god’s exalted position among the gods and his increasing importance, developing from the generic use to the proper name for one specific god, Hadad, cf. GREEN 2003: 173–175. To the question of the possibility of syncretism of Baal with the god Hadad, cf. STADELMANN 1967: 27, but GREEN 2003: 175 and SCHWEMER 2001: 505–511, saying: “All diese Überlegungen verbleiben jedoch im Bereich der Wahrscheinlichkeiten und Plausibilität.”
35
36
37
38
39
GREEN 2003: 170–176. With an interruption only in the Amarna period, BIETAK 1990. BIETAK 1990: 14, for further discussion of the stela cf. MONTET 1933; SETHE 1930; HELCK 1966 and GOEDICKE 1981; STADELMANN 1965. For a thorough discussion of the Baal-Yam myth, cf. GREEN 2003: 179 and UEHLINGER 1990. For its Egyptian implications, cf. STADELMANN 1967: 32–33, and SCHNEIDER 2003: 160–161. COLLOMBERT & COULLON 2000 and SCHNEIDER 2003: 160. SCHNEIDER 2003: 161.
20
Niv Allon
god of Egyptian kingship already by Amenophis II. Related to this myth, Baal was apparently also considered as god of the seamen (mainly in his title Baal-Sapan). A temple for him was held in the harbor of Peru-nefer,40 in the 18th Dynasty. The identification between Baal and Seth was so successful not only because of the latter’s role as the god of the foreign lands,41 but also through his storm-god characteristics, which are common to both gods.42 The depth of this syncretism is indicated by the fact that most of the attestations of the name Baal in Egyptian texts are classified with the Seth sign.43 But it wasn’t just Baal who was identified with Seth, but also Seth was identified with Baal, in a clear case of cultural appropriation,44 or an enrichment of the Seth concept as Te Velde describes it: “It would seem that the foreign god Baal, who is regarded as manifestation of Seth because the latter is the lord of foreign countries, is now enriching the Egyptian concept of Seth with a new function”.45 A stimulating example of the effect this intercultural ligature46 had on Seth can be seen in a figure of Seth from the 400-Year Stela (Fig. 3).47 In his various representations, Baal is mostly depicted in human form. In this stela, the deity figure is shown in an anthropomorphic Baal form, wearing Canaanite and Egyptian symbols. The inscription above reads “Seth of Ramsses”.48 I believe that through the identification with Baal, Seth was “set free” of his negative attributes during the New Kingdom. The common attributes of Seth and Baal were accentuated, shifting the center of the category towards more human features, as indicated by the more frequent usage of the anthropomorphic classifiers ( , and ). The semantic clusters Storm and Aggressive behavior, two attributes which were also an inseparable part of Baal’s character, became very prominent.
When Green describes the theophany of Baal, he enumerates heavy rains, snow, and clouds.49 Stadelmann adds that his voice can be heard in the yell of the thunder.50 Those elements of Baal’s theophany find their clear expression in the Sethian vocabulary: in smnw ‘rainstorm,’ srq ‘snow,’ qrj ‘storm, clouds,’ nSnj ‘storm, rage,’ and in the subcategory of Uproariousness. One should observe that although the Sethian category lost the negative cluster of illness, it still maintained and even augmented the semantic cluster of Aggressive behavior, containing words such as Xnn51 and khb.
40
45
41
42 43
44
HABACHI 2001: 106–108, following DARESSY 1928–29; 1929–31 proposed, that Peru-Nefer was the former Avaris and not Memphis, see also BIETAK 2005. Seth was also identified with the Hittite god Teshub and with the Libyan god Ash, cf TE VELDE 1977: 120. ZANDEE 1963: 148; TE VELDE 1977: 128 and BIETAK 1990: 13. STADELMANN suggest that the Seth-animal sign in the pPetersburg 1116A is to be read as a logogram for Baal, cf. STADELMANN 1967: 35. SCHNEIDER associates this term with the works of Michel de Certeau and Paul Ricoeur and shows its applicability for Egyptology, cf. SCHNEIDER 2003.
Fig. 3 Seth on the 400-Year Stela (after MONTET 1933, pl. XIII)
46
47
48 49 50 51
TE VELDE 1977: 123 “For the particular phenomena of cultural appropriation, the sociolinguistic Hannes Kniffka has coined the apt term of intercultural ligatures” (SCHNEIDER 2003:158). Cf. disscussion in TE VELDE 1977: 124–125; STADELMANN 1967: 41–42 and BIETAK 1990: 11. STADELMANN 1967: 31, 42. GREEN 2003: 194. STADELMANN 1967: 27. It is striking to see that during the New Kingdom the word Xnn “grows” a new semantic cluster, with the meaning of disease – but this time classified without
Seth is Baal – Evidence from the Egyptian Script
But the identification with the cult of the Baal worked both ways, and unfortunately, when different times came by, it proved to be fatal to the cult of Seth.52 The temporary interest in the foreign god changed into hatred as a part of the hatred for foreigners.53 I would like to suggest that even this deterioration is revealed in the script, when some members of the category such as Xnn begin to be classified with the “evil bird” , a classifier that was alien to them until this period.54 4. CONCLUSION The Sethian classifier – and the cultural-cognitive categories it delimits – undergoes subtle but significant shifts over the course of Egyptian history. During the New Kingdom the Sethian category (a) increases its extent, and (b) experiences a shift in its semantic clusters toward notions of aggression and unusual or violent weather phenomena; moreover, the Sethian classifier assumes a more central role as classifier of words from these semantic domains. This shift in the category’s semantic clusters is effected in no small part by the elimination of the sub-categories of suffering and illness, which
21
changes the nature of the category as a whole. Nevertheless, the loss of this domain does not in itself constitute an explanation for the phenomenon. I have argued that this change can be located in the syncretism of Seth and Hadad/Baal, which evidently happened before the Hyksos Period but lasted into the New Kingdom. During the shortlived period of Seth-Baal’s elevated prestige, the Sethian category was purged of its unambiguously negative sub-categories, while the shared domains of the two gods – aggression and weather disturbances – were enhanced. The expansion in its extent reflects, I believe, the increase in the cultural centrality and relevancy of Seth himself. The extent to which Seth-Baal constitutes a real cultural ligature in Hyksos and post-Hyksos Egypt is demonstrated by the deep impact that this syncretism had on Seth and the Sethian category, leading to their positive and extensive transformation, which reaches its peak during the New Kingdom. This change is realized in the classification system of the Egyptian script, which under closer scrutiny reveals, to paraphrase Te Velde, a piece of the history of an Egyptian theologia religionum mirrored in the script.55
Bibliography Bibliographical abbreviations:
ALLEN, J.
AEO = GARDINER, A.H., 1947. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, vol. I,II, London.
2005
The Art of Medicine in Ancient Egypt, New York.
BIETAK, M.
DZA = Digitalisiertes Zettelarchiv des Wörterbuches der ägyptischen Sprache, Berlin (http://aaew.bbaw. de/dza/index.html)
1990
Zur Herkunft des Seth von Avaris, Ä&L I,1, 9–16.
2005
FCD = R.O. FAULKNER, 1962. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, Oxford.
The Tuthmoside Stronghold Peru-nefer, Egyptian Archaeology 27/1.
CAMINOS, R.A.
L.Ahmose-Henut-Tjemehu = L.Kairo J.E. 96810 in: I. MUNRO, 1994.
1977
pJwja = pKairo CG 51189 in I. MUNRO, 1994, pls. 47–49.
COLLOMBERT, PH. & L. COULON,
PT = see SETHE, K. 1910–1922
2000
TLA = Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae (http://aaew. bbaw.de/tla/index.html)
DARESSY, G.
Urk. I = K. SETHE, 1903. Urkunden des Alten Reiches, Leipzig.
A Tale of Woe: From a Hieratic Papyrus in the A.S Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow, Oxford. Les dieux contre la mer. Le début du “papyrus d’Astarté”, BIFAO 100, 193–242.
Urk. IV = K. SETHE, 1927. Urkunden des 18. Dynsatie, Leipzig.
1928–29 Les Branches du Nil sous la XVIIIe dynastie, BSGE 16, 225–254, 293–-329.
Wb = ERMAN, ADOLF & HERMANN GRAPOW, 1926–1963. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache. Leipzig-Berlin.
1929–31 Les Branches du Nil sous la XVIIIe dynastie, BSGE 17, 81–115, 189–223.
52 53
the Seth classifier, as a metaphorical extension of the former cluster of the category. TE VELDE 1977: 109. TE VELDE 2001: 270.
54
55
For example 28.244.530. TE VELDE 1977: 109.
from Edfou after DZA
22
Niv Allon
DAVID, A.
MCDONALD, A.
2000
2000
Tall Tails. The Seth Animal Reconsidered, 75–81, in: A. MCDONALD & C. RIGGS (eds.), Current Research in Egyptology 2000, Oxford.
2002
An Evil Influence? Seth’s Role as a Determinative, Particularly in Letters to the Dead, LingAeg 10: 283–91.
2007
Metaphor for Troubled Times, ZÄS 134: 26–39.
De l’infériorité à la pertubation: L’oiseau du <mal> et la catégorisation en Egypte ancienne. Göttinger Orientforschungen GOF IV4: Ägypten. Bd. 38. Classification and Categorisation in Ancient Egypt, 1. Wiesbaden.
GARDINER, A.H. 1909 1957
Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage, from a Hieratic Papyrus in Leiden, Leipzig. Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, 3rd Edition, Oxford.
MONTET, P. 1933
La stèle de l’an 400 retrouvée, n°4, 191–215, Kêmi 4, Paris.
GOEDICKE, H.
POLOTSKY, H.J.
1981
1930
The “400-Year Stela” Reconsidered, Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 3, 25–42.
GOLDWASSER, O.
The Stela of %eka-Yeb, JEA 16, 188–199.
SCHNEIDER, T. 2003
Foreign Egypt: Egyptology and the Concept of Cultural Appropriation, Ä&L 13, 155–161.
1995
From Icon to Metaphor: Studies in the Semiotics of the Hieroglyphs, OBO 142. Fribourg.
2002
Prophets, Lovers and Giraffes: Wor(l)d Classification in Ancient Egypt (with an Appendix by Matthias Müller), GOF 4: Ägypten. Bd. 38. Classification and Categorisation in Ancient Egypt 3. Wiesbaden.
2001
Where Is Metaphor? Conceptual Metaphor and Alternative Classification in the Hieroglyphic Script, Metaphor and Symbol 20(2), 95–113.
1910–1922 Die altägyptischen Pyramidentexte nach den Papierabdrücken und Photographien des Berliner Museum, 3 Bde., Leipzig.
2005
SCHWEMER, D. Wettergottgestalten: Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen, Wiesbaden.
SETHE, K.
forthc. The Category of Seth in the Script and in the Mind.
1930
Der Denkstein mit dem Datum des Jahres 400 der Ära von Tanis, ZÄS 65, 85–89.
GREEN, A.R.W.
1962
Übersetzung und Kommentar zu den Altägyptischen Pyramidentexten, Hamburg.
2003
The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East, Biblical and Judaic Studies Volume 8, Winona Lake.
HABACHI, L. 2001
Tell El-Dabca and Qantir: 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.
HANNIG, R. 2003
Ägyptisches Wörterbuch I: Altes Reich und Erste Zwischenzeit, Mainz am Rhein.
HELCK, W. 1966
1966
Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, Princeton.
MÖLLER, G.
The Letter to the Dead from the Tomb of Meru (N 3737) at Nagc ed-Deir, JEA 52, 39–50.
STADELMANN, R. 1967
Syrisch-palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten, Leiden.
1965
Die 400-Jahr Stele, CdE 40: 46–60.
SZPAKOWSKA, K. 1999
A Sign of the Times, LingAeg 6, 163–166.
TE VELDE, H. 1977
Seth: God of Confusion: A Study of his Role in Egyptian Mythology and Religion, Probleme der Ägyptologie 6, Leiden (Reprint).
2001
Seth, in: D.B. REDFORD (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, New York.
Noch einmal zur 400-Jahr-Stele, CdE 41, 234–241.
HOCH, J. E. 1994
SIMPSON, W.K.
UEHLINGER, C. 1990
1909–12 Hieratische Paläographie, 3 vols., Leipzig.
Leviathan und die Schiffe in Ps. 104, 25–26, Biblische Notizen 71/4 (1990), 499–526.
MUNRO, I.
VOGELSANG, F. & GARDINER, A.H.
1994
1908
Totenbuch-Handschriften der 18. Dynastie im Museum Cairo, ÄA 54.
LAKOFF, G. 1987
Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind, Chicago - London.
Die Klagen des Bauern, Literarische Texte des Mittleren Reiches I = Hieratische Papyrus aus den königlichen Museen zu Berlin, Bd. IV, Leipzig.
ZANDEE, J. 1963
Seth als Sturmgott, ZÄS 90, 144–156.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS ON BLEMMYES, BEJA AND EASTERN DESERT WARE By H. Barnard 1
In the 2005 issue of this journal we wrote, in an article on the pottery corpus now identified as Eastern Desert Ware, that “... recovered data, however, leaves the former scholarly association of these vessels with the Blemmyes less plausible (BARNARD et al. 2005:49).” In his summary of the article the editor wrote in his introduction that “[t]hese ceramics are very probably ascribable to the Blemmyes, Nomads of the Eastern Desert ... (BIETAK 2005:13).” Here I would like to elucidate these seemingly contradictory statements, and try to find common ground between them, by presenting an overview of what is currently known about Blemmyes, Beja and Eastern Desert Ware. Eastern Desert Ware vessels are hand-made cups and bowls with a careful surface treatment and remarkable decorations (Fig. 1). They are found in 4th–6th entury CE contexts in the Nile Valley between the first and the 5th cataract, as well as in the Eastern Desert between there and the Red Sea coast. Eastern Desert Ware sherds and vessels invariably form only a small percentage of the ceramic finds from the same and associated contexts, the majority being the remains of wheel-thrown vessels from the Nile Valley. These usually include C-ware and R-ware, associated with the Nubian Late Meroitic and X-group (Fig. 2; STROUHAL 1984), or ERSA and ERSB, associated with Late Roman Egypt (Fig. 3; TOMBER 1998; 1999).2 A selection of Eastern Desert Ware sherds from Egypt and Sudan has recently been studied in some detail, the result of which is published in a series of articles (BARNARD 2002; BARNARD et al. 2005; BARNARD 2006; BARNARD and MAGID 2006; BARNARD and STROUHAL 2004; STROUHAL 1984). The preliminary conclusion of this research is that Eastern
Desert Ware was made and used by one of the indigenous groups in the area at the time. This is concurrent with earlier assumptions, based on more cursory studies of the material (LUFT et al. 2002:384; RICKE 1967:34; ROSE 1995:43; SIDE-
1
2
Hans Barnard MD, Research Associate; Cotsen Institute of Archaeology; University of California, Los Angeles; P.O.-Box 951510; Los Angeles, CA 90095-1510; USA; fax: +1 (310) 206 4723; E-mail:
[email protected]. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, Toledo (Ohio), 20–22 April 2007.
Fig. 1 Eastern Desert Ware from different sites in Egypt and Sudan, on the left, compared with vessels excavated in Wadi Qitna (after STROUHAL 1984), on the right
C-ware = cream ware; R-ware = red ware (cf. STROUHAL 1984:103–129, 144–154; also ADAMS 1986; TRIGGER 1967); ERSA = Egyptian red slip A; ERSB = Egyptian red slip B (cf. TOMBER 1998:170–177; 1999:146–151; also HAYES 1995).
24
Hans Barnard
Fig. 2 Selection of Late Meroitic C-ware, at the top, and X-group R-ware, at the bottom, excavated in Wadi Qitna (after STROUHAL 1984). The presence of these vessels indicates contacts with areas to the south (the kingdoms of Meroe, Nobatia or Makuria, Table 1)
and W ENDRICH 1996:16; 2001:256). More definite conclusion will be presented in a future monograph on the subject. The identification of this group and their motivations to start and stop producing their own pottery, however, remain problematic. First is the dearth of archaeological and historical information. Lower Nubia was lost under Lake Nasser in the 1960’s and a similar fate awaits the areas upstream of the 4th cataract, where another dam across the Nile is now under construction. Research in the region has been focussed on pre-historic and early historic remains, taken here as before the Common Era, rather than the period in which Eastern Desert Ware was produced and used, and necessarily BOTHAM
Fig. 3 Selection of ERSA, at the top, and ERSB, at the bottom, excavated in Shenshef (after TOMBER 1998; 1999). The presence of these vessels indicates contacts with areas to the north (Late Roman or Byzantine Egypt, Table 1)
entailed many rescue excavations. The more recent history of the area is characterized by the fact that the region has been on the fringes of, or between large cultural spheres to the north or to the south during most of the Common Era (Table 1). During this period the region was apparently invaded from as far as the Arabian Peninsula (by Banu Kanz, Macaza and Rashaida tribes, in the 10th, 18th and the 19th century respectively) and the Sudd (by the Funj, which later established the Sultanate of Sinnar), as well
Additional remarks on Blemmyes, Beja and Eastern Desert Ware
SOUTHEAST EGYPT
Pharaonic Egypt
NORTHEAST SUDAN
Late Period (25th–30th Dynasty) 715–343 BCE 2nd Persian Period 343–332 BCE
Kingdom of Meroe (Kushite Kingdom) ca. 800 BCE–350 CE
Ptolemaic Empire 332 BCE–30 CE Graeco-Roman Egypt
25
Roman Empire 30–330 CE EASTERN DESERT WARE Byzantine Empire 330–616 CE
Byzantine Egypt
Persian Invasion 616–628 CE Byzantine Empire 629–641 CE
Kingdom of Nobatia (Ballana Culture) ca. 300–700 CE
Kingdom of Makuria (protected by the baqt) ca. 500–1323 CE
Rashidun caliphs 641–658 CE Umayyad Caliphate 658–750 CE
Islamic Egypt
Abbasid Caliphate 750-969 CE Fatimid caliphs 969–1171 CE Ayyubid Sultanate 1171–1250 CE Mamluk sultans 1250–1517 CE
Ottoman Egypt
Modern Egypt
Banu Kanz (Awlad Kenz, Beni Kenz) 1323–1517 CE
Ottoman Empire 1517–1798 CE
Sultanate of Sinnar (Funj) 1504–1821 CE
Invasion of Napoleon 1798–1801 CE Khedives and kings of the Dynasty of Mohamed Ali Mohamed Ali (1805–1848) – Fucad II (1952–1953) increasingly controlled by the British Empire Mahdi Revolt 1883–1898 CE Unilateral independence 22 February 1922 Republic of Egypt 18 June 1953 Full independence 18 June 1956
Anglo-Egyptian Sudan 1899–1956 CE Republic of Sudan 1 January 1956
Table 1 Chronologic overview of historic events with a direct influence on life in the Eastern Desert (after ADAMS 1984). The period in which Eastern Desert Ware occurs in the archaeological record is marked in grey
as armies from the Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman and British Empires (ADAMS 1984; CAPPERS 2006; DAHL and HJORT-AF-ORNAS 2006; HOBBS 1990; KRZYWINSKI and PIERCE 2001; MURRAY 1935; PAUL
1954). Archaeological research in the Eastern Desert has understandably concentrated on the Pharaonic, Ptolemaic and Roman quarries, mines and harbours as well as the numerous pre-
26
Hans Barnard
historic and Pharaonic inscriptions in the region, at the detriment of the more ephemeral traces of the nomadic inhabitants of the Eastern Desert. These nomadic inhabitants are often identified as the Blemmyes, a group mentioned in several of the contemporary ancient sources, but also both before and after the 4th–6th centuries CE (KRALL 1900; UPDEGRAFF 1988). The most influential remark about the Blemmyes has been the first century CE statement by Pliny the Elder that „[t]he Blemmyes are reported have no heads, their mouths and eyes being attached to their chests (Natural History 5,46, translation H. Rackham 1961).“ This bizarre image has made its way onto medieval mappae mundi,3 and manuscripts,4 as well as into later literary works of, for instance, William Shakespeare (Othello,5 Act I, Scene II) and Umberto Eco (Baudolino).6 It has been suggested by Dr. Eugen Strouhal that this remark may be traced back to the large shields that were used to protect the body from the nose down to the knees (BARNARD 2005:34; PLUMLEY 1975:24). Around the same time as Pliny the Elder, the geographer Strabo (Strabo 17.1.53–54) described the Blemmyes as „... nomads and neither many nor warlike, although they were believed to be so by the ancients because of their frequent raids on defenceless people (EIDE et al. 1998:830).“ In an earlier text (Strabo 16.4.8–13, 17) he has already provided a list of people living in the desert between the Nile and the Red Sea with fanciful names such as Rhizophagoi (Root-eaters), Spermaphagoi (Seedeaters), Kynamolgoi (Dog-milkers), Elephantophagoi (Elephant-eaters), Strouthophagoi (Ostrich-eaters), Akridophagoi (Locust-eaters), Ichthyophagoi (Fish-eaters), Kreophagoi (Meateaters) and Troglodytes (Cave-dwellers) or Trogodytes (EIDE et al. 1998:823–826).7 The two most reliable ancient sources on the Blemmyes are the reports of the Egyptian diplomat Olym-
piodorus, who visited Lower Nubia around 420 CE (quoted by Photius in Bibliotheca 80, 62a9–26), and the historian Procopius, who described the Roman retreat from the area by Emperor Diocletian in ca. 298 CE (De Bellis 1,19.27–37), albeit about 250 years after this took place. Olympiodorus informs us that he met with the chiefs and priests of the Blemmyes in Talmis (Kalabsha), who convinced him that they controlled the area as far as Prima (Qurta or Qasr Ibrim) as well as the emerald mines (Mons Smaragdus) in the vicinity (EIDE et al. 1998:1127), although in reality a considerable distance to the northeast (BARNARD 2005:33–34). Procopius tells us that Diocletian (284–305 CE) ordered the Roman troops to retreat from Hiera Sycaminos (Maharraqa in Lower Nubia) to Syene (Aswan), while asking the Nobatai to move from around the city of Oasis (Kharga?) to the deserted Nile Valley in order to prevent further attacks from the Blemmyes. Both the Blemmyes and the Nobatai were given a yearly amount in gold on the condition that they would stop attacking Roman property. This agreement was subsequently broken by both the Nobatai and the Blemmyes, still according to Procopius, showing that they should not be trusted. Procopius implies that things were even worse by stating that although Emperor Justinian (527–565 CE, a contemporary of Procopius) ordered the temple in Philae to be closed, both groups still revere pagan gods (Isis, Osiris and especially Priapus), while the Blemmyes also make human sacrifices to the sun (EIDE et al. 1998:1188–1193). All relevant ancient sources on the Middle Nile region have been collected in the four volumes of the Fontes Historiae Nubiorum (EIDE et al. 1994; 1996; 1998; 2000). According to the indices, these contain 73 texts that somehow refer to the Blemmyes or the Beja. The editors consider these names as more of less synonymous, an assumption that will be discussed later.
3
6
4
5
World maps, such as the map drawn on vellum around 1290 CE by Richard de Bello of Haldingham, which is kept in Hereford Cathedral, Great Britain. Such as Cotton Tiberius B. V, part 1, Marvels of the East, f. 82 (before 1025 CE) and Royal 15 E. VI, Shrewsbury Talbot Book of Romances, f. 21v (before 1445 CE). Othello: It was my hint to speak, such was the process / and of the Cannibals that each other eat / the Anthropophagi and men whose heads / do grow beneath their shoulders.
7
Then, receiving a shy reaction from the panotian he tried to approach, he took a fancy to a blemmy female. He found that, apart from the lack of a head, she had a slender waist, an inviting vagina, and furthermore it would be great to kiss a woman on the mouth as if he were kissing her womb (translation William Weaver 2002). For the spelling of Trog(l)odytes see BURSTEIN 1989:109; MURRAY and WARMINGTON 1967:24.
Additional remarks on Blemmyes, Beja and Eastern Desert Ware
The texts are written in hieroglyphic Egyptian, Demotic, Coptic, Greek, Latin and the only partially understood Meroitic language and script. Indications for a Blemmyan language are limited to unusual names of persons and gods (300, 306, 310–315, 319, 321, 331–343) and the use of ‘pidgin Greek’ in some of the texts (310–313; see also EIDE et al. 1998:1135).8 Of these 73 texts (100%), 37 (42%) can possibly contain firsthand knowledge on the subject matter, as the author may have visited the area, while only 31 (42%) mention the Blemmyes or the Beja by name. In 37 texts (51%) they can be considered active participants, in the remaining 36 they are mentioned in the context of a geographical description or as the enemies of the state or the religion of the author. Only 13 texts (18%) meet all three criteria (BARNARD 2005). In the same way that the most reliable textual sources (Strabo, Olympiodorus and Procopius) do not seem to agree on the lifestyle or territory of the inhabitants of the region, other texts portray them as living in the Nile Valley (308, 311), pastoral nomads (56, 109, 189, 190, 274, 296, 309), subjects of overlords (278, 283, 293), ruled by chiefs, kings or queens (294, 301, 310–311, 319, 320); pagans (324), enemies of Christianity (278, 293, 296, 301), Christians (327); barbarians (282, 296, 309, 328) or parties in contracts for marriage or loans (123, 331–343). It is noteworthy that the son of the Blemmyer mentioned in PHauswaldt VI (123) is identified as a Megabaroi in PHauswaldt XV (E IDE et al. 1996:579–580). This is only one of many tribal names from other sources that can be added to Strabo’s list above. Others include Adulites (202), Aithiopians (56, 57, 66, 109, 116, 171, 189, 190, 218, 224, 233, 274, 279, 280, 281, 293, 294, 298, 303, 307, 308, 317), Aksumites (298, 299), Annoubades (314, 320), Arabs (218, 274), Balahau (34), Beja (234), Bougaites (298, 299), Catadupians (303), Himyarites (298, 299, 327), Indians (57, 280, 283, 293), Nobatai (328), Noubades (317, 318, 327), Noubai (109, 190), Nubians (302) and Saracens (283, 303). Some of these names, such as Indians, appear to refer to modern groups but are placed in northeast Africa by the ancient authors (MAYERSON 1993). This is another warning, more subtle than the fantastic description of Pliny, that the ancient
8
27
textual sources should be read with a healthy dose of scepticism (BARNARD 2005; BURSTEIN, in press; ROSEN 2006; WENDRICH et al. 2006). Archaeological artefacts that have been linked to the Blemmyes include Eastern Desert Ware (BIETAK 2005; SIDEBOTHAM and WENDRICH 1996:16; 2001:256), a number of petroglyphs in the Nile Valley as well as in the Eastern Desert (WINKLER 1938:15–17) and a series of tumulus graves (ekratels) scattered throughout the region (KRZYWINSKI and PIERCE 2001:113; SADR et al. 1994). The relation between these diverse finds, however, remains unclear as does their connection to the Blemmyes or to any other of the many groups mentioned in the ancient sources. It is evident that the cultural and ethnic landscape of the Middle Nile region in ancient times was as much a patchwork of interlinking groups as it is today (HUYGE 1998; MURRAY 1935; PAUL 1954; WENDRICH, in press). It may be possible to extract the history of one specific group from the limited historical and archaeological data (U PDEGRAFF 1988), but this should be approached with the appropriate care. Labelling
Fig. 4 Petroglyphs depicting a camel, in the forecourt of the temple of Shesmetat in Elkab, and a lion in Wadi al-Qash (cf. DERCHAIN 1971, pl. 24; WINKLER 1938, pl. III), on the left, and incised drawings of a cow, a fish and an ostrich on Eastern Desert Ware (cf. STROUHAL 1984:160, 164), on the right, showing great variety in style and subject matter (cf. Fig. 1).
The numbers in parenthesis refer to those given to the texts in the Fontes Historiae Nubiorum (see also BARNARD 2005).
28
Hans Barnard
all archaeological artefacts of unclear origin as Blemmyes does not add to our understanding of the complex history of the region and should be abandoned until more firm associations can be established. This is especially true in the case of Eastern Desert Ware that seems to appear during a much shorter time period than Blemmyes are mentioned in the historical sources, but at the same time in a much larger geographical area than traditionally assigned to the Blemmyes (BARNARD 2002; BARNARD et al. 2005; BARNARD 2006; BARNARD and MAGID 2006; BARNARD and STROUHAL 2004). Linking an ancient name with a modern group may likewise prove difficult as can be demonstrated with the case of the Beja. The phonetic similarity between blhm (EIDE et al. 1994:297), Balahau, Bougaites, Blemmyes and Beja is tempting, but hardly sufficient to connect these groups over large extents of space and time. It is often stated that “[t]he Beja (...) have literally since ‘time immemorial’ occupied the Eastern deserts of Sudan, Egypt and possibly Eritrea (DAHL and HJORT-AF-ORNA 2006:473; cf. CAPPERS 2006:39; KEIMER 1951; 1952a; 1952b; 1953a; 1953b, 1954a; 1954b; KRZYWINSKI and PIERCE 2001:35–36).” If this is indeed the case, the ‘heraldic’ petroglyphs (HUYGE 1998:1380), the ekratels and also Eastern Desert Ware should be ascribed to the Beja rather than the Blemmyes. This solution obviously disregards the historical, cultural and ethnic developments that the people living in the desert attained in the course of the past two millennia. Even if the modern Beja are the genetic descendents of the Eastern Desert Dwellers of 2000 years ago, which they are probably not (DAHL and HJORT-AF-ORNAS 2006; CHRISTIDES 1980; DAFA’ALLA 1987; Table 1), they have implemented many changes to their way of life to create what is now perceived as the Beja culture. Obvious examples include their constant adaptation to the changing climate and the ecological degradation of the desert environment (BURCKHARDT 1822; CAPPERS 2006; COLSTON 1879; FLOYER 1893; KRZYWINSKI and PIERCE 2001; VERMEEREN 1999; 2000), as well as the introduction of the camel (ARNOLD 1995; BULLIET 1975; DAVIS 1978; MIDANT-REYNES and BRAUNSTEIN-SILVESTRE 1977; ROWLEY-CONWAY 1998; WILSON 1984), of the ‘coffee ceremony’ that is so important to modern Bedouin life (BARAM 1999; BIRNBAUM 1956; KRZYWINSKI and PIERCE 2001; RACY 1996), of Islam and the Arabic language
(DE JONG 2002; HOBBS 1990; MURRAY 1935), and more recently also of cars, plastic containers, radio, television and mobile telephones. Contacts with Graeco-Roman miners and quarrymen (C APPERS 2006:39), Christianity (E IDE et al. 1998:1185–1188), Macaza and Rashaida Arabs, which invaded the area in the 18th–19th centuries CE (HOBBS 1990; KRZYWINSKI and PIERCE 2001), and especially with the Banu Kanz, an Arab group that mixed with the dwellers of the Eastern Desert during the 11th–16th centuries CE (ADAMS 1984), will have had profound effects on those living in the area. The successive Christian (the Kingdoms of Nobatia and Makuria), Funj (the Sultanate of Sinnar), Ottoman, British, Egyptian and Sudanese governments (ADAMS 1984), although relatively distant, also left their traces in past and present desert societies and cultures (Table 1). The modern inhabitant of the Eastern Desert form an amalgam of different clans and tribes (MAGID, in press; MURRAY 1935; PAUL 1954; WENDRICH, in press), including the Ababda, Amarar, Beni Amr, Bishareen, Hadendowa, Ma’aza, Otman and the Rashaida. Many speak Arabic as a first or a second language (DE JONG 2002; MORTON 1988), others the Cushitic (Afro-Asiatic) Beja language (To-Badawi) or the Semitic Tigre (Xasa). Some are pastoral nomads, herding sheep, goats and camels; many others are seminomadic cattle herders, settled agriculturalists or day-labourers. They tend to mystify their history, alternatively claiming to be descendants of a variety of common ancestors (MURRAY 1935; WENDRICH, in press), often close to the prophet Mohamed, or to be the heirs of an ancient empire such as the Kushite Kingdom or Pharaonic Egypt. Within this universe of clans, tribes and cultures, being a Beja seems to be mostly a matter of self-definition. It is often heard that the typical Beja culture, as it is perceived by outsiders, is disappearing because of increasing influences from the outside world or other reasons. Such observations echo the notion of the ‘noble savage’ and implicitly deny the Beja access to cars, television and the Internet (COLE and ALTORKI 1998; WENDRICH, in press), but also modern education and healthcare (BARNARD 2000). The fact that the culture of the Beja can ‘disappear’, or rather change to be part of our ‘global village’, illustrates how similar changes happened in the past. Equating the Beja with the Blemmyes is like thinking of
Additional remarks on Blemmyes, Beja and Eastern Desert Ware
the Belgiums, Flemish and Walloon alike, as ‘the bravest of all Gauls’ (De Bello Gallico book I: 1–2, see also BARNARD 2005), completely ignoring Saint Hubertus (patron saint of hunters, mathematicians, metalworkers and opticians); Nobel laureates Jules Bordet, Albert Claude, Maurice Maeterlinck and Corneille Heymans; artists like Pieter Breughel, James Ensor, René Magritte and Peter Paul Rubens; inventors like Leo Baekeland, Gerardus Cremer (Mercator) and Adolphe Sax; athletes like Kim Clijsters, Justin Henin, Jacky Ickx and Eddy Merckx; and many others that had a profound influence on the
29
development of humankind. The society and culture of the dwellers of the Eastern Desert should be considered no more rigid or frozen in time than the Belgium. The Beja definitely deserve the study and recording of their culture and history (WENDRICH, in press), such as the recently opened Bayt al-Ababda Museum in Wadi Gamal (Egypt). They also deserve to be the agents of their own destiny, the main opposition against which may be regional and national authorities, but also the persistent scholarly misconceptions on their past and present state of affairs.
Bibliography ADAMS, N.Y.
BARNARD, H. and STROUHAL, E.
1984
Nubia: Corridor to Africa, Princeton - London.
2004
1986
Ceramic Industries of Medieval Nubia: Memoirs of the UNESCO Archaeological Survey of Sudanese Nubia, Lexington.
BIETAK, M. 2005
Wadi Qitna Revisited, Annals of the Náprstek Museum Prague 25: 29–55. Introduction, Ä&L 15: 11–13.
ARNOLD, D.
BIRNBAUM, E.
1995
1956
An Egyptian Bestiary, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, New Series 52,4: 7–64.
Vice Triumphant: The Spread of Coffee and Tobacco in Turkey, Durham University Journal 48: 21–29.
BARAM, U.
BULLIET, R.W.
1999
1975
Clay Tobacco Pipes and Coffee Cup Sherds in the Archaeology of the Middle East: Artifacts of Social tension from the Ottoman Past, International Journal of Historical Archaeology 3,3: 137–151.
The Camel and the Wheel, Cambridge Mass.
BURCKHARDT, J.L. 1822
Travels in Nubia, London.
BARNARD, H.
BURSTEIN, S.M.
2000
1989
Geneeskunst geïnspireerd door armoede [Medicine inspired by poverty], Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde 144: 949–951 (in Dutch with an English abstract).
Agatharchides of Cnidus: On the Erythrean Sea, London.
in press Trogodytes=Blemmyes=Beja? The Misuse of Ancient Ethnography, in: H. BARNARD and W.Z. WENDRICH (eds.), The Archaeology of Mobility: Old World and New World Nomadism, Los Angeles.
2002
Eastern Desert Ware: A first introduction, Sudan & Nubia 6: 53–57.
2005
Sire, il n’y a pas de Blemmyes. A Re-evalualation of Historical and Archaeological Data, 23–40, in: J.C.M. STARKEY (ed.), People of the Red Sea: Proceedings of the Red Sea Project II, Held in the British Museum, October 2004. Society for Arabian Studies Monographs Number 3. BAR International Series 1395. Oxford.
CAPPERS, R.T.J.
Eastern Desert Ware: Fine Pottery from an Arid Wasteland, Egyptian Archaeology 28: 29–30.
1980
2006
2006
CHRISTIDES, V.
BARNARD, H., DOOLEY A.N. and FAULL K.F. 2005
New Data on the Eastern Desert Ware from Sayala (Lower Nubia) in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Ä&L 15: 49–64. Eastern Desert Ware from Tabot (Sudan): More Links to the North, Archéologie du Nil Moyen 10: 15–34.
Ethnic movements in southern Egypt and northern Sudan: Blemmyes-Beja in Late Antique and Early Arab Egypt until 707 A.D, Listy Filologické 103,3: 129–143.
COLE, D.P. and ALTORKI, S. 1998
BARNARD, H. and MAGID, A.A. 2006
Roman Foodprints at Berenike: Archaeobotanical Evidence of Subsistence and Trade in the Eastern Desert of Egypt, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 55, Los Angeles.
Bedouin, Settlers, and Holiday-makers: Egypt’s Changing Northwest Coast, Cairo.
COLSTON, R.E. 1879
Life in the Egyptian Deserts, Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York 11: 301–333.
30
Hans Barnard
DAFAcALLA, S.B. 1987
The Historical Role of the Blemmyes in Late Meroitic and Early X-Group Periods, Beiträge zur Sudanforschung 2: 34–40.
DAHL, G. and HJORT-AF-ORNAS, A. 2006
Precolonial Beja: A Periphery at the Crossroads, Nordic Journal of African Studies 15,4: 473–498.
1953b Notes prises chez les Bišarîn et les Nubiens d’Assouan: Cinquième partie (1), BdE 34: 401–449. 1954a Notes prises chez les Bišarîn et les Nubiens d’Assouan: Cinquième partie (2), BdE 35: 447–470. 1954b Notes prises chez les Bišarîn et les Nubiens d’Assouan: Sixieme partie, BdE 35: 471–533. KRALL, J.
DAVIS, W.M.
1900
1978
KRZYWINSKI, K. and PIERCE, R.H. (eds.)
Dating Prehistoric Rock Drawings in Upper Egypt and Nubia, Current Anthropology 19,1: 216–217.
DE JONG, R. 2002
Notes on the Dialect of the Ababda, 337–359, in: W. ARNOLD and H. BOBZIN (eds.), Sprich doch mit deinem Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen es: Festschrift für Otto Jastrow, Wiesbaden.
2001
Elkab I: Les monuments religieux à l’entrée de l’Ouady Hellal, Bruxelles: 76–77.
EIDE, T., HÄGG, T., PIERCE, R.H. and TÖRÖK, L. 1994
Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Volume I: From the Eighth to the Mid-fifth Century BC, Bergen.
1996
Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Volume II: From the Midfifth Century BC to the FIrst Century AD, Bergen.
1998
Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Volume III: From the First to the Sixth Century AD, Bergen.
2000
Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Volume IV: Corrigenda and Indices, Bergen.
Deserting the Desert: A Threatened Cultural Landscape Between the Nile and the Sea, Bergen.
LUFT, U., ALMÁSY, A., FARKAS, M.A., FURKA, I., HORVÁTH, Z. and LASSÁNYI, G. 2002
DERCHAIN, P. 1971
Beiträge zur Geschichte der Blemyer und Nubier, Vienna.
Preliminary Report on the Fieldwork at Bir Minih, Arabian Desert, MDAIK 58: 373–390.
MAGID, A.A., in press History of the Nomadic Architecture of the Hadendowa in Northeast Sudan, in: H. BARNARD and W.Z. WENDRICH (eds.), The Archaeology of Mobility: Old World and New World Nomadism, Los Angeles. MAYERSON, PH. 1993
A confusion of Indias: Asian India and African India in the Byzantine sources, JAOS 113,2: 169–174.
MIDANT-REYNES, B. and BRAUNSTEIN-SILVESTRE, F.
FLOYER, E.A.
1977
1893
MORTON, J.
Étude sur le Nord-Etbai entre le Nil et la Mer Rouge, Le Caire.
1988
HAYES, J.W. 1995
Summary of Pottery and Glass Dinds, 33–40, in: S.E. SIDEBOTHAM and W.Z. WENDRICH (eds.), Berenike 1994. Preliminary Report of the 1994 Excavations at Berenike (Egyptian Red Sea Coast) and the Survey of the Eastern Desert, Leiden.
HOBBS, J.J. 1990
Le chameau en Egypte, Or 46: 337–362. Sakanab: Greeting and Information Among the Northern Beja, Africa. Journal of the International African Institute 58: 423–436.
MURRAY, G.M. 1935
Sons of Ishmael, London.
MURRAY, G.M. and WARMINGTON, E.H. 1967
Bedouin Life in the Egyptian Wilderness, Cairo.
Trogodytica: The Red Sea Littoral in Ptolemaic Times, The Geographical Journal 133,1: 24–33.
HUYGE, D.
PAUL, A.
1998
1954
Art on the Decline? Egyptian Rock art Drawing from the Late and Graeco-Roman Periods, 1377–1392, in: W. CLARYSSE, A. SCHOORS and H. WILLEMS (eds.), Egyptian Religion: The Last Thousand Years: Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Jan Quaegebeur: Part II: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 85, Leuven.
PLUMLEY, J.M. 1975
Notes prises chez les Bišarîn et les Nubiens d’Assouan: Première partie, BdE 32: 49–101.
1996
Heroes, lovers, and poet-singers: The Bedouin ethos in the music of the Arab Near-East, The Journal of American Folklore 109,424: 404–424.
RICKE, H.
1952a Notes prises chez les Bišarîn et les Nubiens d’Assouan: Deuxième partie, BdE 32: 42–84.
1967
1952b Notes prises chez les Bišarîn et les Nubiens d’Assouan: Troisième partie, BdE 33: 85–136.
1995
1953a Notes prises chez les Bišarîn et les Nubiens d’Assouan: Quatrième partie, BdE 34: 329–400.
Qasr Ibrim 1974, JEA 61: 5–17.
RACY, A.J.
KEIMER, L. 1951
A History of the Beja Tribes of the Sudan, Cambridge.
Ausgrabungen van Khor-Dehmit bis Bet el-Wali, Chicago.
ROSE, P.J. Report on the Handmade Sherds, 41–43, in: S.E. SIDEBOTHAM and W.Z. WENDRICH (eds.), Berenike 1994. Preliminary Report of the 1994 Excavations at Berenike (Egyptian Red Sea Coast) and the Survey of the
Additional remarks on Blemmyes, Beja and Eastern Desert Ware
Eastern Desert, Leiden. ROSEN, S.A. 2006
The Tyranny of Texts: A Rebellion Against the Primacy of Written Documents in Defining Archaeological Agendas, 879–893, in: A.M. MAEIR and P. DE MIROSCHEDJI (eds.), I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar: Volume 2, Winona Lake.
UPDEGRAFF, R.T. 1988
1999
Wood and Charcoal, 307–324, in: S.E SIDEBOTHAM and W.Z. WENDRICH (eds.), Berenike 1997: Report of the 1997 Excavations at Berenike and the Survey of the Egyptian Eastern Desert, Including Excavations at Shenshef, Leiden.
2000
Wood and Charcoal, 311–342, in: S.E SIDEBOTHAM and W.Z. WENDRICH (eds.), Berenike 1998: Report of the 1998 Excavations at Berenike and the Survey of the Egyptian Eastern Desert, Including Excavations in Wadi Kalalat, Leiden.
The Camel in the Nile Valley: New Radiocarbon Accelerator (AMS) Dates from Qasr Ibrim, JEA 74: 245–248.
SADR, K., CASTIGLIONI, ALF., CASTIGLIONI, ANG. and NEGRO, G. 1994
Archaeology in the Nubian Desert, Sahara 6: 69–75.
SIDEBOTHAM, S.E. and WENDRICH, W.Z. 1996
Berenike: Roman Egypt’s Maritime Gateway to Arabia and India, EA 8: 16–17.
2001
Berenike, Roms Tor am Roten Meer nach Arabien und Indien, Antike Welt 32,3: 251–263.
STROUHAL, E. 1984
Wadi Qitna and Kalabsha-South: Late Roman-Early Byzantine Tumuli Cemeteries in Egyptian Nubia: Volume I, Archaeology, Prague: 101–194.
TOMBER, R.S. 1998
The Pottery, 163–180, in: S.E. SIDEBOTHAM and W.Z. WENDRICH (eds.), Berenike 1996: Report of the 1996 Excavations at Berenike (Egyptian Red Sea Coast) and the Survey of the Eastern Desert, Leiden.
1999
The pottery, 123–159, in: S.E. SIDEBOTHAM and W.Z. WENDRICH (eds.), Berenike 1997: Report of the 1997 Excavations at Berenike and the Survey of the Egyptian Eastern Desert, Including Excavations at Shenshef, Leiden.
TRIGGER, B.G. 1967
The Late Nubian Settlement at Arminna West: Publications of the Pennsylvanian-Yale Expedition to Egypt: Number 2, New Haven and Philadelphia.
The Blemmyes I: The rise of the Blemmyes and the Roman withdrawal from Nubia under Diocletian, 44–97, in: W. HAASE and H. TEMPORINI (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römische Welt: Volume II, Berlin, New York.
VERMEEREN, C.E.
ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 1988
31
WENDRICH, W.Z. in press From objects to agents: The Ababda nomads and the interpretation of the past, in: H. BARNARD and W.Z. WENDRICH (eds.), The Archaeology of Mobility: Old World and New World Nomadism, Los Angeles. WENDRICH, W.Z., BAGNALL, R.S., CAPPERS, R.T.J., HARRELL, J.A., SIDEBOTHAM, S.E. and TOMBER, R.S. 2006
Berenike Crossroads: The Integration of Information, 15–66, in: N. YOFFEE and B.L. CROWELL (eds.), Excavating Asian History: Interdisciplinary Studies in Archaeology and History, Tucson (an earlier version of this chapter appeared in 2003 in the Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 46,1: 46–87).
WILSON, R.T. 1984
The Camel, London, New York.
WINKLER, H.A. 1938
Rock-drawings of southern Upper Egypt: Volume I: Sir Robert Mond Desert Expedition: Season 1936–1937: Preliminary report, London: 15–24.
AUSGRABUNG EINES PALASTBEZIRKES DER TUTHMOSIDENZEIT BEI cEZBET HELMI/TELL EL-DABcA, VORBERICHT FÜR DAS FRÜHJAHR 20071 Von Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller I. EINLEITUNG Die Ausgrabungen im großen Palastbezirk der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi (Fig. 1),2 etwa 1 km westlich von Tell el-Dabca, wurden vom 1. März bis 25. Mai 2007 fortgesetzt, nachdem im vergangenen Jahr diese Untersuchungen durch eine andere Grabung östlich der Autostraße nach Husseiniya und Tanis, im Areal F/II, mit einer Untersuchung eines hyksoszeitlichen Palastbezirkes unterbrochen worden war.3 In den letzten Wochen dieser Kampagne wurden auch Surveys mit Magnetometer und Georadar fortgesetzt, über die gesondert berichtet wird.4 Die Unternehmungen wurden vom Österreichischen Archäologischen Institut Kairo und dem Institut für Ägyptologie der Universität Wien mit Unterstützung der Kommission für Ägypten und Levante der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften durchgeführt. Die Finanzierung erfolgte in dankenswerter Weise durch das Österreichische Archäologische Institut, die Universität Wien, den Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung und mit Unterstützungen der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und dem Institute for Aegean Prehistory, Philadelphia, für die Bearbeitung der ägäischen Fresken.5 An dieser Stelle sei für die Zusammenarbeit vor Ort dem ägyptischen Supreme Council of Antiquities und dessen Generalsekretär Dr. Zahi Hawass sowie dem Generaldirektor für das Delta Dr. cAbd el-Maqsoud unser besonderer Dank ausgesprochen. Ebenso seien die Inspektoren der Antikenbehörde Meselhi cAli Mohamed und cAbd el-Salâm Mansûr cAbd es-Salâm, die mit den Ausgrabungen unmittelbar kooperierten, bedankt.
1
2 3
Für die Auswahl und Herstellung der Abbildungen möchten wir Nikky Math sehr danken, für das Layout Angela Schwab. Die photographischen Aufnahmen stammen von Michael Weissl. S. zuletzt BIETAK & FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2005. S. BIETAK & FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2006; BIETAK, FORSTNERMÜLLER & HERBICH 2006; BIETAK & FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2007.
Ende März erhielten wir den Besuch der Vertreter des Spezialforschungsbereichs SCIEM 2000 (Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung) an der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften unter deren Vizepräsidenten Herbert Matis und deren Zentrumssprecherin für Altertumswissenschaften Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy. Dieser Spezialforschungsbereich, der die Synchronisierung der divergierenden Chronologien im östlichen Mittelmeerraum zum Ziele hat, arbeitet seit Jahren engstens mit den Ausgrabungen in Tell el-Dabca zusammen.6 II. GRABUNGSTEILNEHMER Manfred Bietak Irene Forstner-Müller
- Grabungsleiter - Stellvertretende Grabungsleiterin David Aston - Ägyptologe Bettina Bader - Ägyptologin Michaela Binder - Anthropologin Pieter Collet - Zeichner Delphine Driaux - Studentin Anne-Catherine Escher - Architektin Perla Fuscaldo - Ägyptologin Astrid Hassler - Archäologin Felix Höflmayer - Archäologe Günther-Karl Kunst - Archäozoologe Manfred Ecarius - Fotograf Nicola Math - Ägyptologin Miriam Müller - Ägyptologin Sandra Müller - Ägyptologin Wolfgang Müller - Archäologe Maria Antonia Negrete Martinez - Zeichnerin Erico Peintner - Restaurator Robert Pronck - Student Gerald Schmied - Student
4 5
6
S.u. FORSTNER-MÜLLER et al. 2007. Dafür möchten wir uns sehr bei den Herren Malcolm Wiener, Connecticut, und Philipp Betancourt, Philadelphia, persönlich sehr bedanken. Information über Ziele und Tätigkeit dieses Spezialforschungsbereichs s. BIETAK (ed.) 2000; BIETAK (ed.) 2003; BIETAK 1999; BIETAK & CZERNY (eds.) 2007; BIETAK & KLEINSGÜTL 2000.
34
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Rudolfine Seeber Annette Sorensen Constance Von Rüden Michael Weissl Alexandra Winkels
- Restauratorin - Archäologin - Archäologin - Archäologe - Restauratorin
Survey Tomasz Herbich Michal Kurzyk Christian Schweitzer David Swiech Siri Seren Erol Bayirli Hervé Tronchere
- Magnetometer-Survey - Magnetometer-Survey - Magnetometer-Survey - Magnetometer-Survey - Georadar - Georadar - Hafenprojekt
III. ÜBERSICHT
GRABUNGSOBJEKTE ÜBERSICHT (Fig. 1)
ÜBER DIE
STRATIGRAPHISCHE
UND
Das Grabungsgelände befindet sich im Agrarland südlich der Zufahrt zum Dorf cEzbet Helmi, im Besitz von cAbd-el-Sabûr Selim. Infolge der Ackerund Sebbach-Tätigkeit war eine ganze Stratigraphie von jüngeren Schichten abgegraben worden, von denen sich nur Gruben, Gräber und tief reichende Fundamentgräben fanden. Ziel dieser Kampagne war der Abschluss der Untersuchungen des großen Gebäudes L, das sich unmittelbar neben dem großen Palast G befindet. Es wurde z.T. bereits im Jahre 2005 frei-
Fig. 1 Übersicht über den tuthmosidischen Palastbezirk mit dem eingezeichneten Grabungsareal Frühjahr 2007
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
gelegt und scheint eine besondere öffentliche Funktion innerhalb dieses Bezirkes gehabt zu haben.7 Dabei zeigte sich noch eine eigene Umfassungsmauer des Gebäudes L im Osten und im Süden. Südlich des Gebäudes L, das aus mehreren Phasen besteht, kamen ältere Schichten zum Vorschein: ein Garten des Str. d, der mit der Frühphase des Gebäudes L in Verbindung zu stehen scheint, ferner diverse Umfassungsmauern des Palastbezirkes (Str. d und c), eine Schmelzbatterie des frühen Str. d, schließlich Häuser, Gräber und zwei Opfergruben, die vermutlich zu einem Militärlager des Str. e/1.1, der frühen 18. Dynastie, gehören. Darunter kamen wieder die charakteristischen Rundbauten des Str. e/1.2 und eine große, tief fundamentierte Umfassungsmauer zutage, die zur Zeit der Str. d–c als Umfassungsmauer des Palastbezirkes immer noch in Verwendung war. Es ist unwahrscheinlich, dass ein Teil der oben genannten Häuser von Str. e/1.1 bereits in dieser frühesten Schicht der 18. Dynastie errichtet worden war, da sie die genannten Speicher/Rundbauten überdecken. Im äußersten Süden des Grabungsareals, südlich des Palastbezirkes, fand sich eine differenzierte Stratigraphie einer dicht verbauten Siedlung mit Gräbern der mittleren bis späten Hyksoszeit (Str. e/2–h). Es ist derzeit noch nicht geklärt, ob diese die dichten Siedlungsflächen südlich des Palastbezirkes datieren, die sich deutlich im Magnetometerbild abzeichnen.8 Über den Siedlungsanlagen der 2. Zwischenzeit fand sich dicht gepackter Siedlungsschutt der 18. Dynastie, allerdings ohne architektonische Relikte. Da der Boden hier tief abgegraben war, wäre ein Siedlungskontinuum von der Hyksoszeit bis in die 18. Dynastie möglich. Diese differenzierte Stratigraphie der 2. Zwischenzeit fand sich bisher nicht im Palastareal selbst, so dass vielleicht der Schluss berechtigt ist, dass man sich für die Silo-Einfriedung und schließlich für das spätere Palastareal ein weniger dicht bebautes Gelände ausgewählt hatte, das größtenteils in das Gartenareal und die weitgehend leeren Einfriedungen der HyksosZitadelle hineinfiel. Die Frage nach der Position des Palastes der späten Hyksoszeit (nicht zu verwechseln mit dem weiter östlich liegenden älteren Palast, der 2006
7
8
BIETAK & FORSTNER&MÜLLER 2005, 90–95, figs. 19, 22–25. S. auch FORSTNER-MÜLLER et al. 2007.
35
in F/II angeschnitten wurde)9 könnte sich vielleicht nach Auffindung einer NNO-SSW verlaufenden dicken Lehmziegel-Umfassungsmauer mit Parapet (Fig. 2) und einem davor befindlichen Badehaus geklärt haben. Hier ist ein Eingang in eine innere Einfriedung zu vermuten. Das Badehaus mit gestucktem Boden scheint nach unseren Erfahrungen mit dem Palastbezirk der Tuthmosidenzeit für einen Palasteingang zu sprechen. Der Kern des Gebäudes würde freilich weiter östlich unter der Asphaltstraße Faqûs – Husseiniya und im Bereich des El-Didamun-Kanals liegen und ist wohl durch die Aushubarbeiten für den Kanal größtenteils zerstört worden. Relikte der Festung des Haremhab bzw. eines Vorgängerbaues, die bereits auf dem Magnetometerbild festgestellten worden waren, fanden sich in Form einer starken Umfassungsmauer knapp südlich der Palastumfassungsmauer der 18. Dynastie. Die Ziegel der Mauer waren gänzlich beraubt, es wurde nur mehr der Fundamentgraben (M4233/L6783) vorgefunden. Knapp südlich und parallel dazu verlief ein tiefer O-W verlaufender Graben (L6932), der von einer großen aus Kalkstein gemauerten Wasserleitung stammt, die jedoch völlig ausgerissen und ausgeplündert worden war (Fig. 31, 32). Aufgrund der abgeackerten Oberfläche ist ihre Originaloberkante nicht mehr erhalten, sie könnte von Str. e/1 (frühe 18. Dynastie) bis in die Zeit des Str. b/3 (Haremhab) datieren. Eine Bierflasche innerhalb des gestörten Grabens datiert die Plünderung der Steinplatten der Wasserleitung in die Zeit Ramses’ II. Diese monumentale Wasserleitung könnte daher der Wasserversorgung des Tuthmosidenpalastes ebenso gedient haben wie der Festung südlich des Erweiterungsbaues des Haremhab (möglicherweise aus der Zeit Zeit Amenophis’ III.–Echnaton). In die Hyksoszeit datiert die Wasserleitung trotz ihrer Ähnlichkeit mit einer bereits gefundenen Wasserleitung der Hyksoszeit10 aber sicherlich nicht, da sie bereits Mauern der späten 2. Zwischenzeit durchschlägt. Als späteste Belegung dieses Areals setzt sich der im Jahr 2005 gefundene Friedhof aus der Zeit Ramses II.11 weiter nach Süden fort. Seine Grabgruben schneiden in den Ostteil des Gebäudes L und in dort anstehende ältere Schichten ein.
9 10 11
S. Fn. 3. BIETAK, DORNER & JÁNOSI 2001, 50–55. BIETAK & FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2005, 95–98.
36
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Stratigraphische Übersicht des Grabungsplatzes H/VI (Tabelle 1) Ph. B/2 Str. b/1
Ramessidischer Friedhof mit einfachen Grubenbestattungen, “slipper coffins” und Kinderbestattungen in Tongefäßen
Ph. B/3–C/1 Str. b/2–3
Umfassungsmauer einer Festung möglicherweise aus der Zeit vor Haremheb, abgeackert, nur Reste (M4233) und der Fundamentgraben L6783 erhalten. Möglicherweise gehört die monumentale Wasserleitung L6932 dazu
Hiatus
Relikte pastoraler Tätigkeit, Bestattungen von Schafen oder Ziegen (vermutlich durch Mnmn.t - Hirten) (L6737, L6760)
Ph. C/2 Str. c
Späte Phase des Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit, vor allem spätere Phase des Gebäudes L, dessen jüngere Umfassungsmauer (M4210 u. M4212); die Umfassungsmauer (M4229/L6745) des Werkstattbezirkes W2 setzt sich von Westen her fort12
Ph. C/3 Str. d
Frühe Phase des Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit, frühe Phase des Gebäudes L, ältere Phase der Umfassungsmauer des Gebäudes L (M4280, M4281), Gartenanlage mit Tongefässen für Setzlinge in regelmäßigen Abständen, Baumgruben (L6989 u. L6990), gewundener Kanal (L6882), Umfassungsmauer (M4234) südlich des Gebäudes L, südliche Umfassungsmauer des Palastbezirkes (M4234), in Str. e/1.2 errichtet, bis Str. c in Verwendung; unmittelbar südlich des Gebäudes L eine Schmelzbatterie (M4289), sie ist später als die Südwand des Gebäudes L errichtet und älter als die späte Phase der Südwand
Ph. D/1.1 Str. e/1.1
Opfergruben in w/23 (L6885, L6946) mit Tongeschirr und Tierknochen, letztere schneidet in Mauer M4254 (Str. e/1.1 oder e/1.2) ein, gehören vielleicht zu Gräbern, Bestattung L6992 (stratigraphisch nicht gesichert) und die Kinderbestattung L7075 entlang der Umfassungsmauer M4234. Kleine Gebäude südlich von Gebäude L, überbauen die Rundbauten von Str. e/1.2 und werden vom Kanal L6882 mehrfach durchschnitten, vermutlich Teil eines Heerescamps der frühen 18. Dynastie
Ph. D/1.2 Str. e/1.2
Südliche Umfassungsmauer M4234 eines großen Speicherbezirkes der frühen 18. Dynastie, bis Str. c als südliche Palastumfassungsmauer in Verwendung, Rundspeicher (M4260, M4276, M4339, M4340, M4299?) mit den üblichen 10 Ellen Durchmesser, dicht gesetzt, südlichste Reihe entlang Umfassungsmauer M4234. Sie werden teilweise mehrfach erneuert, möglicherweise einige Siedlungsmauern in Plq. y/22, aa/22 und ein Abfallhaufen in bb/22
Ph. D/2 Str. e/2
Dicke Umfassungsmauer mit Parapet (M4231), hat 2 Phasen, außerhalb befindet sich ein freistehendes Badehaus (L7056); möglicherweise Teil eines Palastbezirkes der Hyksoszeit
Ph. D/2–3 Str. e/2 –h
Im Süden (aa/22, bb/22) eine Stratigraphie von Siedlungsbauten und Siedlungsablagerungen, sowie Gräber, die mindestens bis in die mittlere Hyksoszeit zurückgehen Tabelle 1
Im folgenden werden die wichtigsten Objekte noch näher beschrieben. IV. DIE UMFASSUNGSMAUER MIT PARAPET AUS DER SPÄTEN HYKSOSZEIT, PH. D/2, STR. e/2 (Fig. 2) Die 6 Stein (c. 2,80 m) starke Umfassungsmauer M4231 ist NNW-SSO orientiert, ihre Außenseite liegt im SW (Fig. 3). An der Innenseite war ein kasemattenartiges aufgefülltes Parapet, c. 1,80 m breit, angefügt, später wurde dieses durch eine Mauer (M4262) auf über 3 m Breite erweitert, so dass die Gesamtbreite der Umfassungsmauer
12
BIETAK & DORNER 2001, 91, fig. 46.
samt der aufgefüllten Wehrplattform etwa 6 m betrug. Im NW-Eck des Planquadrates ist eine NNO-SSW orientiert Mauer, M4293, im Verband mit ihr gemauert. Ob es sich um ein Gebäudeeck handelt, werden zukünftige Grabungen zeigen. Ein großer Teil der Mauer wurde durch spätere Bautätigkeit, vor allem durch die tiefen Fundamente des Gebäudes L, zerstört. Unmittelbar südwestlich dieser Umfassungsmauer fand sich ein freistehendes etwa quadratisches Badehaus, L7056, aus Lehmziegeln mit Boden und Wänden aus Kalkstuck. Sein östlicher
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
37
Fig. 2 Übersicht über die Anlagen der späten Hyksoszeit mit der neu gefundenen Umfassungsmauer mit Parapet
Teil ist noch nicht freigelegt worden. Da sowohl in Palast G als auch Palast J bei den Eingängen Badezimmer untergebracht waren, könnte man anzunehmen, dass sich hier in unmittelbarer Nähe ein Eingang befunden hat, der noch zu suchen sein wird. Ein freies Badehaus gab es auch im Südwesten des tuthmosidischen Palastes G in der Nähe der großen Werkstätten W2 .13
13
Ibidem, 97–100.
Die Datierung dieser Anlage ergibt sich aus den Störungen der darüber liegenden Schichten Str. d und der Nutzung der Mauer durch die Silos Str. e/1.2, die das Badehaus zerstören. Eine nähere Datierung kann erst durch Keramikauswertung erfolgen. Das Problem ist in der Orientierung dieser Mauer, die weder mit der nördlichen Umfassungsmauer gut in Einklang zu bringen ist, noch mit dem Herrenhaus weiter im Westen konform geht (Fig. 2). Das könnte jedoch topographische Gründe haben.
38
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 3 Umfassungsmauer mit einer angebauten kasemattenartigen Kostruktion für ein Parapet (Str. e/2, späte Hyksoszeit)
Fig. 4 Siedlungsanlagen der späten Zweiten Zwischenzeit
V. DIE SIEDLUNGSRELIKTE DER HYKSOSZEIT IM SÜDEN DES PALASTBEZIRKES
37–38 × 18–19 cm tritt hier wieder auf. Die Eingangsschwellen der Häuser waren manchmal mit Kalksteinen verstärkt. Bei den Gebäuden waren Öfen (L6991) (Fig. 5) und Speicher errichtet. Häufig wurden Gefäße (Modellvasen, Näpfe) eingemauert, was auf eine rege Kulttätigkeit dieser Zeit im Siedlungsbereich schließen lässt. Neben Kleinkindbestattungen (L7049) fand sich auch ein Grubengrab (L7087) (Fig. 6). Diese Bestattung gehörte einem jungen Mann, der Spuren schlechter Ernährung aufweist.
Außerhalb der Umfassungsmauern des Palastbezirkes erstreckt sich im Süden ein dicht bebautes Gebiet. Ein Ausschnitt dieser Siedlung wurde während dieser Kampagne ausgegraben (Planquadrat bb/22 und Testschnitt in diesem Planquadrat14 entlang des S-Profils) (Fig. 4). Die untersten Schichten wurden in dieser Kampagne nicht erreicht. Unter einer Vorratsgrube der Spätzeit und Siedlungsabfall des Neuen Reiches mit Skarabäen (Fig. 13) und Tonfiguren von Beischläferinnen kamen massive Siedlungsschichten der späten Zweiten Zwischenzeit zu tage. Die Gebäude aus Lehmziegeln wurden in rascher Folge übereinander gebaut, die Mauerstärken variieren von ½ bis ein Stein stark (18–19 cm × 36–38 cm), das für diese Zeit in Tell el-Dabca typische Ziegelmaß von
14
Dieser Schnitt wurde von N. Math beaufsichtigt.
VI. DER GROSSE SPEICHERBEZIRK DER FRÜHEN 18. DYNASTIE (PH. D/1.2, STR. e/1.2) (Fig. 7) Als früheste Belegung der 18. Dynastie nach der Eroberung von Auaris wurde nördlich der oben behandelten Siedlungsrelikte der Hyksoszeit eine große Einfriedung (M4234) aus Lehmzie-
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
Fig. 5 Siedlung der späten Hyksoszeit, Brotofenanlage L6991
Fig. 6 Grubengrab der späten Hyksoszeit, L7087
39
40
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 7 Übersicht über den großen Speicherbezirk der frühen 18. Dynastie
geln errichtet, die dann als südliche Umfassungsmauer für die nächsten drei Schichten, also mindestens für ein Jahrhundert, stehen blieb. Ob auch die anderen drei Seiten der Palasteinfriedung auf diese Umfassungsmauer des Str. e/1.1 zurückgehen, konnte nicht verifiziert werden, ist aber denkbar. Die Funktion dieser mächtigen Umfassungsmauer war der Schutz eines gewaltigen Speicherbezirkes, der mit Rundspeichern mit innerem, genormten Durchmesser von 10 Ellen und mit rechteckigen Magazinen angefüllt war.15 Der Bezirk war durch innere Trennmauern
in mehrere Speichereinheiten unterteilt. Möglicherweise war es damals bereits ein Palastbezirk, da nahe an der Südumwallung, unmittelbar unter dem Palast J der Tuthmosidenzeit, Relikte eines älteren Palastes zum Vorschein kamen, der zu Str. e/1.2 gehört.16 In dieser Kampagne fand sich in z/22 die östliche Fortsetzung dieser südlichen Umfassungsmauer M4234. Dicht daran zeigten sich wieder die charakteristischen Rundspeicher (M4339, M4340). Weiter im Norden kamen in w/23 und w/24 weitere Rundspeicher (M4260 und M4276)
15
16
Ibidem, 60–67. Damals war die Zusammengehörigkeit der Palastumwallung und des Speicherbezirkes noch nicht erkannt worden.
Ibidem 65, fig. 22.
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
41
zum Vorschein (Fig. 8). Manche Rundspeicher wurden offenbar erneuert, was auf eine längere Funktionsdauer des Bezirkes hinweisen könnte. VII. DIE NUTZUNG DES AREALS ALS CAMP UND ALS FRIEDHOF IN DER FRÜHEN 18. DYNASTIE (PH. D/1.1, STR. e/1.1)
Fig. 8 Relikte von Rundspeichern der frühen 18. Dynastie
In der Folgezeit scheint nach Verfall oder der Einebnung der Rundspeicher das Areal der Einfriedung als ein großes Armeelager genutzt worden zu sein.17 Anzeichen dafür sind Pfostenlöcher für Zelte, Lagerfeuer, ein Model für eine Streitaxt und Bestattungen von einigen Pferden und Mulis.18 Ebenso fanden sich auch große Brotöfen, die die Größe eines Haushaltes bei weitem übersteigen.19 Vor allem gab es auch eine Reihe von nach und nach angelegten Gräbern, in denen vorwiegend junge Männer beigesetzt worden waren. Sie fanden sich meist entlang von Mauern innerhalb des Bezirkes und auch entlang der südlichen Umfassungsmauer.20 Dieses Jahr fand sich in Plq. z/22 entlang der Umfassungsmauer M4234 ebenfalls eine Bestattung (L7095), die jedoch überraschenderweise einem Kind gehörte (Fig. 9). Weitere Gräber sind entlang dieser Mauer in beiden Richtungen zu erwarten. Gleich in direkter Nachbarschaft kam das Relikt eines Lagerfeuers (L6995) zum Vorschein. Weiters fanden sich drei
Fig. 9 Kinderbestattung (L7095) an der südlichen Umfassungsmauer M4234 des Camps des Str. e/1.1
17 18
Ibidem, 67–74. Ibidem; s. auch VON DEN DRIESCH & PETERS 2001.
19 20
BIETAK & FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2005, 69–70. S. BIETAK & DORNER 2001, 67–74.
42
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 10 Opfergruben (L6946 und L6885)
Fig. 11 Hausbauten des Str. e/1.1
Fig. 12 Bestattung eines Schweines (L6836), vermutlich Str. e/1.1
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
43
Fig. 13 Plq. bb/22, Skarabäen der frühen 18. Dynastie aus Siedlungsschutt über der Siedlung der späten Hyksoszeit
Die in 2005 begonnenen Grabungen wurden in dieser Kampagne innerhalb des 5,5 ha großen tuthmosidischen Palastbezirkes im Südostbereich fortgesetzt. Dabei fand sich östlich des Hauptpalastes G ein über 3.200 m2 großer trapezförmiger
Bau L aus Lehmziegeln, (72–77 × 42,5 m groß), der mit dem östlichen Nebeneingang des Palastes über ein Seitentor in Verbindung war (Fig. 19). Er ist daher als öffentliches Gebäude anzusprechen. Ebenso wie der Palastbezirk hatte auch Gebäude L zwei Bauphasen (Str. d und c), die anhand von zwei separaten Fundamentgräben an der Südmauer und an zwei verschieden starken Umfassungsmauern festgestellt werden konnten. In seiner früheren Phase wurde südlich des Areals des Gebäudes L eine Gartenanlage mit systematisch in Töpfen gepflanzten Setzlingen und ein gekrümmter Kanal (L6882), der vielleicht der Wasserförderung in der Bauzeit des Gebäudes L diente, angelegt (Fig. 15). Zu dieser Frühphase, aber bereits später als die Setzlinge des Gartens fand sich eine Schmelzbatterie aus Lehmziegeln (Figs. 26–28), die Ähnlichkeiten zu jener Anlage aus der Ramessidenzeit aufweist, die Edgar Pusch in Qantir freigelegt hatte.22 Diese Frühphase hatte auch eine noch anders verlaufende mehr orthogonale Südwand für Gebäude L, wie im Bereich von Plq. v/24 festgestellt werden konnte. Insgesamt hatte daher Gebäude L vier Bauschichten, von denen die unteren beiden vermutlich Str. d und die beiden oberen vermutlich Str. c entsprechen. Das Gebäude L ist in seinem Raumprogramm noch nicht eindeutig geklärt. Es ist aus massiven Ziegelmauern errichtet und besitzt gestuckte Böden und Wände. Insofern ähnelt es sehr der Palastarchitektur. Es besitzt im Süden und im Osten eigene, 6 Ziegel (ca. 2,6 m) starke Umfassungsmauern (Figs. 15, 16), wobei es auch Vorgänger dieser Einfriedungen in der Frühphase des
21
22
Opfergruben mit zerbrochener Keramik und Tierknochen gefüllt (Fig. 10), deren Verbindung mit Architekur oder Gräbern ist zur Zeit unklar. Nach unseren bisherigen Beobachtungen im Areal H/III dürften sie summarisch zu Bestattungen zählen.21 Tatsächlich fanden sich Reste menschlicher Knochen, die vermutlich Relikte von Bestattungen sind, welche durch einen gekrümmten Kanal des frühen Str. d gestört worden waren. Weiters fanden sich das erste Mal Hausbauten, die mit diesem Lager in Verbindung zu bringen sind (Fig. 11). Es handelt sich um unregelmäßige windige Vierecksbauten, meist eineinhalb Lehmziegelstein stark ohne besondere Fundamentierung gemauert, die auch Spuren einer Erneuerung zeigen. Sie befinden sich südlich des Gebäudes L und des daran anschließenden Gartens des Str. d und sind durch einen gekrümmten Kanal (frühes Str. d) gestört worden (s.u.). Vermutlich zu dieser Schicht gehört auch die Bestattung eines Schweines (L 6836), das man aus unbekannten Gründen nicht verzehrte, sondern verscharrte (Fig. 12). Die Bestattung lag unterhalb des Gebäudes L und wurde durch einen Fundamentgraben desselben leicht beschädigt. VIII. DER SÜDOSTTEIL DES PALASTBEZIRKES UND DAS GEBÄUDE L (PH. C/3–2, STR. d–c) (Fig. 14) ÖFFENTLICHE
Ibidem, 67–69, fig. 25, L1016, L1017, L021, im Bereich einer Gräbergruppe derselben Zeit.
PUSCH 1990; 1994; 1996.
44
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 14 Detailplan des großen öffentlichen Gebäudes L, Str. d–c
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
Fig. 15 Gebäude L
Fig. 16 Gebäude L
45
46
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 17 Gebäude L, östlicher Eingang, Blick nach Süden
Fig. 18 Gebäude L, östliche Magazine
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
Gebäudes L gegeben hat (Str. d, Fig. 16). Gegenüber dem Palast G war es durch eine dünne Ziegelmauer abgetrennt. Seine Südmauer weicht sehr deutlich von einem rechten Winkel ab. In seiner Südhälfte befand sich ein großer trapezförmiger Empfangsraum mit ziegelgepflastertem, gestucktem Boden und gestuckten Wänden. Der Boden ist nur in Randbereichen erhalten und muss durch eine von Säulen getragene Decke abgestützt worden sein. Einige tief reichende runde Gruben könnten Fundamente solcher Säulen gewesen sein, doch muss erst studiert werden, ob sich ein System erkennen lässt. Der Großteil dieses Empfangsraumes ist durch eine spätere Grube gestört, wobei diese Störung alt ist, da die damit zusammenhängende Steinsplitterschicht durch eine Schaf/Ziegenbestattung des Brachliegehorizontes zwischen Str. c und b durchschnitten ist. Dieser Raum besitzt einen offiziellen bzw. öffentlichen Eingang von Osten her (Fig. 17), der dadurch ersichtlich wird, dass die Ostmauer des Gebäudes L und die Umfassungsmauer durch eine Quermauer miteinander verbunden sind. Diese Quermauer formt die südliche Wange der Eingangspassage in den Empfangsraum. Im Westen besteht etwas weiter südlich des Eingangs von Osten her eine Passage in Richtung zum Nebeneingang des Palastes G. Unmittelbar südlich dieser Passage fand sich in der westlichen Außenmauer des Gebäudes L ein Bauopfer aus Tongefäßen, die
47
Fig. 19 Bauopfer in Form einer kleinen Kammer mit Keramik südlich des Tores, das eine Verbindung zum Palast G herstellt
hier in einem engen freigelassenen Schlitz deponiert worden waren (Figs. 19–20). An der Außenseite des Gebäudes L, unweit des Westportals zum Palast G fand sich ein Hortfund mit einem Bündel
Fig. 20 Bauopfer in Form einer kleinen Kammer mit Keramik südlich des Tores, das eine Verbindung zum Palast G herstellt
48
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 21 Deponierung von Skarabäen an der Außenmauer des Gebäudes L
von Fayence-Skarabäen, möglicherweise ebenfalls eine Art Opferdeponierung (Fig. 21). Im Nordwesten des großen Empfangsraumes bestand nach Tradition der Palastarchitektur ein Relikt eines intimen Empfangsraumes, der durch eine Quermauer von dem großen Empfangssaal abgetrennt worden war. Dieser Bereich wurde bereits 2005 freigelegt, doch ist seine Bedeutung erst jetzt erkennbar. An der Nordseite dieses Raumes fand sich ein gestucktes rundes aus Schlammziegeln gemauertes Podium. Nördlich des großen Empfangsraums fand sich ein Badezimmer mit gestucktem Boden und spärlichen Relikten von ornamentaler Wandmalerei.23 Diese Nachbarschaft ähnelt sehr der Situation in den Palästen. Von der Mitte der Nordwand des Bereiches des Empfangsraumes führt ein gepflasterter Korridor nach Norden, der schließlich in einen couloir à chicane mündet, der diese N-S Achse durch das Gebäude L bricht. Die Mauern nördlich dieses Korridors scheinen Stützmauern einer Plattform zu sein, die Architektur auf erhöhter Ebene trug. Die Räume westlich des Korridors könnten Unterbauten für Terrassen gewesen sein, da
23
BIETAK & FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2005, 92, fig. 94.
sowohl Türen als auch eine Begehoberfläche im Bereich des Erdgeschosses fehlten. Die Räume östlich dieser untersten Ebene hatten einen mit Kalkstuck überzogenen Lehmziegelboden. Entlang des gesamten Oststreifens des Gebäudes L waren Magazine untergebracht (Fig. 18), wobei jeder einzelne Raum ursprünglich mit einem gestuckten Boden ausgestattet worden war. Der Südabschnitt des Gebäudes L wurde später in Form eines Einbaues mit 5 parallelen Kammer-Systemen umgebaut (Figs. 22–25). Hier könnte es sich auch um die Reste von Speichern oder Kellern handeln, die auch nach der Verwendungszeit des Gebäudes L datieren könnten. Das Gebäude dürfte einem hohen Verwaltungsbeamten des Palastbezirkes gedient haben, der ständigen Zugang zum Inhaber des Palastes G hatte. Insgesamt scheint der Palastbezirk eine Replik eines Residenzpalastes gewesen zu sein, wobei Gebäude L etwa die Position des Gebäudes des höchsten Verwaltungsbeamten eingenommen zu haben scheint. In der Residenz war es der Wezir, hier war es wohl der Vorsteher dieser Stadt, bzw. dieser Militärbasis. IX. BRACHLIEGEHORIZONT MIT RELIKTEN PASTORALER TÄTIGKEIT NACH DER TUTHMOSIDENZEIT Auch in dieser Kampagne konnten nach dem Verfalle des tuthmosidischen Palastbezirkes Spuren einer Brachliegezeit nachgewiesen werden.24 Die Ruinen wurden offenbar immer wieder von Hirten mit ihren Kleinviehherden frequentiert, die eingegangene Tiere, meist Lämmer oder Zicklein, mit viel Mühe in ausgehobenen Gruben beisetzten. Diese respektvolle Behandlung der Tiere legt nahe, dass es sich um eine Menmenet-Herde handelte, die einem Tempel und damit einer Gottheit gehörten. Einstweilen steht nur fest, dass diese Bestattungen nach Str. c erfolgten. Es ist derzeit noch nicht gesichert, ob sie vor die Zeit des Festungsbaues der späten 18. Dynastie fallen. Dies ist jedoch wahrscheinlich, da keine Störungen der Haremhab-Mauer durch solche Bestattungen festgestellt wurden. Eine Datierung in die Ramessidenzeit kann ausgeschlossen werden, da, wie in einer früheren Grabungskampagne festgestellt, eine solche Bestattung durch eine ramessidische Grube gestört worden war. Im Frühjahr 2007 fanden sich wie-
24
Ibidem 93–95; s. auch BIETAK, DORNER & JÁNOSI 2001, 45; BIETAK 2006.
49
Fig. 22 Plan des Gebäudes L mit den eingezeichneten nachträglich eingebauten 5 Kammersystemen
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
50
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 23 Relikte von nachträglich in das Gebäude L eingebauten Kammern, wobei die Mauern ausgerissen worden sind
Fig. 24 Relikte von nachträglich in das Gebäude L eingebauten Kammern, wobei die Mauern ausgerissen worden sind
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
Fig. 25 Ostprofil von Planquadrat u/22 mit ausgerissener Kalkstein-Pflasterung und Relikten von Einbauten des Gebäudes L, Str. c und später
Fig. 26 Schmelzbatterie des frühen Str. d
51
52
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 27 Schmelzbatterie des frühen Str. d
Fig. 28 Schmelzbatterie des frühen Str. d, Schnitt
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
53
Der geomagnetische Survey hatte gezeigt, dass die über 10 Ziegelstein (c. 4,50 m) starke mit Bastionen versehene Festungsmauer des Haremhab (M1204)25 aus einer mächtigen Lehmziegelmauer (M4233) hervorzugehen, diese sogar in gleicher Richtung zu überbauen scheint,26 um dann in einer Krümmung im stumpfen Winkel in Richtung ONO zu verlaufen (Fig. 30). Das würde bedeuten, dass die Mauer M4233 älter als die Mauer des Haremhab und dass die HaremhabMauer eine Erweiterung einer bereits vorher bestehenden Festung sein dürfte. Relikte dieser NNO-SSW verlaufenden Mauer wurden Frühjahr
2007 in den Planquadraten z/22–aa/22 freigelegt. Sie war nur mehr in der untersten Lage erhalten (Breite nicht messbar) und stand in einem über 4 m breiten, mit Sand gefüllten Fundamentgraben (L6783). Die Stratigraphie zeigte, dass diese Mauer tatsächlich später als die südliche Umfassungsmauer des Tuthmosiden Palastes datiert. Man kann vermuten, dass sie vor Haremhab, also in die Zeit Amenophis’ III. oder Tutanchamuns anzusetzen ist. Mauern, die in die Zeit Amenophis’ III. datieren, wurden bereits früher in diesem Areal (HVI) festgestellt.27 Knapp südlich und parallel zu dieser Umfassungsmauer M4233 fand sich der ausgerissene Graben einer Wasserleitung (L6932), die aus Kalksteinspolien errichtet worden war (Figs. 31–32). Die inneren Maße des Kanals betragen exakt eine Elle. Eine Unterlagsplatte aus Kalkstein war noch in situ verblieben. Sie zeigt auf einer Schmalseite in Flachrelief den Ausschnitt einer Königsdarstellung mit zeremoniellem Schurz mit Vorbau und Stierschwanz bekleidet (Fig. 33). Dieser Reliefblock lässt vermuten, dass zur Herstellung dieser Wasserleitung memphitische Denkmäler, vermutlich aus der Zeit des hohen oder des späten Alten Reiches, geplündert und ins Delta verlagert worden waren. Die Bauweise entspricht einem Wasserkanal der späten Zweiten Zwischenzeit, der im Areal H/III weiter im Norden entdeckt worden war.28 Da das Areal abgeackert worden war, ist das genaue stratigraphische Verhältnis der Wasserleitung zur Festungsmauer nicht geklärt, da beide Objekte in ihrem Grabenansatz unterschnitten worden waren. Die Wasserleitung schneidet lediglich in Gebäude der späten Hyksoszeit ein. Sowohl ein Zusammenhang mit der genannten Festung als auch mit dem tuthmosidischen Palastbezirk ergäbe Sinn. Da die Wasserleitung in ramessidischer Zeit ihrer Steinbauteile beraubt wurde, muss ihre Position noch bekannt gewesen sein. Insgesamt sieht der Befund so aus, als ob einige Zeit nach dem Verlassen des tuthmosidischen Palastbezirkes (nach Amenophis II) südlich der Palastruine eine Festung errichtet worden wäre, die dann von Haremhab nach Nordosten erweitert wurde.
25
27
Fig. 29 Bestattung eines Ziegenbockes in der Brachliegezeit nach Verlassen des tuthmosidischen Palastbezirkes
der drei Bestattungen von Kleintieren, eine davon stammte von einem stattlichen Ziegenbock (Fig. 29). X. DIE FESTUNG DER SPÄTEN 18. DYNASTIE (PH. B/3–C/1, STR. b/2–3)
26
S. BIETAK & DORNER 2001, 101–102. Eine endgültige Klärung der stratigraphischen Situation muss noch in Zukunft erfolgen.
28
Ibidem 2001, 101; ASTON 2001, 194 (dort relativstratigraphisch als Str. b bezeichnet). BIETAK, DORNER & JÁNOSI 2001, 50–55.
54
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 30 Geomagnetischer Survey mit Spuren einer mit Bastionen ausgestatteten Festungsmauer aus der Zeit des Haremhab, die eine ältere Umfassungsmauer zu überdecken scheint
XI. DAS RAMESSIDISCHE GRÄBERFELD (PH. B/2, STR. b/1) (Figs. 34–36) In den Planquadraten v/24–25 und w/24–25 fand sich der bereits aus früheren Kampagnen bekannte Friedhof der Ramessidenzeit.29 Dieser erstreckte sich möglicherweise nach Westen hin, die entsprechenden Kulturschichten sind dort nicht erhalten. Nach Osten hin zum modernen ElDidamun-Kanal nimmt seine Belegungsdichte zu.
29
BIETAK & FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2005, 95–98.
Die Gräber sind N-S oder O-W orientiert, die Bestattungsart variiert von einfachen Grubengräbern zu Tonsärgen (Figs. 36–37), manchmal wird der Verstorbene in einer Art Sparvariante in einem großen Tongefäß beisetzt, das den aufwendigeren und vermutlich auch teureren Sarg ersetzen soll. Dass es sich bei den Bestatteten um eine sozial niedrig stehende Schicht handelt, zeigt sich auch an der geringen Anzahl an Beigaben. Wenn überhaupt, wurde dem Toten ein einziges Tongefäß (Vase oder Bierflasche) mitgegeben, das in der Regel in der Nähe des Kopfes deponiert war.
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
Fig. 31 und 32 Graben mit den Relikten einer Wasserleitung, vermutlich aus der Zeit eines Festungssystems der späten 18. Dynastie (Str. b/3 = Ph. C/1) stammend
Fig. 33 Kalksteinspolie für den Unterbau einer Wasserleitung, Reliefdarstellung eines Königs mit zeremoniellem Schurz mit Vorbau und Stierschwanz, vermutlich von einem memphitischen Bau des Alten Reiches stammend
55
56
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 34 Ramessidischer Friedhof
Fig. 35 Ramessidischer Friedhof
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
Fig. 36 Ramessidische Bestattung im Ton-Sarkophag, erste Situation
Fig. 37 Ramessidische Bestattung im Ton-Sarkophag, zweite Situation
57
58
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Bibliographie ASTON, D. 2001
The Pottery from H/VI Süd Strata a and b: Preliminary Report, Ä&L 11, 167–196.
(Areal F/II) Vorläufige Ergebnisse der Grabungskampagne 2006 in Tell el–Dabca, Ä&L 16, 63–78. 2007
BIETAK, M. (ed.) 2000
2003
The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean, Papers of Conferences held at Schloß Haindorf 15th–17th November 1996 and Vienna 10th–11th May 1998, CChEM 1, Wien.
BIETAK, M., FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I.& HERBICH, T. 2006
The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC II, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–Euro Conference, Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, CChEM 4, Wien.
BIETAK, M. 1999
2006
Die Synchronisierung der Hochkulturen im östlichen Mittelmeerraum im zweiten Jahrtausend v. Ch., Anzeiger der Philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 134 (1997–1999), 5–14. Nomads or Mnmn.t-Shepherds in the Eastern Nile Delta in the Late New Kingdom, 124–136, in: A. MAEIR & P. DE MIROSCHEDJI (eds.), I Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times (Ps. 78:2b): Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasionof his Sixtieth Birthday, Winona Lake, Ind.
BIETAK, M. & CZERNY, E. (eds.) 2007
The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC III, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–Euro Conference, Vienna, 2nd of May–7th of May 2003, CChEM 9, Wien.
BIETAK, M. & DORNER, J. 2001
3. Ausgrabungen in den Arealen H/II–III und H/VI, Ä&L 11, 48–104.
BIETAK, M., DORNER, J. & JÁNOSI, P. 2001
2000
2006
Eine palatiale Anlage der frühen Hyksoszeit
The Synchronization of Civilizations in the Second Millennium BC, 99–107, in: P. MATTHIAE, A. ENEA, L. PEYRONEL & F. PINNOCK (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18th–23rd 1998, vol. I, Rom.
FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., HERBICH, T., MÜLLER, W., SCHWEITZER CH. and WEISSL, M. 2007
Geophysical Survey 2007 at Tell el- Dabca, Ä&L 17, 97–106.
PUSCH, E.B. 1990
Metallverarbeitende Werkstätten der frühen Ramessidenzeit in Qantir – Piramesse/Nord, Ein Zwischenbericht, Ä&L 1, 75–113.
1994
Divergierende Verfahren der Metallverarbeitung in Theben und Qantir? – Bemerkungen zu Konstruktion und Technik, Ä&L 4, 145–170.
1996
High Temperature Industries in the Late Bronze Age Capital Piramesse Qantir: II. A Quasi Industrial Bronze Factory, 121–132, in: F.A. ESMAEL, Z. HAWASS (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Ancient Egyptian Mining & Metallurgy and Conservation of Metallic Artifacts, Cairo, 10–12 April 1995, Kairo.
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. Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht für Herbst 2004 und Frühjahr 2005, Ä&L 15, 65–100.
Discovery of a New Palatial Complex in Tell elDabca in the Delta: Geophysical Survey and Preliminary Archaeological Verification, 119–126, in: Z. HAWASS, & J. RICHARDS, (eds.), The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt, essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor, Kairo.
BIETAK, M. & KLEINSGÜTL, D.
BIETAK, M. & FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I. 2005
Ein Opfermahl und das Ende eines Palasts in Tell el-Dabca/Ägypten, Fs für Hermann Hunger zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet von seinen Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, WZKM 97, 211–234.
VON DEN DRIESCH, A., J. PETERS 2001
Frühe Pferde- und Maultierskelette aus Auaris (Tell el-Dabca), östliches Nildelta, Ä&L 11, 301–311.
BURIAL CAVE 2 IN THE AZOR-HOLON CEMETERY: AN EARLY BRONZE AGE I TOMB WITH EGYPTIAN FINDS By Edwin C.M. van den Brink, Ram Gophna and Asher Ovadiah
INTRODUCTION This is the final report of a late Early Bronze Age I (henceforth EB I) burial cave at Azor (Fig. 1). The cave is one of two adjoining, artificial burial cavities simultaneously investigated in 19681 by Asher Ovadiah on behalf of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums (henceforth IDAM).2 HISTORY OF EXCAVATION In May 1968 the late Moshe Dayan, while clandestinely excavating this cave (Fig. 2), was injured when its roof collapsed and partially buried him. Dayan, then Minister of Defense, was rushed to the hospital, at which time the IDAM became aware of his unauthorized excavation. Subsequently Asher Ovadiah was assigned to complete the excavation on behalf of the IDAM and a license (A-163/1968-013) was eventually issued him ex post facto. Ovadiah’s investigation of the tomb indicated Dayan had virtually finished looting it. All that was left to do was to sift Dayan’s spoil tip at the entrance to the cave. Nothing is known about the finds removed by Dayan from this cave prior to its collapse.4 OVADIAH (1968) was able to retrieve only a limited number of small items by sieving Dayan’s spoil heap at the entrance to the cave (Fig. 3a–b), to be presented below. THE SITE This tomb is one of fifteen artificial burial caves hewn into the local kurkar sandstone, some few outcrops of which are to be found in the environs of Tel Azor. The site is located in the Lod Valley, central coastal plain (Fig. 1) about 6 km from the present-day Mediterranean seashore, just southeast of Yafo (Jaffa; ORNI and EFRAT 1976).
1
2
3
The second cave yielded sparse finds of the Intermediate Bronze Age and is the subject of another report. IDAM is the forerunner of the Israel Antiquities Authority. For a history of the IDAM, see KLETTER 2006. This is an Israel Antiquities Authority (the statutory body that replaced the IDAM in 1990) License no.
Fig. 1 Map showing location of Azor
DESCRIPTION OF THE CAVE The cave, measuring ca. 3 m × 2 m and 1.2–1.5 m in height was quarried into the slope of a kurkar
4
For Dayan’s involvement in the excavation of other parts of this cemetery, see e.g. PERROT 1961: note 1, with reference to the «Dayan Collection» (see also ORNAN 1986).
60
Edwin C.M. van den Brink, Ram Gophna and Asher Ovadiah
Fig. 2 General view of the excavation area
a)
b) Fig. 3a–b View of Cave no. 2, with Dayan’s dump in foreground
Burial Cave 2 in the Azor-Holon Cemetery: An Early Bronze Age I Tomb with Egyptian Finds
61
a)
b)
Fig. 4. Azor. Cave no. 2 with bilobate burial chamber
c)
hill (Fig. 4:a–c). It has two rooms separated by a ‘pillar’ left in the kurkar that supported a roughly vaulted roof. The general layout of the cave with its two relatively small burial chambers separated by such a pillar, is typical of other, late EB I tombs in the same cemetery.5 Presentation of the Finds from Burial Cave no. 2
sutures indicates that this individual was between 25–35 years old. Due to the very bad state of bone preservation it was not possible to restore the skull. No further conclusions, therefore, could be drawn. Pottery This tiny assemblage includes fragments of a small, hemispheric bowl with a pierced lug-han-
Human Remains6 Remains of a human skull were retrieved from the cave’s spoil heap. They are small parts of the crown and frontal cranium as well as a small part of the left eye socket (Fig. 5). Based on the thickness of the bone fragments (between 8–9mm), the skull is assumed to be that of a male. The condition of the closure of the
5 6
See, for instance, BEN-TOR 1975, in particular note 5. This section is based on an internal report dated October 29th, 1970 written by David Westler, Tel Aviv University, School of Medicine, Dept. of Anatomy and Anthropology.
Fig. 5 Photograph of the human bone fragments
62
Edwin C.M. van den Brink, Ram Gophna and Asher Ovadiah
Fig. 6 Azor. Cave 2. Pottery finds: 1) Small hemispheric bowl with lug handle (cf. BEN-TOR 1975: fig. 5:9); 2) Small carinated bowl (cf. KOCHAVI et al. 2000: fig. 8.5:19–20; GOPHNA 1996: figs. 39:6, 46:1); 3) Jar with pillar-spout (cf. BEN-TOR 1975: fig. 9:6, pl. 16:1); 4) Pillar-spout; 5) Shoulder fragment of jar with ledge handle; 6) Ledge handle
Burial Cave 2 in the Azor-Holon Cemetery: An Early Bronze Age I Tomb with Egyptian Finds
63
Fig. 7 Azor. Cave 2. Pottery finds: 1) Loop-handled jar (cf. BEN-TOR 1975: fig. 6:6–8, pl. 8:4); 2) Loop-handle fragment; 3) Loop-handled jar; 4) Loop-handled cup with punctured design on rim (cf. BEN-TOR 1975: fig. 6: 6–7; for the mode of decoration cf. BEN-TOR 1975: fig. 6:3; 5) jar
dle (Fig. 6.1), a small carinated bowl (Fig. 6.2), two pillar-spouted jars (Figs. 6.3 and 6.4) and two plain ledge-handles (Fig. 6.5–6). These last three fragments probably belong to one and the same jar. Fragments of at least three loop-handled jugs and juglets (Fig. 7:1–3), a small loop-handled cup with impressed decoration on its rim (Fig. 7.4) and portions of another jar (Fig. 7.5) complete this very tiny assemblage. With the exception of the carinated bowl, all diagnostic forms have clear parallels in pottery assemblages from two other burial caves at Azor (BEN-TOR 1975) and Stratum V–IV of Tel Dalit (GOPHNA and IRON-LUBIN 1996). They are dated to an advanced phase of EB I. The carinated bowl is of a type dated to the very end of EB I period (cf. BECK 1985:17–20; KOCHAVI et al. 2000: fig. 8.5:19–20) or EB II. 7
This type of blade is reminiscent of few other blades possibly produced by the same technique, found in EB I settlement contexts at Tel Erani (ROSEN 1988), cEn Besor (GOPHNA and FRIEDMAN 1993), Tel Halif Terrace (LEVY et al.1997: 42), and most recently at Tel Lod (H. Khalaila, pers. comm.) and Megiddo (BLOCKMAN and GROMANYEROSLAVSKI, forthcoming). They are considered to be Egyptian or Egyptianized, although most of the above mentioned blades were probably pro-
A Flint Sickle Blade A single flint sickle blade was recovered from the spoil tip. It concerns a straight, truncated and retouched blade. One edge has been worked bifacially (Fig. 8), creating a finely denticulated edge marked by sickle gloss.
7
Fragments of similar, carinated bowls were uncovered in two additional, nearly contemporary burial caves (Tombs 40 and 60) excavated by A. DRUKS in 1969 for
Fig. 8 Azor. Cave 2. Flint blade
IDAM (fig. 11:3; DRUKS, BEN-DOV and in prep.).
VAN DEN
BRINK,
64
Edwin C.M. van den Brink, Ram Gophna and Asher Ovadiah
duced in Israel. The specimen from Cave no. 2 at Azor is the only example of such a blade found in a burial context. Jewelry A few beads were retrieved from the spoil heap. They include three near-cylindrical beads of bone (Fig. 9:1), one of carnelian, a perforated discshaped bead (Fig. 9:2) and two perforated conical shells made into beads (Fig. 9:3). Bone beads very similar to those illustrated in Fig. 9:1 were uncovered e.g. in burial contexts in Cave no.1 at Sha’ar Ephraim (cf. VAN DEN BRINK 2005). Carnelian beads similar to the one represented here were discovered in an EB I cemetery in the Qiryah Quarter of Tel Aviv (BRAUN and VAN DEN BRINK 2005). Two shells retrieved from the spoil belong to the genus Conus.8 Both have man-made holes in their tops, probably created by rubbing the apex of the shell over a firm object such as a stone. In this way the shells were converted into beads. The specific identity and origin of the shells is prob-
Fig. 9 Azor. Cave 2: 1) Three bone beads; 2) Carnelian bead; 3) Two Cones shell beads
lematic. Only one species is known to live in the Eastern Mediterranean and not less than 28 species in the northern part of the Red Sea, i.e.,
Fig. 10 1) Azor. Cave 2. Bull’s head amulet-pendant ; 2) cEn Besor, Stratum III. Bull’s head amulet-pendant; 3)Barkai/cEin Assawir. Bull’s head amulet-pendant
8
Identification and description of the Cones was kindly provided by Prof. Henk K. MIENIS, the National Mollusc Collection, Tel Aviv University, based upon a drawing and photograph of the actual specimens.
Burial Cave 2 in the Azor-Holon Cemetery: An Early Bronze Age I Tomb with Egyptian Finds
the Gulfs of Aqaba and Suez. The form of the shell (more or less straight conical sides with a flat top) rules out its identification with the Mediterranean species Conus mediterraneus (HWASS, 17929). Several Conus species from the Red Sea are more likely candidates of having served as the raw material for these shell-beads, especially Conus flavidus (Lamarck, 1810). The lack of traces of the color pattern and more details of the original microsculpture of the top whorls, however, does not allow a more specific identification. In respect to C. flavidus, it is noteworthy that 12 shells belonging to that species, all with man-made holes in their apexes, have been found in burial cave no. 1 near Shacar Ephraim (MIENIS, in press), the very same cave that also yielded several bone beads similar to the ones found in Azor cave No. 2. Cone shells holed in a similar way have been reported also from a number of other EB I sites in Israel. For example shell beads made from Conus mediterraneus have been reported from Tell Tacannach (EZZUGHAYYAR and AL-ZAWAHRA 1996) and Megiddo (BAR-YOSEF MAYER 2000), while a bead made from Conus textile neovicarius DA MOTTA, 1982, a Red Sea species, has been excavated at Gesher HaBesor (HORWITZ et al. 2002). Notable is the presence of an Egyptian bull’s head amulet-pendant retrieved from the cave’s spoil tip. This minute item (Fig. 10:1) was carved from Chalcedonian jaspis and measures 22 mm (L) × 27mm (W) × 7mm (thickness). In comparison with other known specimens of this type of amulet from Egypt (see, e.g., PETRIE 1914:44, pl. 38:212 a–m), it is somewhat atypical. In contrast to most others, in this specimen the ‘bull’s eyes’ are pierced all the way through and a horizontally perforated ‘pillar’, usually forming the back of this type of amulet-pendant, is absent. It is, therefore, unlikely that it was worn as a pendant but rather must have formed part of a necklace of beads. The choice of material for this particular object is also unique amongst this group of artefacts. Additional bull’s head amulets-pendants found in Israel To date, only two other, comparable specimens are known to have been found in Israel, both deriving from late EB I contexts (Table 1 below). One derives from a settlement context at cEn Besor, Stratum III (Fig. 10:2; GOPHNA 1980: fig. 5:
9
65
no. 1, Pl. III, no. 4), while the other was uncovered in a karstic burial cave, excavated by DOTHAN (1970; 1993a) at Barkai, near cEin Assawir (Fig. 10:3). Notably, a necklace of 23 stone beads and pendants, including two conical pendants of Egyptian calcite (DOTHAN 1970: pl. 8: 2–3), was uncovered in that same cave. The latter are very similar to two other stone pendants deriving from two additional EB I burial caves in the same Barkai cemetery (Tombs 3 and 20; see YANNAI 2002: fig. 22.1:25–26). Bull’s head amulets-pendants from Egypt Over forty specimens belonging to this generic type, made of ivory, bone and a wide variety of stones (Table 2 below), are known in Egypt to date. They derive from Predynastic and Early Dynastic burial and domestic contexts in (mainly) Upper Egypt (HENDRICKX 2002). Discussing the representation of bovines in Egyptian Pre- and Early Dynastic iconography in a recent paper, HENDRICKX (2002) suggested that the so-called bull’s head amulets at issue could have been worn either as a distinct pendant or as part of a necklace. In Egypt this type of amulet-pendant occurs as early as during Naqada IC (synchronous with the Levantine Late Chalcolithic period), is most common during Naqada II and continues to be used well into Naqada IIIC (cf. Table 2; terminology after HENDRICKX 1996), the later phase being partially synchronous with the late EB I. In Egypt most examples of this type of amulet were found in tombs, but they appear also in temple and settlement contexts (HENDRICKX 2002: 285; and see Table 2). HENDRICKX (2002: 287) argues that “the bull’s head amulet is a combination of female elements, with the emphasis on fertility, and the bull”, whereby the arms of women curved underneath their breasts – as represented in early ceramic statuettes also starting from Naqada I – coincide with the downward-curved horns and eyes of the bull. This apparently finds its clearest expression in the earliest ‘bull’s head’ amulets. He also states that the original symbolism expressed in the ‘bull’s head amulets’ might have been lost during Naqada III, because of a stark degradation of its original shape. This degradation is especially notable in the Azor specimen discussed above (Fig. 10:1).
This species has a more pointed, conic apex and should have revealed a much larger hole in the top if ground down to its present level.
66
Edwin C.M. van den Brink, Ram Gophna and Asher Ovadiah
Fig. 11 Map showing the location of EB I burial and settlement remains at Azor/Holon [Legend: 1) two burial caves (Tombs 1 and 4; BEN-TOR 1975); 2) three burial caves (SHAPIRA 1963); 3) four burial caves (DRUKS and ZAFIRIS 1970a, b); 4) one burial cave (DAVIES 1975); 5) Burial Cave 2 (this volume; OVADIAH 1968); 6) one burial cave (BUSHERI 1969); 7) five burial caves (NEGBI 1975); A: ‘Installation C’ (USSISHKIN 1961), settlement remains (DOTHAN 1958); B: settlement remains (GOPHNA and BUSHERI 1967; GOPHNA 1974); C: settlement remains (GOLANI and VAN DEN BRINK 1999); D: various pits (RAND 1999); E: washed-in pottery (SHAPIRA, not published)]
Burial Cave 2 in Context The Azor-Holon EB I cemetery The burial cave described above is but one of fifteen EB I burial caves excavated in the 1960’s
10
11
Cf. SHAPIRA (1963), DRUKS and TZAFERIS (1970a, b), BUSHERI (1969), BEN-TOR (1975), NEGBI (1975), DAVIES (1975), RAND (1999) and DRUKS, BEN-DOV and VAN DEN BRINK (in prep.). Since the early 1920s, archaeological research in the
and 1970’s10 within the Azor-Holon cemetery. They clearly form part of an extensive burial ground11 that most likely served the inhabitants of the EB I settlements situated only few hundreds of meters northeast of the burial site and
region of Azor (Arabic:Yazûr) and the present-day Holon industrial area zone adjoining immediately to its south has yielded numerous sites and finds dating from the Chalcolithic period onwards. On the identification and history of Azor see PERROT 1993: 125 and for a sum-
Burial Cave 2 in the Azor-Holon Cemetery: An Early Bronze Age I Tomb with Egyptian Finds
Fig. 12 Tel Azor. Gophna/Busheri probe (cf. Fig. 11: B)
is separated from them by a topographic depression or saddle. The EB I settlement remains at Azor (Fig. 11: A,C–D) Sporadic remains of an early EB I settlement at Azor were exposed in the past over a limited area on a kurkar outcrop by PERROT and USSISHKIN (“installation C”: USSISHKIN 1961)12 and DOTHAN (1958:272). GOPHNA and BUSHERI (1967; GOPHNA 1974: 38–40; pl. 7) uncovered additional in situ late EB I settlement remains in a 6 × 5 m probe (Stratum IV) on the edge of Tel Azor itself (Figs. 11:B, 12). The findings consist of a pavement with a spread of late EB I pottery above kurkar bedrock at a depth of 2.5 m below present surface. Notably, two Early Dynastic Egyptian potsherds were noted in this probe by one of the authors (R.G.); one from Stratum IV and possibly another one from higher up in the probe. In 1968 Shapira made a probe about 200 m northwest of Tel Azor, in an area adjacent to the
mary on the excavations of the various ancient tombs see PERROT 1993: 125–126, BEN-TOR 1993: 126–127 and DOTHAN 1993b: 127–129. For the location, brief listing of finds and references to the excavations carried out between the years 1923 and 1998 at Azor and the adjoining Holon industrial area, see GOLANI and VAN DEN BRINK 1999:1–2, plan 1 and Appendix 1. Between the years 1998 and 2004 an additional seven excava-
67
floodplain of the Ayalon river (Fig. 11:E). In a 3 m high cross-section three layers of washed-in soil could be distinguished. Within two of these layers EB I sherds could be identified, probably washed down from the adjacent tell. These sherds were similar to some of those exposed previously by Gophna and Busheri in 1966 on the tell (Gophna, pers. obs.). Based on the position of the locations where in situ early and late EB I settlement remains have been uncovered, it is possible to estimate the extent of the site in these periods to have covered at least 50–60 dunams. As a result of subsequent salvage excavations at Azor in more recent years (cf. GOLANI and VAN DEN BRINK 1999; RAND 1999), it is now clear that the EB I settlement was not a continuous one that would have covered this whole area, but may have consisted of a series of smaller settlements. Azor’s nearest-neighbor with attested Egyptian affiliations in the central coastal plain is the late EB I settlement at Tel Lod (cf. VAN DEN BRINK 2002, VAN DEN BRINK and BRAUN 2002, PAZ et al. 2005, YANNAI and MARDER 2000). A contemporary cemetery that could be associated with that settlement has, however, not yet been located. Additional Egyptian Finds from the EB I AzorHolon Cemetery Apart from the bull’s head amulet presented above, additional Egyptian finds were uncovered in at least five other tombs in this cemetery. Two Egyptian cylindrical jars and about 16 diminutive, Egyptian ceramic vessels were uncovered in nearby Caves 10, 40 and 60 excavated by A. Druks in 1968 (DRUKS, BEN-DOV and VAN DEN BRINK in prep.). Cave 40 also yielded an Egyptian slate palette, published by AMIRAN (1985) as well as an amphibolite bowl. Three small Egyptian ceramic vessels, some Nilotic shells (Chambardia rubens arcuata, formerly known as Aspatharia rubens) and an Egyptian flint knife were uncovered in burial Caves 1 and 4 excavated in 1971 by A. BEN-TOR (1975: 29).
12
tions were undertaken at Azor (cf. VAN DEN BRINK and KAPITAIKIN, in press: plan 1), none of which yielded EB I remains or materials. In 1958/59 J. PERROT excavated a large Chalcolithic cave at this spot (PERROT 1958; 1959). ‘Installation C’ was erected on the debris of this very cave during the early EB I after its roof had caved-in.
68
Edwin C.M. van den Brink, Ram Gophna and Asher Ovadiah
Egyptian finds from the EB I Barkai/ cEin Assawir cemetery The only other EB I cemetery known to date that yielded sporadic Egyptian artifacts in EB I context is a group of karstic burial caves at Barkai, located in Israel’s northern coastal plain, ca. 7km east of Hadera at the western entrance to Nahal ‘Eron (Wadi cArah; see Fig. 1). One such burial cave, excavated by DOTHAN (1970), also yielded an Egyptian bull’s head amulet-pendant (Fig. 10:3), similar to the one discussed above, together with a bead necklace with two conical Egyptian stone pendants (DOTHAN 1970: pl. 8: 2–3). Three nearby tombs (nos. 3, 20, 40), excavated by E. Yannai, yielded three, possibly four Egyptian and Egyptianized ceramic vessels, few Egyptian stone pendants, a rectangular graywacke palette and a small, calcite jar (YANNAI 2002: fig. 22.1:12–13, 15, 21–22; HENDRICKX and VAN DEN BRINK 2002). This burial ground most likely once served the population of the nearby EB I settlement at Tel Assawir, Stratum 2 (cf. YANNAI 2002:334). In contrast to the EB I settlement probed at Tel Azor in near vicinity of the Azor-Holon EB I burial ground, no Egyptian materials have been uncovered to date in the EB I settlement at Tel Assawir, even though the latter site has been excavated much more extensively than the EB I settlements at Azor.
The finds from this late EB I burial ground seem to reflect the situation of the associated, nearby settlement, probed so far only to a very limited extent. This settlement can be considered part of the hinterland of ancient Yafo (Jaffa; see GOPHNA and LIPHSCHITZ, 1996). Ein Assawir/Barkai in the northern coastal plain is the only other late EB I burial ground that has yielded a variety of Egyptian finds, including Egyptian pottery and local imitations thereof, a stone palette and stone vessel, beads, and a bull’s amulet. In contrast to the Holon/Azor burial ground, the Assawir burial finds are not reflected in the associated, contemporary settlement. In conclusion it should be noted that although Chalcolithic and late EB I burial caves were discovered at Azor, no early EB I burial caves have yet been found associated with the site (but see RAND 1999). The few Egyptian finds, however, found in association with early EB I Installation C (USSISHKIN 1961) at Azor could indicate possible interrelations already during early EB I at the site. Hardly any EB II materials have been found in the burial caves at Azor,13 although EB II sherds were encountered by Gophna and BUSHERI in their probe (see above). The EB Age cemetery at Azor/Holon, therefore, seems to postdate early EB I, was in use during the late EB I and may have been abandoned during early EB II.
CONCLUSIONS
Acknowledgements
The burial cave presented above is part of an extensive, late EB I burial ground in the AzorHolon region. To date fifteen late EB I burial caves have been excavated in that cemetery. Egyptian finds were uncovered in six of them. These include Egyptian pottery vessels and local imitations thereof, a palette, a flint knife and the bull’s head amulet from Cave no. 2 at issue here.
Osnat Misch Brandl kindly provided new drawings of all three bull’s head amulets currently at display in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. Henk K. Mienis kindly gave his expertise concerning the two Cone shells. Eliot Braun commented on an earlier draft of this text. Stan Hendrickx provided additional information concerning the bull’s head amulets found in Egypt proper.
13
For a carinated bowl of the ‘Aphek family’, with irregular burnish inside deriving from Cave 60 and most probably dating from the EB II, see DRUKS et al. in prep.
Burial Cave 2 in the Azor-Holon Cemetery: An Early Bronze Age I Tomb with Egyptian Finds
69
Site
Context
Period
Material
IAA license
Measurements
IAA reg. no.
Azor
Burial cave
Late EB I
Chalcedonian jaspis
A-1968-01
22 × 27 × 7 mm
72-63
Besor Stratum III
Settlement
Late EB I
Carbonate rock, metamorphic marble [limestone]
A-653/1976
31 × 24 × 7.5mm
76-1186 [7237]
Barkai/ Assawir
Burial cave
Late EB I
Carnelian
6-24/1953
17 ×15 × ? mm
1953-568 (71130)
cEn
cEin
Table 1 Bull’s head amulets found in Early Bronze Age I contexts in Israel
Cemetery site
Period
Material
Abadiya Abusir el-Meleq Abusir el-Meleq Abusir el-Meleq Abusir el-Meleq Abydos Badari Ballas Debod Gerza Helwan Hemamiya Hemamiya Hemamiya Hu (2) Matmar Matmar Mediq Mediq MAO (several) Nagada Nagada Naqa ed-Deir Shellal Sialy Tarkhan Zawiyet el-Aryan
Nagada IIC–D? ? Nagada IIC–III Nagada IIC–II Nagada IIIA2? Nagada IIIC1/Djer ? ? Nagada IIIA–B Nagada IIC–IID2? Nagada IIIC–D Nagada IIIC2 Nagada II Nagada II–IIIA Nagada IIIA1–A2? Nagada IIIA2 Nagada IIC ? Nagada IIIA1–A2 ? Nagada IC–IIB? Nagada IC–IIB 2nd Dyn. Nagada IIIA2? Nagada IIIA–B Nagada IIIA2–IIIC2 ?
Serpentine Limestone Ivory Calcite Stone ? ? (UC.10328) Serpentine Stone Gypsum Green diorite Black limestone Limestone Limestone Stone + ivory Amethyst Malachite Serpentine ? Green stone ? Elephant ivory, eyes filled in with paste Hippopotamus ivory Limestone Green steatite Green stone Green serpetine Ivory (Boston 11.2641)
Habitation site
Period
Material
Hemamiya Hierakonpolis Hierakonpolis
Nagada IIC–IID? Nagada II–IIIA2 Nagada II–IIIA2
White limestone Diorite Serpentine
Temple site
Period
Material
Abydos Abydos Abydos Abydos Hierakonpolis
? ? 1st dynasty ? Main deposit
Green serpentine Green serpentine Stone Graywacke Limestone
Table 2 Bull's head amulets found in Pre- and Early Dynastic contexts in Egypt (after HENDRICKX 2002 and supplemented by Hendrickx, pers. comm., 2004 and 2007)
70
Edwin C.M. van den Brink, Ram Gophna and Asher Ovadiah
Bibliography AMIRAN, R.
DAVIES, D.
1985
1975
Canaanite Merchants in Tombs of the Early Bronze Age I at Azor. cAtiqot 17: 190–192.
BAR-YOSEF MAYER, D.E. 2000
Mollusc Shells, 478–486, in: I. FINKELSTEIN, D. USSISHKIN and B. HALPERN (eds.), Megiddo III – The 1992–1996 Seasons. Monographs Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, 18.
BEN-TOR, A. 1975 1993
DOTHAN, M. 1958
Azor. In Notes and News, IEJ 8: 272–274.
1970
A Burial Cave near Tel Esur, Ezur Menashe 2: 1–15. (Hebrew)
1993a Esur, Tel. NEAHL 2: 426–428. 1993b Azor, NEAEHL 1: 127–129.
Two Burial Caves of the Proto-Urban Period at Azor (1971), Qedem 1:1–53.
DRUKS, A. and TZAFERIS, V.
Azor, NEAEHL 1: 126–127.
1970a Ancient Tombs at Azor, HA 33: 21. (Hebrew)
BECK, P. 1985
1970b Azor, RB 77: 578. An Early Bronze Age “Family” of Bowls from Tel Aphek, Tel Aviv 12: 17–28.
BLOCKMAN, N. and GROMAN-YEROSLAVSKI, I. forthc. The Early Bronze Flint Assemblage. Chapter x in Megiddo IV.
DRUKS, A., BEN-DOV, R. and VAN DEN BRINK E.C.M. in prep. The Azor Burial Caves. Final Report. EZZUGHAYYAR, A. and AL-ZAWAHRA, M. 1996
BRAUN, E. and VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. 2005
2007
Tel Aviv, Ha-Qirya. HA/ESI 117 (December 7, 2005).http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/report_deta il_eng.asp?id=275&mag_id=110&previewit=TrUe (accessed December 19, 2005) Appraising South Levantine-Egyptian Interaction: Recent Discoveries from Israel And Egypt, in: B. MIDANT-REYNES, Y. TRISTANT, J. ROWLAND and S. HENDRICKX (eds.), Egypt at Its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), 5th–8thSeptember 2005, OLA 172, Leuven.
BRINK, E.C.M. VAN DEN 2002
2005
An Egyptian Presence at the End of the Late Early Bronze Age I at Tel Lod, Central Coastal Plain, Israel, 286–305, in: E.C.M. VAN DEN BRINK and T.E. LEVY (eds.), Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the 4th Through Early 3rd Millennium BCE, London. Shacar Efrayim. HA/ESI 117 (April 2005) http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng. asp?id=170&mag_id=110 (accessed December 20, 2005).
BRINK, E.C.M. VAN DEN and BRAUN, E. 2002
Wine Jars with Serekhs from Early Bronze Lod: Appellation Valleé du Nil Controlée, but for whom?, 167–192, in: E.C.M. VAN DEN BRINK and E. YANNAI (eds.), In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Ram Gophna. Tel Aviv.
in press Remnants of a Hypocaust dating from the Late Byzantine–Early Islamic Periods and Sporadic Earlier Remains at Azor, Central Coastal Plain. cAtiqot. BUSHERI, M. A Burial Cave at Azor, HA 30: 16 (Hebrew).
Molluscan Fauna from Tell Tacannek (Northern West Bank – Palestine), Archaeozoologia 8 (1–2): 71–88.
GOLANI, A. and VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. 1999
Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age IA Settlement of Azor, cAtiqot 38: 1–49.
GOPHNA, R. 1974
The Settlement of the Coastal Plain of Eretz-Israel during the Early Bronze Age, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertatio), Tel Aviv University (Hebrew).
1980
Second Preliminary Report: Excavations at cEn Besor, 1976. cAtiqot 14:9–16.
1996
Excavations at Tel Dalit, Tel Aviv.
GOPHNA, R. and BUSHERI, M. 1967
Azor, HA 21: 7–8 (Hebrew).
GOPHNA, R. and FRIEDMAN, E. 1993
The Flint Implements from Tel cEn Besor,Tel Aviv 20:147–162.
GOPHNA, R. and IRON-LUBIN, M. 1996
Chapter 4. The Pottery Assemblages, 81–134, in: R. GOPHNA, Excavations at Tel Dalit, Tel Aviv.
GOPHNA, R. and LIPHSCHITZ, N. 1996
The Ashkelon Trough Settlement at the Onset of the Early Bronze Age (EB Ia, ca. 3500–3350 BCE): New Archaeological Evidence to a Maritime Trade, Tel Aviv 23: 143–153.
HENDRICKX, S. 1996
The Relative Chronology of the Naqada Culture: Problems and Possibilities, 36–69, in: J. SPENCER (ed.), Aspects of Early Egypt, London.
2002
Chapter 16. Bovines in Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic Iconography, 275–318, in: F.A. HASSAN (ed.), Droughts, Food and Culture. Ecological Change and Food Security in Africa’s Later Prehistory, New York.
BRINK, E.C.M. VAN DEN and KAPITAIKIN, L.
1969
Tombs at Holon – Industrial Zone, HA 56: 30 (Hebrew).
Burial Cave 2 in the Azor-Holon Cemetery: An Early Bronze Age I Tomb with Egyptian Finds
HENDRICKX, S. and VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M.
PAZ, Y., ROSENBERG, D. and NATIV, A.
2002
2005
Appendix A, 340–341, in: YANNAI 2002.
HORWITZ, L.K., TCHERNOV, E., MIENIS, H.K., HAKKERORION, D. and BAR-YOSEF MAYER, D. 2002
The Archaeozoology of Three Early Bronze Age Sites in Nahal Besor, North-Western Negev, 107–133, in: E.C.M. VAN DEN BRINK and E. YANNAI (eds.), In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes, Tel Aviv.
2006
A Very General Archaeologist – Moshe Dayan and Israeli Archaeology. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, vol. 4: Article 5 (2003), available on web-page http:// www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_ 27.htm Just Past? The Making of Israeli Archeology, London.
KOCHAVI, M., BECK, P., and YADIN, E.
1958
Azor. Notes and News, IEJ 8:133
1959
Azor. Notes and News, IEJ 9:266–267.
1961
Une tombe à ossuaries du IVe millénaire à Azor près de Tel-Aviv. Rapport préliminaire, cAtiqot 3 (English Series): 1–83.
1993
Azor, NEAEHL 1: 125–126.
PETRIE, W.M.F. 1914
Aphek-Antipatris I. Excavations of Areas A and B, the 1972–1976 Seasons. Tel Aviv.
LEVY, T. E., Alon, D., SMITH, P., YEKUTIELI, Y., ROWAN, Y., GOLDBERG, P., Porat, N, VAN DEN BRINK, E. C. M., WITTEN, A. J., GOLDEN, J., GRIGSON, C, DAWSON, L., HOLL, A., MORENO, J. and KERSEL, M.
1983
1997
1988
Egyptian-Canaanite Interaction at Nahal Tillah, Israel (ca. 4500–3000 B.C.E.): An Interim Report on the 1994–1995 Excavations, BASOR 307: 1–52.
Amulets, London.
RAND, Y. 1999
2000
Excavations at Lod: Neolithic and Chalcolithic Remains and an Egyptian Presence in the Early Bronze Age, Salvage Excavation Reports 2: 114–154
PERROT, J.
KLETTER, R. 2003
Azor, ESI 19: 41*.
REESE, D.S. The Use of Cone Shells in Neolithic and Bronze Age Greece, BSA 78: 353–357.
ROSEN, S.A. A Preliminary Note on the Egyptian Component of the Chipped Stone Assemblage from Tel Erani, IEJ 38: 105–116.
MIENIS, H.K.
SHAPIRA, Y.
in press The Mollusc Remains, in: E.C.M. VAN DEN BRINK, A Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I Burial Ground near Shacar Ephraim in the Sharon Valley, Israel. cAtiqot.
1963
NEGBI, O. 1975
Tombs at Holon – Industrial Zone, HA 56: 29–30 (Hebrew).
1961
L’installation C, 19–21, in: PERROT 1961.
YANNAI, E. 2002
A Man and His Land. Highlights from the Moshe Dayan Collection, Jerusalem.
ORNI, E. and EFRAT, E. 1976
Tombs of the Early Bronze Period at Azor, HA 5: 16 (Hebrew).
USSISHKIN, D.
ORNAN, T. 1986
Geography of Israel, Jerusalem.
Chapter 22. Imported Finds from the cEin Assawir Tombs (Israel) and Their Significance in Understanding the Chronological Synchronization between Israel, Egypt, and Eastern Anatolia, 334–345, in: E.C.M. VAN DEN BRINK and T.E. LEVY (eds.), Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE, London.
OVADIAH, A.
YANNAI, I. and MARDER, O.
1968
2000
Ancient Tombs at Azor, HA 27: 8–9 (Hebrew).
71
Lod, Hadashot Arkheologiyot 112: 63–65
RADIOCARBON DATING AND PHILISTINE CHRONOLOGY with an Addendum on el-Ahwat By Israel Finkelstein and Eliazer Piasetzky
Results of the first phase of the Iron Age radiocarbon dating program, with a large number of new readings, have recently been published (SHARON et al. 2007). Some of the newly published measurements shed light on several debated issues related to the archaeology of southern Israel in the period covering the Iron I and the Iron IIA. In what follows we deal with some of these issues, mainly the date of the monochrome phase of the Philistine settlement and the date of two transitions: first, from the Iron I to the Iron IIA and next, from the Iron IIA to the Iron IIB. In an addendum we comment on the Iron I site of el-Ahwat in northern Israel in relation to the excavator’s proposal to identify its inhabitants with a northern group of Sea Peoples. RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE DATES IN SOUTHERN ISRAEL: POTTERY SERIATION AND 14C DATES Pottery assemblages from clearly defined stratigraphical contexts provide the anchors for relative chronology. The latter can be tied to an absolute ladder by historical data and radiocarbon dating. Only one reasonably reliable historical anchor is available for southern Israel in the Iron I and Iron IIA: the destruction of Tell es-Safi (Gath) by Hazael king of Aram Damascus in the second half of the 9th century BCE (MAEIR 2004). This emphasizes the importance of connecting the relative sequence to a detailed absolute ladder based on 14C readings. The following sequence of Iron I–IIA pottery phases in southern Israel is well-established stratigraphically and typologically; almost each of these phases has now been sampled for radiocarbon dating (SHARON et al. 2007, table 1 in this article): – The monochrome phase in Philistia, representing the initial stage of Philistine settlement in particular and the early Iron I in general. It is best represented at Tel Miqne-Ekron Strata VIIB-VIIA (DOTHAN and ZUKERMAN 2004: 3, 5; GITIN et al. 2006: 29). 14C dates for Stratum VIIB have now been published. – The bichrome phase in Philistia (middle Iron I).14C measurements for Strata VIB–VB at Tel Miqne and Strata 6 and 5 at Beth-shemesh
have just been published (for the sites and their stratigraphy see BUNIMOVITZ and LEDERMAN 2006; DOTHAN and ZUKERMAN 2004: 4-6 and GITIN et al. 2006: 44, 53 respectively). – The late-Philistine phase (late Iron I) represented by Stratum X at Tel Qasile (MAZAR 1985; for the difficulty with the 14C results see below), Stratum IV at Tel Miqne and Stratum 4 at Bethshemesh (DOTHAN et al. 2006: 94; BUNIMOVITZ and LEDERMAN 2006: 418-419 respectively). – The Iron IIA, divided into two phases – early and late (MAZAR and PANITZ-COHEN 2001: 275; HERZOG and SINGER-AVITZ 2004). The early Iron IIA is best represented by Lachish V, Masos II and the Negev Highlands sites. A single date for Lachish V was published a few years ago (CARMI and USSISHKIN 2004). The Late Iron IIA is best represented by Lachish IV and Tell es-Safi IV. 14C dates for this phase are available from the destruction layers of Tell es-Safi IV and Tel Zayit (for the latter see TAPPY et al. 2006: 15); two dates for Lachish IV were published by CARMI and USSISHKIN (2004). – A transitional Iron IIA/B phase, represented by Stratum 3 at Beth-shemesh (BUNIMOVITZ and LEDERMAN 2006: 419–420). Table 1 presents all 14C readings from southern Israel now available for these phases and thus used in this article. Following our method (FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY 2006a) all short-lived samples from safe stratigraphical contexts were included except for outliers which are different by more than 5 s from the average. The uncalibrated dates for each phase shown in Table 1 were checked for consistency by fitting to a constant. The result of the fit was used as the combined uncalibrated date for that phase (Table 2). In cases where cn > 1 for the fit, we increased the error by the square root of the cn . The calibrated dates were obtained using the IntCal04 atmospheric calibration curve (REIMER et al. 2004) by means of the OxCal V 4.0 computer program of BRONK RAMSEY (1995; 2001). In cases where the program yielded close ranges we took the full 1s range for each phase. In some cases historical and
74
Israel Finkelstein and Eliazer Piasetzky
Pottery Phase
Stratum sampled
Monochrome (Early Iron I)
Miqne VIIB
BS** 6
BS 5 Bichrome (Middle Iron I)
BS 5
Miqne VIB Miqne VB
Late Philistine (Late Iron I)
Early Iron IIA
Qasile X
Lachish V
Safi IV
Late Iron IIA
Zayit
Lachish IV
Iron IIA/B
BS 3
Sample no. 4286.3 4286.4 4286.5 3934.3 3934.4 3934.5 3935.3 3935.4 3935.5 3936.3 3936.4 3936.5 4283.3 4283.4 4283.5 4284.3 4284.4 3853.3 3853.4 3953-1 3931.1 3931.3 3931.4 3931.5 3931-1 A25535 A25710 A25768 3932.3 3932.4 3932.5 3932.6 3932a 3932aa 3933a 3933aa 3159 4409.3 4409.4 4409.5 4410.3 4410.4 4410.5 A25536 A25711 A25770 1 2 4275-1.3 4275-1.4 4275-1.5
Lab. And Method*
Type of sample
R AMS
Seeds
R AMS
Olive pits
R AMS
Olive pits
R AMS
Olive pits
R AMS
Olive pits
R AMS
Seeds
R AMS R AMS T AMS RW LSC R AMS R AMS R AMS T AMS Gr AMS Gr AMS Gr AMS R AMS R AMS R AMS R AMS T AMS T AMS T AMS T AMS RW LSC R AMS R AMS R AMS R AMS R AMS R AMS Gr AMS Gr AMS Gr AMS Gr Gr AMS
Lathyrus
Lathyrus
Lathyrus
Seeds Seeds Seeds
Seeds
Seeds Seeds
R AMS
Seeds
4275-2.3
R AMS
Olive pits
2908
RW LSC
1418
H GPC
Olive pits Pomegranate seeds
3937.1 3937.3 3937.4 3937.5 3938.3 3938.4 3938.5
RW LSC R AMS R AMS R AMS R AMS R AMS R AMS
Olive pits
Olive pits
Uncalibrated results 2950±55 2900±40 2870±60 2830±50 2925±50 2810±50 2830±53 2750±55 2770±65 2810±50 2850±55 2855±65 2915±45 2960±45 2880±45 2835±45 2830±45 2680±35 2747±35 2884±45 2853±20 2820±55 2930±56 2936±41 2852±45 2864±40 2818±38 2897±44 2745±50 2765±75 2685±50 2650±40 2780±35 2862±40 2885±40 2878±40 2775±55 2630±45 2693±60 2679±55 2748±60 2671±45 2712±45 2700±42 2733±38 2780±44 2750±20 2730±40 2640±40 2646±45 2745±55 2616±40
Source SHARON et al. 2007
SHARON et al. 2007
SHARON et al. 2007
CARMI and USSISHKIN 2004
SHARON et al. 2007
TAPPY et al. 2006 TAPPY et al. 2006 SHARON et al. 2007 TAPPY et al. 2006 SHARON et al. 2007 TAPPY et al. 2006
2715±40 2650±90 2500±35 2524±36 2427±35 2478±34 2390±65 2425±40 2505±40
CARMI and USSISHKIN 2004
SHARON et al. 2007
* Tu = Tucson; Gr = Groningen; R = Sample prepared in Rehovot and measured in Tucson; RW = Rehovot; H = Helsinki. AMS = Accelerator Mass Spectrometry; LSC = Liquid Scintillation Counting; GPC = Gas Proportional Counting ** BS = Beth-shemesh Table 1 14C readings for the Iron I and Iron IIA from southern Israel
Radiocarbon Dating and Philistine Chronology with an Addendum on el-Ahwat
75
14
Pottery phase
Strata (those providing C results are underlined)
Uncalibrated date
Calibrated date
Monochrom
Miqne VIIB
2907±28
1125–1050
Bichrome
BS 6, 5; Miqne VIB, VB
2853±16
1050–995
Late Philistine
BS 4; Miqne VA, IV; Qasile X
2850±24
995–946*
Early Iron IIA
Lachish V
2775±55
Late Iron IIA
Safi IV; Tel Zayit; Lachish IV
2706±16
Transitional Iron IIA/B
BS 3
2505±30
996-844 894–820 (842–820)* 766–745**
* Constrains were imposed to limit the range yielded by the radiocarbon measurements (see text for details) ** Constrain imposed on the date of destruction of Tell es-Safi - not before the accession of Hazael (see below) Table 2 Relative pottery phases and absolute dates (14C) in southern Israel
archeological constrains were used in order to limit the range of the 14C results; these cases are discussed in detail below. Table 2 specifies the pottery phases and their absolute chronological range according to the 14C results. Two issues should be taken into consideration: A) Qasile X: The results assemble into two clear groups quite apart from each other and therefore posing a problem (SHARON et al. 2005: 84–87). The two lower dates fall in the 9th century BCE and are impossible even according to the low chronology system. Averaging the two sets of high readings one gets an uncalibrated date of 2867±12 – too high compared to the bichrome phase of Beth-shemesh 6–5 and Miqne VIB–VB. Assuming that the samples indeed originated from the well-defined destruction of Stratum X (MAZAR 1980: 33, 46; 1985: 127), we averaged all readings and reached an uncalibrated date of 2850±24. This is an example of cn > 1(cn . 4.8); the great uncertainty reflects the quality of the fit. The calibrated date – 1050–946 BCE – can be limited to 995-946 BCE if one accepts that Qasile X postdates the bichrome phase (needless to say, since we are dealing with a range, a date shortly before 995 cannot be excluded). This is especially true because the samples of Qasile X come from its destruction layer, that is, from the end-days of this layer. B) Beth-shemesh 3 presents a classical case in which the combination of 14C results and historical consideration provides a better result than each of them separately. The broad calibrated range for this stratum can be narrowed by entering the datum of ca. 750 BCE as the latest possible date for this phase (see below).
These results reflect on a few of the problems related to the history and archaeology of southern Israel in the 12th to 8th centuries BCE. II. THE DATE OF THE MONOCHROME PHASE (THE PHILISTINE SETTLEMENT) The date of the Philistine settlement in Canaan has been debated in recent years. Supporters of the conventional chronology accept the Philistine Paradigm (ALBRIGHT 1932: 58; ALT 1944), according to which the Philistines were settled by Ramesses III in Egyptian strongholds in the southern coastal plain of Canaan following his battles against the Sea Peoples in 1175 BCE. Accordingly, they date the earliest Philistine strata, characterized by monochrome pottery (also known as locally made Myc. IIIC: 1b), to ca. 1175–1150/40/30 BCE and the beginning of the second phase of Philistine settlement, characterized by bichrome pottery, to ca. 1150/40/30 BCE (e.g., MAZAR 2007; DOTHAN and ZUKERMAN 2004: 6; SHERRATT 2006 [for the monochrome phase]). Other scholars have noted that monochrome pottery does not appear in the many strata that represent the last phase of Egyptian domination in southwestern Canaan, and that Egyptian pottery of the 20th dynasty (we refer to vessels, to differ from stray sherds) does not appear in the monochrome strata. Accordingly, they date the monochrome phase of the Philistine settlement to ca. 1125–1100 BCE (following the Egyptian withdrawal: USSISHKIN 1985: 223; 2007; FINKELSTEIN 1995; NAÝAMAN 2000 [for the monochrome phase]) and the bichrome phase from ca. 1100 BCE (FINKELSTEIN 1995). The latter scholars do not accept the explanation of the traditionalists – that the utter separation between the two cultures represents decades of coexistence of contained communities at sites located only a few kms distance from each other (e.g., Lachish VI and Miqne VIIB),
76
Israel Finkelstein and Eliazer Piasetzky
Laborat. and method*
Site
R AMS R AMS
Tu AMS Megiddo K-6
R AMS
Tu AMS
R AMS
Sample no. 4501.3** 4501.4 4501.5 4499.3 4499.4 4499.5 4499a 4499aa 4500.3 4500.4 4500.5 4500a 4500aa 5080 5081 5082 5083
Type of sample
Dates
Olive pits
Olive pits
Olive pits
Olive pits
5084 Lachish VI
RW LSC RW LSC H GPC
2912 2755 1417
2790±40 2764±50 2767±40 2880±40 2865±45 2925±40 2907±40 2876±40 2940±40 2906±37 2909±37 3018±60 2947±40 2965±30 2955±35 2975±55 3030±150
Average
Sharon et al. 2007
2928±11
Boaretto unpublished (preliminary results)
2980±60 Olive pits Olive pits Seeds
2915±25 2955±25 2810±100
Source
2931±21
CARMI and USSISHKIN 2004
* For legend see Table 1 ** Though consistent with each other, the three measurements of Sample 4501 yielded an average uncalibrated date which is ca. 150 years (six standard deviations) younger than the average of the other samples from this stratum. We therefore removed this sample from our analysis Table 3
14C
results from Megiddo Level K-6 (=Stratum VIIA of the University of Chicago excavations) and Lachish VI
without exchange of pottery (e.g., FINKELSTEIN 2002a contra DOTHAN 1992: 97; BUNIMOVITZ and FAUST 2001). With no new material from the field, the debate has reached a stalemate. The Miqne VIIB 14C dates (Table 1) may shed new light on this debate when supplemented by new readings from Megiddo and Lachish. We refer to samples from Level K-6 at Megiddo, which equals the University of Chicago’s Stratum VIIA (BOARETTO unpublished – Table 3).1 This stratum represents the last phase of the EgyptoCanaanite system (Late Bronze III according to USSISHKIN 1985; 1995; Iron IA according to MAZAR, e.g., 2005: 24). Level VI at Lachish represents the same horizon. Its three 14C determinations are consistent with those from Megiddo K-6. The calibrated dates for Megiddo K-6 and Lachish VI are 1193–1113 and 1208–1112 BCE
1
2
We wish to thank Ilan Sharon, Ayelet Gilboa and Elisabetta Boaretto for providing us with these preliminary results; the measurements are part of a research project supported by the Israel Science Foundation and the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities (grant No. 141/04). For Megiddo K-6, 42.8% + 20% probability together,
respectively.2 The uncalibrated date for the two sites combined is 2929±9, which provides a calibrated date of 1194–1114 BCE. Looking at the uncalibrated dates, contemporaneity between Megiddo K-6 and Lachish VI on one hand and Miqne VIIB on the other hand cannot be excluded. This is due to the large uncertainty in the measurements compared to the small time difference between the strata (only 22 years difference between the two readings – smaller than 1 s). Yet, the radiocarbon data point to the sequential solution as the most probable one (Fig. 1). According to this scenario the two groups represent sequential horizons: Stratum VIIB at Miqne is later than Level K-6 (Stratum VIIA) at Megiddo, and Level VI at Lachish. In other words, according to this solution Miqne VIIB postdates the collapse of Egyptian rule in
excluding the 5.3% probability which falls in the 11th century BCE – too low according to what we know about this city from Egyptian finds and historical sources (e.g., SINGER 1988–89; USSISHKIN 1995). For Lachish VI, 57.85% probability, excluding the 7.7% and 2.7% probabilities for the same reason (USSISHKIN 2004: 69–70).
Radiocarbon Dating and Philistine Chronology with an Addendum on el-Ahwat
77
Fig 1 The uncalibrated and calibrated dates of Megiddo K-6 and Lachish VI, Miqne VIIB and the bichrome strata superimposed on the calibration curve. Egyptian finds and historical sources make it clear that Megiddo K-6 and Lachish VI (Late Bronze III) cannot be dated much later than 1130 BCE (SINGER 1988–89; USSISHKIN 1995 for Megiddo; USSISHKIN 2004: 69–70 for Lachish). We entered the 1130 limit into the figure as a vertical red line; it eliminates the possibility of some of the later Megiddo K-6 and Lachish VI solutions (red crosses)
Canaan (USSISHKIN 1985: 223; 2007; FINKELSTEIN 1995). THE BICHROME PHASE AND THE IRON I/IIA TRANSITION Beth-shemesh 6 and 5 and Tel Miqne VIB and VB – the only bichrome strata which provided radiocarbon results thus far – make one group with results in the same range which postdates the Tel Miqne VIIB horizon. This phase, which should be classified as ‘middle Iron I’ (contemporary to Shiloh V in the highlands – FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY 2006b), falls in the second half of the 11th century BCE. The radiocarbon dates for these strata have implications for the debate on the date of transition from the Iron I to the Iron IIA. Mazar’s Modified Conventional Chronology (2005) would place it at ca. 980 BCE, while supporters of the Low Chronology would put it in the late-10th century BCE (e.g., FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY 2003; FINKELSTEIN 2005; SHARON et al. 2007).
3
In order to absorb the meaning of these results, one needs first to look at the stratigraphy and chronology of Beth-shemesh and Tel Miqne – the two sites that provided the dates (Tables 4–5): Beth-shemesh 4 and Tel Miqne VA and IV are late Iron I strata. They postdate the bichrome layers at these sites, which are radiocarbon dated to ca. 1050–995. They should therefore be placed in the 10th century BCE (dark-gray cells in Tables 4-5). This would render the dating of the Iron I/IIA transition to ca. 980 BCE unlikely (only 70–15 years left for the late Iron I strata – Fig. 2). Another clue comes from Beth-shemesh 3, which was probably destroyed during the 766–745 range (see below). Even if this stratum, with some monumental construction (BUNIMOVITZ and LEDERMAN 2006: 415–418) was long-lived, placing the Iron I/IIA transition at ca. 980 BCE would make it a more than 200 year-long stratum, which is also unlikely (Fig. 2).3
The single date from early Iron IIA Lachish V is of no help due to its large uncertainty.
78
Israel Finkelstein and Eliazer Piasetzky
Str. 6 5 4 3
Period
14
Middle Iron I, bichrome
C Date
Comments
1050–995
Late Iron I Iron IIA, destroyed during Iron IIA/B transition
766–745
BUNIMOVITZ and LEDERMAN 2006: 411, 418–419 th Destruction in the “first half of the 8 century” BUNIMOVITZ and LEDERMAN 2006: 419
Table 4 Beth-shemesh stratigraphy
Str.
Period
VIIB
Early Iron I, monochrome appears Early Iron I, monochrome, still preBichrome Middle Iron I, bichrome
VIIA VIB–VB VA IV
14
C Date
Comments
1125–1050 Also down to 1050?
DOTHAN and ZUKERMAN 2004: 3
1050–995 e.g., DOTHAN 2003: 194–195; DOTHAN et al. 2006: 94
Late Iron I Table 5 Tel Miqne stratigraphy
IR I (Bichrome) (Bichrome) Modified Conventional Chronology
Only space left for Late Philistine phase according to the Modified Conventional Chronology
Low Chronology Period of time for BS 3 according to the Modified Conventional Chronology
BS 3 destruction
Fig 2 Unlikely consequences of the Modified Conventional Chronology hypothesis. The proposed dates for the Iron I/IIA transition according to the Modified Conventional Chronology and the Low Chronology are shown as dashed lines. Dates of strata are shown as gray areas
THE IRON IIA/B
TRANSITION IN THE
SOUTH
There can be no doubt that the assemblage of Tell es-Safi IV (e.g., SHAI and MAEIR 2003) belongs to the late Iron IIA horizon. It is radiocarbon dated to 2707±27, which translates to a calibrated range of 895–820 BCE. Historically, it seems safe to assume that Gath (identified with Tell es-Safi) was assaulted and destroyed by Hazael king of Damascus sometime in the second half of the 9th century BCE (MAEIR 2004), after 842 BCE. Therefore, the combination of the 14C results and the historical argument defines the
destruction of Tell es-Safi IV to the 842–820 BCE range. From the perspectives of both pottery typology and radiocarbon results the destruction of Bethshemesh 3 is later than that of Tell es-Safi IV. Typologically, this stratum already carries Iron IIA/B transition forms (for the pottery see BUNIMOVITZ and LEDERMAN 2006: 419–420). The 14C results from this stratum – 2505±30 – is significantly lower than that of Tell es-Safi IV. Due to the nature of the calibration curve, Beth-shemesh 3 provides a very broad absolute date of 766–551 BCE (Fig. 3). But this can be narrowed to 766–745 if one introduces an historical consideration (Fig. 3). The Lachish III assemblage in Judah, which is typical of the Iron IIB, originates from destruction layers that represent Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah in 701 BCE. But the appearance of this assemblage must be dated earlier, probably no later than ca. mid-8th century BCE (see vertical red line in Fig. 3). This eliminates the calibrated possibilities of 688–664 and 647–551 BCE (red crosses in Fig. 3). The date of the Iron IIA/B transition in the south has been fixed between ca. 800 and 760 BCE (see recent summaries in HERZOG and SINGER-AVITZ 2004: 230; FANTALKIN and FINKELSTEIN 2006: 22–24). The 14C results support the archaeological observations by showing that the assemblage from a destruction that occurred in the 766–745 range is already characterized by transition forms.
Radiocarbon Dating and Philistine Chronology with an Addendum on el-Ahwat
79
Fig 3 Calibration dates for Beth-shemesh 3. The vertical red line marks the year 750 BCE – the approximate beginning of the Lachish III assemblage (Iron IIB) – limiting Beth-shemesh 3 to the early option in the curve (766–745 BCE)
ADDENDUM: EL-AHWAT We wish to comment here on the date of the Iron I site of el-Ahwat, located on a ridge overlooking Wadi Ara in northern Israel, in the context of Zertal’s proposal (e.g., ZERTAL 2001) to identify it as a site founded by a northern group of Sea Peoples. One of us has already rejected this interpretation on purely material culture grounds (FINKELSTEIN 2002b). The 14C date provided for el-Ahwat by a relatively large number of consistent readings (SHARON et al. 2007) adds another argument against Zertal’s theory. ZERTAL (2001: 215) dated the foundation of the site to ca. 1230 BCE according to the “XIXth dynasty” glyptic material (ZERTAL 1999: 34), and its latest phase of occupation before abandonment some 50-60 years later, according to his reading of the Iron I pottery found at the site. Only two of the scarabs have been published to date. Brandl dated them to the 19th dynasty, in the 13th century BCE, “since this is the period of time when the frequency of scarabs bearing the name of Amon-Re is the greatest” (BRANDL 1996: 75). Yet, according to another view, their date cannot be fixed more accurately than to the period of the late 19th and 20th Dynasties, ca. 1230–1075 BCE (KEEL 1997: 526). Elsewhere, BRANDL (1997) reported briefly on the entire collection of glyptic material from el-Ahwat, which includes “Hyksos”, 19th Dynasty and 20th Dynasty scarabs. Thus, from the chronological point of view the glyptic assemblage ostensibly points to a foundation date in the early 12th century. Yet,
even this is not mandatory, as the scarabs could have been brought to the site as amulets at a somewhat later date. Most of the el-Ahwat pottery has not yet been published. Elsewhere, one of us noted (FINKELSTEIN 2002b) that from the few vessels which have thus far been presented (ZERTAL and MIRKAM 2000: 137), from ZERTAL’s description (mainly 1996: 44–45) and from what he presented during a visit to the site, they seem to be similar to the Iron I pottery found in scores of hill country sites. Late Bronze vessels of the 13th century and cooking pots in the Late Bronze tradition are absent (ZERTAL 2001: 219–220). The assemblage is dominated by collared rim jars, erect or slanted cooking pots with elongated rim, crude round bowls, Iron I jugs, etc. FINKELSTEIN (2002b: 194) suggested that the pot-
Fig 4
14C
results for el-Ahwat
80
Israel Finkelstein and Eliazer Piasetzky
Laboratory and method*
R AMS
Sample no. 4270.3 4270.4 4270.5 4271.3 4271.4 4271.5 4272.3 4272.4 4272.5 4273.3 4273.4 4273.5
Type of sample
Dates
Average
Date BCE
Olive pits
2828±40 2807±40 2809±40 2858±40 2854±40 2868±40 2822±40 2838±40 2935±40 2847±40 2819±40 2780±40
2840±12
1016–942 (68%) 1016–975 (56%)
* R = Sample prepared in Rehovot and measured in Tucson Table 6
14C
results from el-Ahwat
tery of el-Ahwat postdates Megiddo VIIA and that the few published vessels should be dated to the time-frame of Stratum VI at Megiddo. Recently published 14C dates from el-Ahwat (SHARON et al. 2007) seem to resolve this issue (Table 6, Fig. 4). The dates for el-Ahwat are somewhat later than those obtained for Shiloh V (2888±12: FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY 2006b). Megiddo K-5 (=Stratum VIB of the University of Chicago excavation) has recently provided an uncalibrated date of 2885±40 (BOARETTO unpublished, see
n. 1), while a large set of readings from Megiddo K-4 (=Stratum VIA of the University of Chicago dig) gave an average uncalibrated date of 2848±20 (FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY 2006b). ElAhwat falls close to Megiddo VIA, in the later phase of the Iron I. Even if the el-Ahwat samples represent the end-days of the site, it is clear that it was founded much later than proposed by the excavator. From this point of view as well, elAhwat is unrelated to the settlement of the Sea Peoples on the coast of the Levant in the 12th century BCE.
Bibliography ALBRIGHT, W.F. 1932
The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, I: The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns, AASOR 12, New Haven.
BRONK RAMSEY, C.
ALT, A. 1944
Mediterranean in the End of the Late Bronze and the Beginning of the Iron Age – New Evidence. Abstracts of lectures in a colloquium held at the University of Haifa, December 1997.
Ägyptische Tempel in Palästina und die Landnahme der Philister, ZDPV 67, 1–20.
1995
Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program, Radiocarbon 37, 425–430.
2001
Development of the Radiocarbon Program OxCal, Radiocarbon 43, 355–363.
BOARETTO, E. n.p.
Unpublished Preliminary Report on 14C Measurements from Megiddo, 2004 Season.
BRANDL, B. 1996
1997
Two Scarabs from Area C at el-Ahwat: A Preliminary Report, 75–78, in: A. ZERTAL (ed.), El-Ahwat: A Fortified Sea People Site near Nahal ‘Iron, A Preliminary Report of the Three First Seasons 1993–1995, Haifa (Hebrew). The Glyptic Finds from el-Ahwat, in: West and East: Connections between the Western and the Eastern
BUNIMOVITZ, S. and FAUST, A. 2001
Chronological Separation, Geographical Segregation, or Ethnic Demarcation? Ethnography and the Iron Age Low Chronology, BASOR 322, 1–10.
BUNIMOVITZ, S. and LEDERMAN, Z. 2006
The Early Israelite Monarchy in the Sorek Valley: Tel Beth-Shemesh and Tel Batash (Timnah) in the 10th and 9th Centuries BCE, 407–427, in: A.M.
Radiocarbon Dating and Philistine Chronology with an Addendum on el-Ahwat
MAEIR and P. DE MIROSCHEDJI (eds.), I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar, Winona Lake.
tecture, 27–67, in: M.W. MEEHL, T. DOTHAN and S. GITIN, Tel Miqne-Ekron Excavations 1995–1996: Field INE East Slope Iron Age I (Early Philistine Period), Jerusalem.
CARMI. I. and USSISHKIN, D. 2004
14C
Dates, 2508–2513, in: D. USSISHKIN (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), vol V, Tel Aviv.
HERZOG, Z. and SINGER-AVITZ, L. 2004
Redefining the Centre: The Emergence of State in Judah, Tel Aviv 31, 209–244.
DOTHAN, T.
KEEL, O.
1992
1997
2003
Social Dislocation and Cultural Change in the 12th Century B.C.E., 93–98, in: W.A. WARD and M. SHARP JOUKOWSKY (eds.), The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, Dubuque (Iowa). The Aegean and the Orient: Cultic Interactions, in: W.G. DEVER and S. GITIN (eds.), Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palestine, Winona Lake, 189–213. The Pottery: Canaanite and Philistine Traditions and Cypriote and Aegean Imports, 71–101, in: M.W. MEEHL, T. DOTHAN and S. GITIN, Tel MiqneEkron Excavations 1995–1996: Field INE East Slope Iron Age I (Early Philistine Period), Jerusalem.
2004
1980
Excavations at Tell Qasile Part One, The Philistine Sanctuary: Architecture and Cult Objects, Qedem 12, Jerusalem.
1985
Excavations at Tell Qasile Part Two, The Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds, The Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes, Qedem 20, Jerusalem.
2005
The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant: Its History, the Current Situation, and a Suggested Resolution, 15–30, in: T.E. LEVY and T. HIGHAM (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, London.
2007
Myc IIIC in the Land Israel: Its Distribution, Date and Significance, 571–582, 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, Vienna.
A Preliminary Study of the Mycenaean IIIC:1 Pottery Assemblages from Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashdod, BASOR 333, 1–54.
FANTALKIN, A. and FINKELSTEIN, I. 2006
8th
Century The Sheshonq I Campaign and the BCE Earthquake: More on the Archaeology and History of the South in the Iron I–IIA, Tel Aviv 33, 18–42.
FINKELSTEIN, I. 1995
The Date of the Philistine Settlement in Canaan, Tel Aviv 22, 213–239.
2002a Chronology Rejoinder, PEQ 134, 128–139. 2002b El-Ahwat: A Fortified Sea People City? IEJ 52, 187–199. 2005
A Low Chronology Update: Archaeology, History and Bible, 31–42, in: T.E. LEVY and T. HIGHAM (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, London.
FINKELSTEIN, I. and PIASETZKY, E. 2003
Recent Radiocarbon Results and King Solomon, Antiquity 77, 771–779.
2006a
14C
and the Iron Age Chronology Debate: Rehov, Khirbet en-Nahas, Dan and Megiddo, Radiocarbon 48, 373–386.
2006b The Iron I–IIA in the Highlands and beyond: 14C Anchors, Pottery Phases and the Shoshenq I Campaign, Levant, 38, 45–61. GITIN, S., MEEHL, M. and DOTHAN, T. 2006
Occupational History – Stratigraphy and Archi-
The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2: An Archaeological Perspective from Tell esSafi/Gath, Vetus Testamentum 54, 319–334.
MAZAR, A.
DOTHAN, T. and ZUKERMAN, A. 2004
Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palastina/Israel. Von den Anfangen bis zur Perserzeit. Catalogue Volume I, OBO, Series Archaeologica 13, Fribourg.
MAEIR, A.M.
DOTHAN, T., GITIN, S. and ZUKERMAN, A. 2006
81
MAZAR, A. and PANITZ-COHEN, N. 2001
Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE, Text, Qedem 42, Jerusalem.
NAÝAMAN, N. 2000
The Contribution of the Trojan Grey Ware from Lachish and Tel Miqne-Ekron to the Chronology of the Philistine Monochrome Pottery, BASOR 317, 1–8.
REIMER, P.J. et al. 2004
INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 26-0 ka BP, Radiocarbon 46, 1029–1058.
SHAI, I. and MAEIR, A.M. 2003
Pre-lmlk Jars: A New Class of Iron Age IIA Storage Jars, Tel Aviv 30, 108–123.
SHARON, I., GILBOA, A., BOARETTO, E. and JULL, T.A.J. 2005
The Early Iron Age Dating Project: Introduction, Methodology, Progress Report and an Update on the Tel Dor Radiometric Dates, 65–92, in: T.E. LEVY and T. HIGHAM (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, London.
82
Israel Finkelstein and Eliazer Piasetzky
SHARON, I., GILBOA, A., JULL, T.A.J. and BOARETTO, E. 2007
SHERRATT, S. 2006
2004
A Synopsis of the Stratigraphical, Chronological and Historical Issues, 50–190, in: USSISHKIN (ed.) D. USSISHKIN (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), vol. I, Tel Aviv.
2007
Lachish and the Date of the Philistine Settlement in Canaan, 601–608, 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, Vienna.
Report on the First Stage of the Iron Age Dating Project in Israel: Supporting A Low Chronology, Radiocarbon 49, 1–46. The Chronology of the Philistine Monochrome Pottery: An Outsider’s View, 361–374, in: A.M. MAEIR and P. DE MIROSCHEDJI (eds.), I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar, Winona Lake.
SINGER, I.
ZERTAL, A.
1988–89 The Political Status of Megiddo VIIA, Tel Aviv 15–16, 101–112
1996
El-Ahwat: A Fortified Sea People Site near Nahal ‘Iron, A Preliminary Report of the Three First Seasons 1993–1995, Haifa (Hebrew).
1999
El-Ahwat – 1993–1996, Hadashot Arkheologiyot Excavations and Surveys in Israel 110, 32*–34*.
2001
The ‘Corridor-builders’ of Central Israel: Evidence for the Settlement of the ‘Northern Sea Peoples’?, 215–232, in: V. KARAGEORGHIS and C.E. MORRIS (eds.), Defensive Settlements of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean after c. 1200 B.C., Nicosia.
TAPPY, R.E., MCCARTER, P.K. LUNDBERG, M.J and ZUCKERMAN, B. 2006
An Abecedary of the Mid-Tenth Century B.C.E. from the Judaean Shephelah, BASOR 344, 5–46.
USSISHKIN, D. 1985
Levels VII and VI at Tel Lachish and the End of the Late Bronze Age in Canaan, 213–228, in: J.N. TUBB (ed.), Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell, London.
1995
The Destruction of Megiddo at the End of the Late Bronze Age and Its Historical Significance, Tel Aviv 22, 240–267.
ZERTAL, A. and MIRKAM, N. 2000
The Manasseh Hill Country Survey: From Nahal ‘Iron to Nahal Shechem, Tel Aviv (Hebrew).
THE COLONIZATION/URBANIZATION OF THE TELL AREA A/II AT TELL EL-DABcA AND ITS CHRONOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS By Irene Forstner-Müller
INTRODUCTION
EGYPTIAN SHAPES
The area A/II is particularly important at a time when the sacred precinct with its temples of Egyptian and Near Eastern types covered that part of the town.1 In an earlier period (late 12th dynasty, MBIIA) (Fig. 1) the site was used as a settlement area. During spring 1997 a new investigation was initiated in which the lowest levels could be reached.2
Nile clay3
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT The layers presented here are the first traces of settlement on the Tell Area A/II, however, other parts of Tell el-Dabca like F/I and A/IV had already been occupied by settlers before (Fig. 2). This stratum, relativ k (major stratum H) (Fig. 1), was reached only in square p/14. Two systems of pits and postholes which partly cut into those pits were found immediately on top of the gezira (Fig. 3). The large pits vary in their diameter from around 1 m to 2,4 m and had been filled with mud and sand. The postholes vary from 19 to 26 cm in their diameter. In the middle of this posthole system a pit with a square column base of limestone set into it was found (base 22 cm, diameter of column 14 cm). The column itself was probably made of wood. One could imagine some kind of workmen shelters for the settlers, the larger pits perhaps used for brick production. The only finds were pottery, already in this early phase Egyptian types appear together with those of the MBIIA-culture.
1 2 3
4
5 6 7
BIETAK 1986, 1991a, FORSTNER-MÜLLER in print. FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2001. Based on the adapted Vienna system, published by BIETAK 1991a. DO. ARNOLD 1988, 140; 1982a, 51 fig. 14; BIETAK 1991b, fig. 14. For the parallels in detail s. ASTON 2004. EMERY, SMITH, MILLARD 1979, 166, pl. 64 nos. 68–69. TYSON SMITH 1995, 59, fig. 3.5A; 60, fig. 3.6A; 61, fig. 3.8A; 62, fig. 3.9A.
Nile B1 and 2 Hemispherical cups (Fig. 4) These round-bottomed cups, (“U-Näpfe”) are characteristic of the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period. A distinctive change in vessel-index and dimensions can be attested,4 with a development from shallow, unrestricted bowls to deep, slightly restricted forms and a change in fabric: a shift from Nile B1 to Nile B2. In this stratum there are about 75% Nile B1 and 25% Nile B2, the shape is still an open form, the rim diameter 10–13 cm. Parallels are known all over Egypt5 and in Nubia from Buhen,6 Askut7 and other sites in Nubia.8 Nile C2 1. Large Nile C2 Dishes With Direct Rims and Rounded Bases (Fig. 5) Large dishes with direct rims and rounded bases, made of fabric C2, are very common in this period. They are mostly uncoated or decorated with a red rim band. Usually they are carelessly made and often held together with string whilst drying to prevent them from collapsing outwards. The inner surface, however, and the upper part of the outer surface are generally wet-smoothed. Rim diameters are around 50 cm. Such dishes are extremely common in Middle Kingdom Egypt with other examples known from Dahshur,9 Riqqeh10 Harageh,11 Hawara,12 Lisht,13
8 9 10 11 12 13
HOLTHOER 1977, 121; TYSON SMITH 1995, 66–69. DO. ARNOLD 1982a, 33, fig. 9.1; ALLEN 1998, 45, fig. 3.4. ENGELBACH 1915, pl. xxviii type 2. ENGELBACH 1923, pl. xxxiv type 2 PETRIE, WAINWRIGHT, E. MACKAY 1912, pl. xxxiii .2, 4. MACE, WINLOCK 1916, fig. 82.1; DO. ARNOLD 1988, 122; DO. ARNOLD, F. ARNOLD, S. ALLEN, 1995, 21, fig. 4, 11.
Fig. 1 Overall map of Tell el-Dabca
84 Irene Forstner-Müller
The Colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its Chronological Implications
85
TELL EL-DABcA MBPHASES
B.C.
EGYPT TOWN CENTER NEW CENTER RELATIVE (Middle Kingdom) CHRONOLOGY cEzbet Rushdi MB-Population F/I
R/I 1410 LB I
XVIII
H
IV
AHMOSE
XV
HYKSOS
KINGDOM OF AVARIS
MB II A–B
NEHESI
DENUDED a STORAGE PITS
1710 XIII
D/3
E/1
e/1-3
E/1
E/2
f/1-2
E/2
b/2
E/3
g/1-2
E/3
b/3
F
c
G
G/1–3
HIATUS
j G/4 H
G/4 k
H
d/2b
b/2
I
SIII
K
AII
e/1–4
SII
HIATUS
d
L UNOCCUPIED M
f
1920
SI
1950 1980 2000
F
h/1-5
EPIDEMIC
c/1–2 5th year SIII
AIII
1890
V
b/1
b/1
XII
MB I
d/3
d/2
AIV
1860
D/2
D/3
d/2a
So
1830
e/2
d/1-2
d/1
1770 1800
D/1
a/2 DENUDED a PITS
1680
e/1 D/2
DENUDED
1650
?
C
d
AI
MB II B
MB II A
c
H I A T U S
1620
1740
GENERAL STRATIGRAPHY
H/I-IV
A/II 1997
TI
1560 1590
CITADEL Ezbet Helmi
TII
1500
MB II C
c
AII
TII
1530
A/II
Dyn.
1440 1470
EASTERN TOWN
HIATUS AI
?
e/1
N
e/2–3
N/2–3
XI EXPANSION OF THE SETTLEMENT ?
2050 X
HERACLEOPOLITAN FOUNDATION
after Bietak/adapted by Czerny/Forstner-Müller/Wilson (2007)
Fig. 2
Footed bowls made of Nile C2 have a flat hand-
made foot, the upper part was wheel made with undercut modelled rims. These vessels are well known in Late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period contexts at Lahun,19 Lisht,20 Harageh21 and Riqqeh.22
14
18
Lahun,14 Abydos,15 Armant,16 Thebes17 and Elephantine.18 2. Nile C2 Footed Bowls (Fig. 6)
15 16 17
BRUNTON 1920, pl. xix.37, 45; W.M.F. PETRIE, G. BRUNTON, M.A. MURRAY 1923, pl. lvi. type 2. PETRIE 1903, pl. xlvi .193. MOND, MYERS 1937, pl. xxxi.3A, 3C. DO. ARNOLD 1966, 88, K871; LOYRETTE, NASR, BASSIOUNI 1993–94, 122, fig. 4j.
19 20 21 22
PILGRIM 1996, 348–9, fig. 155e. PETRIE 1890, pl. xii.12. DO. ARNOLD, 1988, 115, fig. 61. ENGELBACH 1923, pl. xl.90G, 90M. ENGELBACH, 1915, pl. xxxiii.90G, 90J, 90M.
86
Irene Forstner-Müller
In square p/14 we have only two examples – both represent an earlier group (Kopetzky type 2) which is typical for the late Middle kingdom – red slipped, with a funnel shaped neck. The rim is 14 cm in diameter. Parallels are known from Dahshur,26 Riqqeh,27 Harageh,28 Hawara,29 30 Lahun, Abydos,31 Armant32 and Thebes.33 The typical “beer jar” of the late Thirteenth Dynasty with a tall cylindrical neck and “kettleshaped” mouth was not found in this stratum. Marl C-vessels 1. Large Storage Jars (Zîrs) (Fig. 8)
Fig. 3 Map of square A/II-p/14, situation in stratum k
3. Large Ovoid Jars (Beer Jars) (Fig. 7) Large globular jars made out of fabric Nile C2 are very popular during the Late Middle Kingdom and early Second Intermediate Period. These vessels are common amongst the Tell elDabca repertoire. A typology for this site was first established by Manfred Bietak,23 and enlarged by Karin Kopetzky24 and Zbigniew Szafranski.25 From their work, a sequence of development can be observed.
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
32 33
34
BIETAK 1991b, 36 fig. 7. KOPETZKY 1993. SZAFRANSKI 1998, 95–119. DO. ARNOLD 1982a, 29 fig. 5. ENGELBACH 1915, pl. xxx types 40, 41. ENGELBACH 1923 pls.xxxvi–xxxviii types 40–41. PETRIE, WAINWRIGHT, MACKAY 1912, pl. xxxv. 100–104. PETRIE, BRUNTON, MURRAY 1923, pl. lvi.40K. PEET, LOAT 1913, pl. v. 28; WEGNER 1996, 259, fig. 6; idem 2001, 300, fig. 10. MOND, MYERS 1937, pl. xxxiii type 52. PETRIE 1909, pl. xiii.23–28; DO. ARNOLD 1968, 88 type K2174, eadem 1972, 40, fig. 4; SEILER 2005, 61, fig. 25, type DAN 1. BADER 2001, 161–163, fig. 45.
Zîrs are generally made out of Marl clays and typically hand made with the rim fashioned on a slow wheel. Many vessels have potmarks on their rim or body (Fig. 9). This type (Kopetzky’s type 3, equal to Bader type 334) occurs from stratum H until G, the rounded rim is never trimmed, its diameter is variable. Parallels are known from Dahshur: complex 35 6, Lisht,36 settlement of Lisht/North,37 Kom Rabia,38 Kahun,39 Qasr el-Sagha,40 and Mirgissa.41 2. Marl C Medium Sized Jars (Fig. 10) These jars can be divided into handmade and wheelmade vessels. The two examples presented here are all wheelmade (Bader type 36b42), the range of diameter lies normally between 6 and 12 cm, one vessel here measures 14,5 cm. Parallels can be found at Lisht North,43 Lahun,44 Qasr es Sagha,45 Quila el-Dabba,46 Serabit el-Khadim47 and Elephantine.48
35
36 37 38 39
40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
MORGAN 1895, 41 fig. 83; DO. ARNOLD 1982a, fig. 8.3, 8.5. DO. ARNOLD 1988, 134, fig. 74.84.51, 84.60. BADER 2001, 161, fn. 801. BADER 2001, 161. PETRIE 1890, pl. XIV.16, 17; BOURRIAU, QUIRKE 1998, 62–64, fig. 1.1–3. BADER 2001, 161, fn. 803. VILA 1963, fig. 13.14. BADER 2001, 118ff. BADER 2001, 161, fn. 801. BOURRIAU 1981, 66, no. 119. D. and DO. ARNOLD 1979, 34, fig. 19.7. DO. ARNOLD 1982b, 45, 55, pl. 11.n, 62G. BOURRIAU 1996, fig. 4.10. PILGRIM 1996, 338, fig. 150.f; BADER 2003, fn. 136. DE
The Colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its Chronological Implications
Fig. 4 Hemispherical cups
87
88
Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 5 Large Nile C2 dishes with direct rims and rounded bases
Fig. 6 Nile C2 footed bowls
The Colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its Chronological Implications
Fig. 7 Beer jars
3. Marl C Slender Jars with Ribbed Necks (Fig. 11) Within the marl slender jars (Bader Typ 46)49 two groups can be distinguished:50 the earlier group (Kopetzky type 1) occurs in the late 12th Dynasty (strata H to G/4), the distance between the rim and the first rill is much shorter then with the later versions. By the 13th Dynasty (G/4 to E/3) they have become larger and cruder (type 2), the lip on these vessels longer. The earliest jars tend to be made of Marl C compact which is is not the case in the examples presented here. Parallels have been found in Northern Sinai,51 Memphis,52 Dahshur,53 Lisht,54 Hawara,55 Kahun,56 Lahun,57 Harageh,58 Qasr el-Sagha59 and Serabit el-Khadim.60 EGYPTIAN OR MBII-SHAPES Nile E-2 Holemouth Cooking Pots (Fig. 12) Holemouth cooking pots with round bases, and rolled or folded rims, appear for the first time in the earlier 12th dynasty (stratum e/3) settlement contexts at cEzbet Rushdi in stratum e/3, then made of local Nile clay.61 Few imports made from Levantine fabric are known at Tell el-Dabca,62 most examples are locally made from Nile clay E2, only in stratum F mica is added sometimes, whether for the firing or to imitate an import remains unclear.
49 50 51 52 53
54 55 56 57 58
BADER 2001, 129–145, typ 46. BIETAK 1991b, 37, fig. 8. OREN 1997, 276, fig. 8.23 no. 16. BADER 2001, 129. DE MORGAN 1895, 74, fig. 164; DO. ARNOLD 1982a, 32 fig. 8 nos. 10, 12. DO. ARNOLD, F. ARNOLD, S. ALLEN 1995, 23 fig. 5.8. PETRIE, MACKAY, WAINWRIGHT 1912, pl. xxxv.105. PETRIE 1890, pl. xii.11 PETRIE, BRUNTON, MURRAY 1923, pl. lvii.46M2–3. ENGELBACH 1923, pl. xxxviii.46M.
89
The rim diameter of these holemouth cooking pots varies from around 12–14 cm to over 50 cm, the average range between 25–35 cm. All the examples shown here are covered in a white slip. Parallels are found both in the Levant during the Middle Bronze Age and within Egypt.63 It is a matter of debate, however, as to whether this type of vessel was developed within Egypt, or whether it copies Middle Bronze shapes. David Aston has recently suggested an independent development within both the Egyptian and Canaanite worlds.64 Another possibility would suggest that the shape had entered the Egyptian repertoire very early (before the settlement at Rushdi) and by then was already imitated in Egyptian clay. The earliest examples from the site of Ezbet Rushdi seem to hint at an Egyptian origin. MB II-SHAPES 1. Large Storage Jars (Amphoren) (Fig. 13) The large storage jars imported from the Levant are found in large number at Tell el-Dabca. Most of them are attached with strap handles on both sides. In earlier periods, these jars are made from a bigger variation of fabrics than in the Second Intermediate Period.65 Among the examples presented in this paper two are made of fabric IV.1 (Fig. 11.1. und 2) and two of fabric IV.2 (Fig. 11.3 and 4). All are wheelmade and the exterior surface was smoothed. Three rims are everted and folded over (Fig. 11.2–4), one rim is propably incurved and slightly thickened (Fig. 11.1). 2. Handmade Flat-Bottomed Straight-Sided Cooking Pots (Fig. 14) This group of vessels appears very rarely in Tell elDabca and exclusively in MBIIA-layers. In Stra-
59
60 61 62 63 64 65
GINTER et al. 1982, 124, fig. 16.7–13; DAGNAN–GINTER et al. 1984, 81 fig. 33.1–2; SLIWA 1988, 208, fig. 23, 211 fig. 35.1–2. BOURRIAU 1996, 22–23, fig. 2.10. CZERNY 2002, 138, fig. 23 ASTON 2004, 165, group 157. For the parallels s. ASTON 2002, 46–47. ASTON 2002, 46. A detailed study on the fabric of this group is being done by K. Kopetzky; for the moment s. BIETAK 1991a, 328–9.
90
Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 8 Large storage jars (zîrs)
The Colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its Chronological Implications
91
Fig. 9 Potmarks on Marl C jars
Fig. 10 Marl C medium sized jars
tum F (Fig. 2) where many of them can already be considered as residual sherds. Similar vessels have been found in the Eastern Delta, Northern Sinai and Palestine.66 Only one example is definitly made of Levantine clay, the others are produced in Nile E3.67 This fabric group was attributed by P. Mc. Govern to a Nile clay by neutron activation.68 However, as A. Pape has pointed out69 and D. Aston has assumed on basis of Papes research,70 the basaltic inclusions in the Nile E3 do not imply a normal local production. Pape suggests an origin in the
Fig. 11 Marl C slender jars with ribbed necks
66
67
Parallels, although mostly from the MBIIB-period s. ASTON 2002, 46. For Ashkelon s. STAGER 2002, 355, fig. 7. ASTON 2004.
68 69 70
MC GOVERN 2000, 123. PAPE 1991, 65–66. ASTON 2002, 46.
92
Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 12 Holemouth cooking pots
Fig. 13 Large storage jars
Hauran Region east of the Golan Heights,71 Oren would like to seek the origin in the Northern Sinai.72 In Karin Kopetzky’s and my opinion, this group seems consists of several different fabrics which come from different sites.73 A connection with a nomadic culture74 seems unlikely as many examples of these vessels were found in urban contexts. Recently, Stager has suggested a functional difference for the contemporary appearance of the different types of cooking pots.75
The earliest settlement layer in A/II can be dated to the late 12th Dynasty/ later MBIIA-period (Fig. 2). In contrast to other areas of the town like F/I and A/IV which had by then been densely settled this part may be considered as an Eastern suburb, the starting point of a development which in the following periods culminated into the sacral temple precinct, one of the major religious centers of Avaris.
71
74
72 73
PAPE 1991, 66 no. 41. OREN 1997, 278, fig. 8.25 nos. 4–13. The material is currently being analyzed by A. Cohen Weinberger.
CONCLUSIONS
74
BIETAK 1991b, 31; HOLLADAY 1982, 190; idem 1997, 190. STAGER 2002, 355.
The Colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its Chronological Implications
93
Fig. 14 Handmade flat bottomed straight sided cooking pots
Bibliography ALLEN S.J.,
ASTON, D.A.
1998
2002
Ceramic Imports at Tell el-Dabca during the Middle Bronze IIA, 43–88, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant, Proceedings of an International Conference on MBIIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001, CChEM 3, Vienna.
2004
Tell el-Dabca XII. A Corpus of the Late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period Pottery, Part I. Introduction and Pottery of the Late Middle Kingdom, Part II. Pottery of the Hyksos Period and Conclusions, UZK 22, Vienna.
Queen’s Ware: Royal Funerary Pottery in the Middle Kingdom, 39–48, in C.J. EYRE (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, OLA 82, Leuven.
ARNOLD, DO. 1966
Die Keramik, MDAIK 21, 86–94.
1968
Keramikbeispiele aus den Gräbern der frühen 11. Dynastie von El-Tarif, MDAIK 23, 38–67.
1972
Weiteres zur Keramik von El-Tarif, MDAIK 28, 33–54.
1982a Keramikbearbeitung in Dahschur, 1976–1981, MDAIK 38, 25–65.
BADER, B. 2001
Tell el-Dabca XIII. Typologie und Chronologie der Mergel C-Ton Keramik. Materialien zum Binnenhandel des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, UZK 19, Vienna.
2003
A Concise Guide to Marl C-Pottery, Ä&L 12, 29–54.
1982b Keramik, 42–56, in: A. FAKHRY, Denkmäler der Oase Dachla, Mainz am Rhein. 1988
The Pottery, 106–146 in: D. ARNOLD, The Pyramid of Senwosret I. The South Cemeteries of Lisht I, MMA, New York.
ARNOLD, D., and ARNOLD, DO. 1979
Der Tempel Qasr el-Sagha, Mainz am Rhein.
ARNOLD, DO., ARNOLD, F., and ALLEN, S. 1995
Canaanite Imports at Lisht, the Middle Kingdom Capital of Egypt, Ä&L 5, 13–32.
BIETAK, M. 1986
Avaris and Piramesse, Archeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta. Proceedings of the British Academy 65 (1979). 2. erweiterte Aufl., Oxford.
1991a Tell el- Dabca V, Ein Friedhofsbezirk der Mittleren Bronzezeitkultur mit Totentempel und Siedlungsschichten, unter Mitarbeit von C. Mlinar und A. Schwab, UZK 8, Vienna.
94
Irene Forstner-Müller
1991b Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age, BASOR 282, 28–72. BOURRIAU, J.
el-Dabca anhand der Keramik, unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Vienna. LOYRETTE, A.M., NASR, M. and BASSIOUNI, S.B.
Gacab.
1981
Umm el
1996
Observations on the Pottery from Serabit elKhadim, CRIPEL 18, 19–32.
Pottery from the Nile Valley, Cambridge.
1993–94 Une tombe en bordure des greniers nord du Ramesseum, Memnonia 4–5, 115–27. MACE, A.C. and WINLOCK, H.E.
BOURRIAU, J., and QUIRKE, S.G.J.
1916
1998
MCGOVERN, P.E.
The late Middle Kingdom ceramic repertoire in word and object, 60–83, in: S.G.J. QUIRKE (ed.), Lahun Studies, Malden.
2000
BRUNTON, G. 1920
Lahun, BSAE 27, London.
CZERNY, E. 2002
Egyptian Pottery from Tell elDabca as a Context for Early MBIIA Painted Ware, 133–142, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant. Proceedings of an International Conference on MBIIA Ceramic Material in Vienna. 24th–26th of January 2001, CChEM 3, Vienna. Excavations in the Region of Qasr el-Sagha, 1981. Contribution to the Neolithic Period, Middle Kingdom Settlement and Chronological Sequences in the Northern Fayoum Desert, MDAIK 40, 33–102.
EMERY, W.B., SMITH, H.S. and MILLARD, A. 1979
The Fortress of Buhen, The Archaeological Report, EES Excav.Mem. 49, London.
ENGELBACH, R.E. 1915
Riqqeh and Memphis VI , BSAE 25, London.
1923
Harageh, BSAE 28, London.
The Foreign Relations of the “Hyksos”. A Neutron Activation Study of Middle Bronze Age Pottery from the Eastern Mediterranean, BAR IS 888, Oxford.
MOND, R. and MYERS, O.H. 1937 DE
The Cemeteries of Armant I, EES Excav.Mem. 42, London.
MORGAN, J.
1895
Fouilles à Dahchour, Mars–Juin 1894, Vienna.
OREN, E.D. 1997
DAGNAN-GINTER, A., et al. 1984
The Tomb of Senebtisi at Lisht, New York.
The “Kingdom of Sharuhen” and the Hyksos Kingdom, 253–83, in: E.D. OREN (ed.), The Hyksos, New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, University Museum Symposium Series 8, University Museum Monograph 96, Philadelphia.
PAPE, A. 1991
Keramik – eine schwierige Quelle: Interdisziplinäre Methoden ihrer Erforschung, ZÄS 118, 54–68
PEET, T.E. and LOAT, W.L.S. 1913
The Cemeteries of Abydos III, EEF Excav.Mem. 35, London.
PETRIE, W.M.F.
FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I.
1890
Kahun, Gurob and Hawara, London.
2001
1903
Abydos II, EEF Excav.Mem. 24, London.
1909
Qurneh, BSAE 16, London.
Vorbericht der Grabung im Areal A/II in Tell elDabca, Ä&L 11, 197–220.
in print Tell el-Dabca XVI. Die Gräber des Areals A/II von Tell elDabca. UZK 27, Vienna. GINTER, B,. et al. 1982
El-Târif und Qasr el-Sagha. Forschungen zur Siedlungsgeschichte des Neolithikums, der Frühdynastischen Epoche und des Mittleren Reiches, MDAIK 38, 97–130.
HOLLADAY, J. 1982
1997
Cities of the Delta III: Tell el-Maskhuta. Preliminary Report on the Wadi Tumilat Project 1978–1979. With a contribution by D.B. Redford, Malibu. The Eastern Nile Delta During the Hyksos and Pre-Hyksos Periods: Toward a Systemic/Socioeconomic Understanding, 183–252, in: E.D. OREN (ed.), The Hyksos – New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, University Museum Monograph 96, Philadelphia.
PETRIE W.M.F., BRUNTON, G. and MURRAY, M.A. 1923
PETRIE W.M.F., WAINWRIGHT, G.A. and MACKAY, E 1912 VON
New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites, The Pottery, Lund.
KOPETZKY, K. 1993
Datierung der Gräber der Grabungsflache F/I von Tell
The Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuneh, BSAE 21, London.
PILGRIM, C.
1996
Elephantine XVIII. Untersuchungen in der Stadt des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, AV 91, Mainz.
SEILER, A. 2005
Tradition & Wandel. Die Keramik als Spiegel der Kulturentwicklung Thebens in der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, SDAIK 32, Mainz.
SLIWA, J. 1988
HOLTHOER, R. 1977
Lahun II, BSAE 33, London.
Studies on the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period Settlements in 1979–1985, Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses 36, 189–216.
STAGER, L.E. 2002
The MBIIA Ceramic Sequence at Tel Ashkelon and Its Implications for the “Port Power” Model of
The Colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its Chronological Implications
Trade, 353–362, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant, Proceedings of an International Vonference on MBIIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001, CChEM 3, Vienna. SZAFRANSKI, Z. 1998
Seriation and Aperture Index 2 of the Beer Bottles from Tell el-Dabca, Ä&L 7, 95–119.
VILA, A. 1963
Askut in Nubia, The Economics and Ideology of Egyptian Imperialism in the Second Millennium B.C., Studies in Egyptology, London.
Un Dépot de Textes d’Envoutement au Moyen Empire, Journal des Sauvantes 153, 135–160.
WEGNER, J.W. 1996
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, 249–79.
2001
The Town of Wah-sut at South Abydos: 1999 Excavations, MDAIK 57, 281–308.
TYSON SMITH, S. 1995
95
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY 2007 AT TELL EL-DABcA By Irene Forstner-Müller,* Tomasz Herbich,** Wolfgang Müller,*** Chrisitan Schweitzer,**** and Michael Weissl *****
1. MAGNETOMETER SURVEY The survey was undertaken in May 2007 at the ideal time of year for such an endeavour in the Egyptian Nile Delta.1 As in former years,2 two different configurations of magnetometers were used: a Fluxgate Magnetometer operated by Tomasz Herbich and a Caesium Magnetometer operated by Christian Schweitzer. Due to the fact that the Tell el-Dabca survey is now evolving from the purely prospective to the investigative stage, the two magnetometers were applied complementary to a higher extent than before. Most areas were investigated with both methods in order to benefit from their respective advantages. The following parts have been investigated (for an over-all map see FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2007, fig.1): 1. The area between the palace of the 18th Dynasty and the modern village of Khatacna 2. In area A/II especially the precinct of the Temple of Sutech 3. The area to the immediate west of the modern Didamun Canal in the North of cEzbet Helmi. Khatacna North (Fig. 1) The area investigated this season is positioned south of the huge Tuthmoside palace district.3 Modern features include: in the eastern part, large pits where soil was retrieved (most probably to be used as building material), power poles (both the electromagnetic field emitted by the power line and the metal of the pole itself heavily interfering with the measurement), low ridges and small channels marking the field borders
(clearly depicted in the geophysical map and thus obscuring older features deeper in the ground) and finally subterranean constructions belonging to a 100 years-old drainage system. This old water supply system (tambur), still connected to the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, was replaced by the main Samacna-Didamun canal by the end of the 19th century.4 It is already depicted on the maps of the Survey of Egypt dating to 1904.5 These modern remains of the mostly silted up Pelusiac branch of the Nile are now known as Moses Canal, Faqus Canal or the Old Canal among the local population. The orientation of the excavated and prospected structures indicates that the original course of the river-branch differed significantly from these remains. Just like at Memphis, a shift of the river bed to the east may have destroyed the old topography and any archaeology connected to it.6 Between the southern limit of the Tuthmoside Palace district and the above mentioned modern track a densely settled part of a settlement emerges. The major orientation of the buildings is north-east – south-west; they are therefore not aligned along the main river but along a small canal (Canal 1) which runs from the Pelusiac branch to the southwest in a north-easterly direction probably to the palace found in Area F/II (see fn. 22). This area is significantly disturbed by the modern Didamun canal and farming activity. An assumed second canal (Canal 2), partly obscured by the modern feature of a path, would also run from the Pelusiac branch of the Nile in a north-west to south-easterly direction. Both canals existed for a long time because no buildings were
*
Austrian Archaeological Institut, Cairo-branch Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences *** Swiss Institute for Architectural and Archaeological Research for Ancient Egypt **** Schweitzer-GPI, Prospection and Interpretation ***** Vienna 1 The magnetometer work was done by Christian Schweitzer and Tomasz Herbich, the surveying and mapping by Anne-Catherine Escher, Astrid Hassler and **
2
3 4 5 6
especially Michael Weissl who not only supervised the survey but also provided us – as usual in his meticulous way – with digital maps. For preparing the figures I would like to thank Nicola Math. FORSTNER-MÜLLER et al. 2004; FORSTNER-MÜLLER/ MÜLLER 2006. Recently BIETAK/FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2005. HABACHI 2001, 73. Personal communication M. Bietak. JEFFREYS/MALEK 1988, 23.
98
Irene Forstner-Müller, Tomasz Herbich, Wolfgang Müller, Christian Schweitzer and Michael Weissl
Fig. 1 Khatacna North, combined measurements with Fluxgate Magnetometer and Caesium Magnetometer (plan M. Weissl, drawing N. Math)
erected on top of them in other prospected areas, like cEzbet Rushdi South.7 The settlement was organized according to these topographical features and the ensuing development of the whole urban area.8 Due to the excellent quality of the geophysical maps produced by the teams, architectural features of the buildings can be studied in great detail.
Among the buildings, two large complexes are of special interest:
7
8
FORSTNER-MÜLLER et al. 2004, fig. 5.
Part A This large anomaly, covering the central part of the measured area, presumably consists of several buildings, at least two, built on top of each other. The major drawback of the method, name-
This is very typical for a non-planned settlement s. also Piramesse, PUSCH/BECKER/FASSBENDER 1999, figs. 1 and 2.
Geophysical Survey 2007 at Tell el-Dabca
99
ly that no information concerning the depth of detected structures is given, makes it impossible to analyse the exact chronological sequence of these buildings. Suffice it to say that human (building-) activity took place over a very long time span. A difference in building materials may give some additional hints as the clearly depicted building in the northernmost part of the area shows a whitish anomaly, indicating the use of low-magnetic building materials (sandy mudbricks), often of an earlier date than the highly magnetic mud-bricks used for the presumably later phases of the complex. Part B The size of this complex is at least 52 × 72 metres. Its eastern and southern limits were destroyed by modern agriculture and the Didamun Canal. An approximately 4 m wide enclosure wall separates the precinct from the rest of the town. Its light colour again points to sandy mud-bricks used as building material. As to the inner organization of the complex, several narrow walls divide the space into more or less regular squares. Without intrusive archaeological methods it is impossible to decide whether they resemble courtyards or just large rooms. Fig. 2 Trench H/VI-bb/22, settlement layers of the late Second Intermediate Period
Part C Kilns In the northwestern part of this year’s survey a group of at least 10 circular anomalies of equal size (2,5 m in diameter) was detected. Similar features appearing on the geophysical map produced by Tomasz Herbich in Buto were excavated and found to be caused by pottery kilns.9 If the same interpretation is feasible for Tell el-Dabca, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the industrial area was situated to the south of the official government district. Due to the predominant wind direction (North), at least the most prestigious parts of the city had clean air and were still within a reasonable distance to important production centres. Conclusion In Khatacna-North, a new part of the town, probably an administrative quarter of Avaris, was investigated. The large multi-phase buildings with industrial installations nearby, the vicinity of the
9
HARTUNG/HERBICH 2004, 17; BALLET 2004.
palaces in areas H and F and the topographical situation next to the main transportation routes are good reasons for such an interpretation. The key question is whether this settlement belongs to the New Kingdom Palace district or is part of the Hyksos town. The northern sector of the surveyed area was excavated in 2007.10 (Figs. 2, 3) In a small trench (H/VI-bb/22) the first intact layers produced comprised pits containing Late Period material followed by debris dating to the New Kingdom (fecundity figurines, scarabs). The first discernible architecture encountered, however, were houses with burials, a living quarter which can be dated to the later Second Intermediate Period. After the abandonment of the settlement, the walls of the houses stood erect for some time in ruins. In spite of the fact that the result of this excavation might imply that the structures in the
10
Spring season 2007, BIETAK/FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2007, 38, figs. 3–6.
100 Irene Forstner-Müller, Tomasz Herbich, Wolfgang Müller, Christian Schweitzer and Michael Weissl
Fig. 3 Southern section of trench H/VI-bb/22
geophysical map are part of the Second Intermediate Period-town, intrusive archaeological methods have yet to be applied in Khatacna-North itself in order to verify this hypothesis. The settlement pattern changes in the immediate vicinity of the village of Khatacna and further to the south. Limited excavations, conducted in 1979, documented burials and small houses, presumably living quarters of the non-elite. The associated material was dated to Dynasty 13.11 Any potentially later layers had been destroyed by various human activity.
Area A is the only part of the site where at least remains of the original Tell still exist. In the 19th century, the elevated area was much more extensive:12 the visitor could walk on the Tell from modern Tell el-Dabca to Qantir. The north-south extension of the ruin-field measured at least 2 km.13 Due to heavy – mostly anthropogenic – ero-
sion only in area A younger layers, dug off elsewhere, are to be expected. The prominent feature of A/II is the temple precinct of the god Sutech, one of the main temples of the city of Avaris and Piramesse.14 Along this temenos the buildings found on the geophysical map of the area are aligned15, at least the enclosure wall, probably as a ruin, and still standing. The orientation of the structures is more or less east-west or north-south. Dimensions of these buildings vary from 38 × 24 m to 14 × 11 m. The smaller ones are almost square. Mud-bricks (darker grey) as well as sandy mud-bricks (lighter grey) were used as building material. Similar structures are known from Buto.16 Late period remains have been discovered all over Tell el-Dabca: in area A/II architectural remains,17 in cEzbet Helmi a pipeline made of clay18 and several storage pits in cEzbet Helmi19 and F/II.20 This surprisingly intensive buildingactivity, long after the abandonment of Piramesse
11
17
A/II (Fig. 4)
12 13 14 15 16
Personal communication M. Bietak. HABACHI 2001, 73. GRIFFITH 1888. See BIETAK/FORSTNER-MÜLLER in prep. S. also FORSTNER-MÜLLER/MÜLLER 2006, 79, fig. 2. HARTUNG/HERBICH 2004, especially p. 16.
18 19 20
BIETAK 1979, 271, fig. 18. Then the buildings outside of the Sutech temple precinct were erroneously attributed to the Ramesside Period. BIETAK/DORNER/JANOSI 2001, 103–104, fig. 54a–c. Unpublished. BIETAK/FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2006.
nT
0 40 - unfiltered magnetogram -
-30
-15
0
15
30
Tell el-Dabca 2007: Tell A
0
40
80
160
240
280 Irene Forstner-Müller, Astrid Hassler,Tomash Herbich; Anne-Catherine Escher, Christian Schweitzer, Michael Weissl, Michal Kurzyk, David Swiech Caesium Magnetometer: Mohammed Mutwalli
Tell el-Dabca 2007: magnetometer prospection, May 12th–23rd 2007
200
Fig. 4 Late Period buildings in area A, Caesium Magnetometer image
120
320
360
0 Caesium Magnetometer SM-4/4G-'special' 'Duo-Sensor' arrangement Schweitzer-GPI, May 2007
m
40
80
360
80
m
120
320
120
280
160
240
160
200
200
160
200
120
m
80
m
40 240
0
240
Geophysical Survey 2007 at Tell el-Dabca 101
102 Irene Forstner-Müller, Tomasz Herbich, Wolfgang Müller, Christian Schweitzer and Michael Weissl 0
20
40
60
80
100
m 120
120
120
m
m
100
100
80
80
60
60 nT
40
40 nT
20 15 10 5 0 –5 –10 –15
20
20
0
0 0
20
40
60
80
100
m
120
Tell el-Dabca 2007: cEzbet Helmi Northeast - unfiltered magnetogram Tell el-Dabca 2007: magnetometer prospection, May 12th–23rd 2007 Irene Forstner-Müller, Astrid Hassler,Tomash Herbich; Anne-Catherine Escher, Christian Schweitzer, Michael Weissl, Michal Kurzyk, David Swiech Caesium Magnetometer: Mohammed Mutwalli
Caesium Magnetometer SM-4/4G-'special' 'Duo-Sensor' arrangement Schweitzer-GPI, May 2007
measured area in 2007: 0,98 ha
Fig. 5 Helmi North, eastern shore of the Pelusiac Branch of the Nile, caesium magnetometer image
and the displacement of the capital to other cities like Tanis, Sais or Mendes, is still rather enigmatic and has to be studied in more detail. cEzbet
Helmi North East (Fig. 5)
Another investigation was done to the north-east of cEzbet Helmi where the course of the Pelusiac
21
DORNER 1999, map 1.
branch of the Nile was already detected by a geomorphological survey.21 The magnetometry survey confirmed this analysis. The river bank is clearly visible, followed to the east by an area between river and settlement without discernible anthropogenic anomalies that was temporarily flooded during the inundation period.
Geophysical Survey 2007 at Tell el-Dabca 103
Fig. 6 GPR measurement in area A/II, Erol Bayirli (right) and Ibrahim Mohamed (left) (photo: S. Seren)
2. GROUND PENETRATING RADAR During the spring season 2007 (May 8th–13th 2007) Ground Penetrating Radar measurements were undertaken in cooperation with the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in Vienna (S. Sirri Seren, assisted by Erol Bayirli). This method of geophysical survey had hitherto not been applied in Tell el-Dab‘a. The device, a „PulseEkko PRO“, produced by „Sensors and Software“ was used with 500 and 250 MHz antennae. The equipment was pulled on a slide (Fig. 6). Five areas were investigated (Fig. 7): AB: on the Tell area A/II CD: within the palace of the 15. Dynasty (F/II)22 EF: in the Second Intermediate Period-town GH: in the temple precinct of Sutech I: along the huge feature, most probably a city wall which separates the Middle Kingdom town of cEzbet Rushdi from the Second Intermediate Period settlement.
22
All these areas had already been investigated by geomagnetry. It was hoped that GPR would provide information concerning the depth of the archaeological features and detect special non magnetic materials like limestone. For the areas AB and GH, both in the vicinity of or in the temple precinct itself, the aim was to detect any limestone blocks still in situ. Area EF and I are densely settled urban quarters of the town, the images which had been given by magnetometry were confusing as many layers were positioned on top of each other. The hope was that this complicated stratigraphy could be better understood by GPR. The results were unconvincing (Fig. 8) and mostly of a (also important) negative nature as since almost no stone structures were detected. GPR is not an ideal prospecting method in the area of Tell el-Dabca. The radar was hardly able to penetrate the soil, most probably because of its humidity, the images produced were nondistinctive.
For this palace s. BIETAK/FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2006; BIETAK/FORSTNER-MÜLLER/HERBICH 2006.
Fig. 7 Areas of Tell el-Dabca measured with GPR (plan M. Weissl, drawing N. Math)
104 Irene Forstner-Müller, Tomasz Herbich, Wolfgang Müller, Christian Schweitzer and Michael Weissl
Geophysical Survey 2007 at Tell el-Dabca 105
Fig. 8 Area AB, GPR measurement (levels 50–60 cm beneath the surface)
Acknowledgements This survey was part of the research activity of the Austrian Archaeological Institute and the Austrian Science Fund (“Thutmosidenpalast”). Wolfgang Müller is indebted to the Swiss Institute for Architectural and Archaeological Research for Ancient Egypt for leave of absence in order to carry out this work.
106 Irene Forstner-Müller, Tomasz Herbich, Wolfgang Müller, Christian Schweitzer and Michael Weissl Bibliography BALLET, P.
DORNER, J.
2004
1999
The Graecoroman Pottery Workshops of Buto, Egyptian Archaeology 24, 18–19.
BIETAK, M. 1979
Avaris and Piramesse: Archaeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta, Proceedings of the British Academy 65, London.
BIETAK, M., DORNER, J., and JÁNOSI, P. 2001
Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris, Vorbericht Tell el-Dabca/cEzbet Helmi 1993–2000, mit einem Beitrag von A. VON DEN DRIESCH, E&L 11, 27–129.
BIETAK, M., and FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I. 2005
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht für Herbst 2004 und Frühjahr 2005, E&L 15, 65–100.
2007
The Colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its chronological implications, E&L 17, 83–95.
FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., MÜLLER, W., SCHWEITZER, CH., and WEISSL, M. 2004
Preliminary Report on the Geophysical Survey at Rushdi/ Tell el- Dabca in spring 2004, E&L 14, 101–109.
cEzbet
FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., and MÜLLER, W. 2006
Neueste Ergebnisse des Magnetometersurveys während der Frühjahrskampagne 2006 in Tell elDabca/Qantir, Ä&L 16, 79–82.
GRIFFITH, F.LL.
2006
Eine palatiale Anlage der frühen Hyksoszeit (Areal F/II). Vorläufige Ergebnisse der Grabungskampagne 2006 in Tell el-Dabca, E&L 16, 63–78.
1888
2007
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht für das Frühjahr 2007, Ä&L 17, 33–58.
2001
in prep. The Topography of Avaris and Pi-Ramesse in the Ramesside Period, in: S. SNAPE et al. (eds.), in preparation.
Die Topographie von Piramesse, E&L 9, 77–83.
FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I.
VI. Gemaiyemi, in Nebeshe (Am) and Defenneh (Tahpanes), EEF Excavation Memoirs 4, London.
HABACHI, L. Tell el-Dabca I. Tell el-Dabca and Qantir. The site and its connection with Avaris and Piramesse. Aus dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von E.-M. ENGEL, unter der Mitarbeit von P. JÁNOSI, und C. MLINAR, UZK 2, Vienna.
HARTUNG, U. and HERBICH, T.
BIETAK, M., FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., SCHWEITZER, CH., and HERBICH, T.
2004
2006
JEFFREYS, D., and MALEK, J.
Discovery of a New Palatial Complex in Tell elDabca in the Delta: Geophysical Survey and Preliminary Archaeological Verification, 119–126, in: Z. HAWASS, J. RICHARDS, (eds.) The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt, essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor, Cairo.
1988
Geophysical Investigations at Buto (Tell elFarain), Egyptian Archaeology 24, 14–17. Memphis 1986, 1987, JEA 74, 15–29.
PUSCH, E.B., BECKER, H., and FASSBINDER, J. 1999
Wohnen und Leben oder: weitere Schritte zu einem Stadtplan der Ramses-Stadt? E&L 9, 155–170.
ÄGYPTISCHE SKARABÄEN AUF KRETA UND IHRE BEDEUTUNG FÜR DIE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGIE DER MINOISCHEN ALTPALASTZEIT (MM IB–MM IIB) Von Felix Höflmayer
EINLEITUNG Auf Kreta gefundene ägyptische Skarabäen wurden für die Erstellung einer absoluten Chronologie der minoischen Altpalastzeit bis heute in der Regel unterschätzt. Mehrere Gründe mögen hierfür ausschlaggebend sein: Die Problematik der Datierung, für Nicht-Spezialisten oft nur schwer zu überblicken, komplizierte Typologien1 und methodische Diskussionen2 mögen Gründe sein, warum zahlreiche Forscher, deren Tätigkeit auf die ägäische Vorgeschichte konzentriert ist, die chronologische Relevanz ägyptischer Skarabäen nur wenig beachtet haben. Auch die nicht immer klare Differenzierung zwischen ägyptischem Produkt und ägäischem Imitat trug dazu bei, dass chronologische Schlussfolgerungen nur selten auf Skarabäen aufgebaut wurden.3 Umgekehrt haben sich auch nur selten Ägyptologen mit diesen Artefakten auseinandergesetzt, da die ägyptischen Funde in der ägäischen Bronzezeit nur ein Randgebiet der ägyptologischen Forschung darstellen und es nur wenige Forscher mit einer intimen Kenntnis sowohl der ägäischen als auch der ägyptischen Archäologie gibt.4 Außerdem wurden bei einigen Skarabäen von ägyptologischer Seite so stark divergierende Angaben gemacht, dass bei ägäischen Prähistorikern fast der Eindruck entstehen musste, dass diese Objekte für chronologische Fragen keinerlei Nutzen hätten.5 Aber auch die Tatsache, dass die meisten Skarabäen aus Gräbern stammen, welche mehrere Generationen hindurch benutzt wurden und
1
2 3
4
5
Siehe z.B. die Typologien in WARD 1978; TUFNELL 1984; WARD & DEVER 1994. Siehe dazu BEN-TOR 2006, 77–78. P. YULE 1983, 359 schrieb dazu: „(…) many in fact are Minoan and offer little help in placing Aegean chronology on a sounder footing.“ Die Arbeiten J. Phillips’ auf diesem Gebiet stellen eine bemerkenswerte Ausnahme dar: Siehe vor allem PHILLIPS 1990 und 1991. So betonte auch G. Walberg, dass die möglichen Datierungen für die Skarabäen aus Lebena und Knossos zu
somit der exakte Zeitpunkt des Importes notwendigerweise im Dunkeln blieb oder – noch gravierender – der subjektiven Einschätzung des Interpreten unterlag, hat sicher nicht dazu beigetragen die chronologische Relevanz dieser Fundgattung zu würdigen. Fritz Schachermeyr betonte: „ … doch lässt sich dieses Material für eine genauere Chronologie nicht verwerten, da es entweder aus längere Zeit hindurch belegten Gräbern oder aber aus unkontrollierten Zufallsfunden stammt.“6 Tatsächlich stammen von den zehn hier zu besprechenden Skarabäen nur zwei aus Siedlungskontexten (aus Poros und aus Knossos) und von den restlichen acht, welche in ihrer großen Mehrheit aus Grabkontexten stammen, können wiederum nur zwei exakt einer relativchronologischen Phase zugeordnet werden (Lebena Grab IIa und Archanes Grabbau 7). Somit beruhte die absolute Chronologie der Altpalastzeit und die damit zusammenhängende Synchronisierung mit der ägyptischen Geschichte lange Zeit hauptsächlich auf den Funden minoischer Keramik in Ägypten und der Levante. Nachdem eine äußerst niedrige Chronologie, welche vor allem von Paul Åström vertreten wurde7 und dem Wolfgang Helck gefolgt ist,8 von William Ward9 und anderen zurückgewiesen worden ist, haben Peter Warren und später Gerald Cadogan in zwei Artikeln die Synchronisierung der Altpalastzeit mit Ägypten und die Argumente für die absolute Chronologie auf eine neue Grundlage gestellt.10 Eine umfassende und kritische Analyse der zu dieser Zeit bekannten ägyptischen Kontexte mit importierter minoischer
6 7 8 9 10
sehr variieren: WALBERG 1991, 116. Beispielsweise wurde der Skarabäus aus Grab I von Lebena von D. Ben-Tor in das frühe Mittlere Reich und von O. Keel und E. Kyriakides in die frühe 18. Dynastie datiert, siehe unten. SCHACHERMEYR 1964, 45. ÅSTRÖM 1961/62; ÅSTRÖM 1978; ÅSTRÖM 1984. HELCK 1976, 111–113; HELCK 1995, 37–40. WARD 1981. WARREN 1980; CADOGAN 1983.
108 Felix Höflmayer Keramik von Barry Kemp und Robert Merrillees hat aber gezeigt, dass die meisten dieser für die Synchronisierung herangezogenen Kontexte in Ägypten problematisch sind11 und in einem jüngst erschienenen Artikel hat Robert Merrillees diese kritische Analyse auch auf die minoischen Funde in der Levante angewandt und dargelegt, dass chronologisch relevante klare Befunde äußerst selten sind.12 So kam Sturt Manning zu dem Schluss: „Unfortunately, none of the existing contexts in Egypt are particularly precise, and the dating of both the scarabs, and/or the find contexts, in Crete are equally problematic.“13 Es ist evident, dass für die Synchronisierung der Altpalastzeit nur sehr wenig Material vorhanden ist aus dem Schlüsse gezogen werden können. Während für die mykenische Zeit genügend Keramik in die Levante und nach Ägypten exportiert worden ist und die allgemeine Datierung vor allem der späteren Phasen (ab SH IIB) aufgrund der Masse an publiziertem Material aus halbwegs guten Kontexten von niemandem ernsthaft bezweifelt wird,14 ist es gerade die geringe Anzahl der während der Altpalastzeit nach Ägypten exportierten Gefäße, welche zu großen Diskrepanzen in der Datierung der relativchronologischen Phasen führt. Im Grunde hängt die Problematik damit zusammen, dass bei einer genügend großen Anzahl von Objekten niemand mehr ernsthaft die Gleichzeitigkeit von Import und Kontext in Frage stellt, während bei Einzelfunden (deren Kontexte aufgrund von frühen Ausgrabungen noch dazu viele Fragen offenlassen), durchaus mit Erbstücken (vor allem in Grabkontexten) argumentiert werden kann, wodurch jede Art von chronologischer Schlussfolgerung schwierig wird. Barry Kemp und Robert Merrillees haben dieses Problem sehr treffend in einer Abbildung ausgedrückt (Abb. 1): Vier verschiedene Möglichkeiten eines Austausches sind vom chronologischen Standpunkt aus gesehen denkbar. Kultur A exportiert ein Produkt, welches einer relativchronologischen Phase zugeordnet werden kann in Kultur B, wo es in einer Phase niedergelegt wird, welche zeitgleich mit jener von Kultur A ist. Ein zweiter möglicher Fall ist ähnlich gelagert, allerdings beginnt
11 12 13 14
KEMP & MERRILLEES 1980. MERRILLEES 2003. MANNING 1999, 76. Für den teilweise umstrittenen Übergang von SH IIIA2
Abb. 1 Mögliche Synchronismen (nach KEMP & MERRILLEES 1980, 205 Diagramm 1)
die Phase der Produktion des zu exportierenden Produkts von Kultur A früher als die Phase des Fundkontextes in Kultur B. Diese Gleichzeitigkeit ist wohl bei der in Tell el-Amarna gefundenen SH IIIA2-Keramik der Fall. Wie bereits bemerkt, würde in diesem Fall (weit über tausend Scherben) kaum jemand von Erbstücken sprechen, die durch Generationen benutzt worden sind bevor sie in den archäologischen Kontext gerieten.
zu SH IIIB siehe: BELL 1991, 257–277 und WIENER 2003. Für diesen Hinweis danke ich Astrid Hassler, die sich im Rahmen des Spezialforschungsbereichs SCIEM 2000 mit den mykenischen Funden in Ägypten beschäftigt.
Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta 109
Es ist jedoch Vorsicht angebracht bei jedem importierten Stück a priori eine Gleichzeitigkeit anzunehmen, da auch Fälle denkbar sind, bei denen das importierte Objekt wesentlich älter als der Kontext ist. Eine Möglichkeit ist, dass das Stück lange Zeit in der produzierenden Kultur verblieb bis es schließlich exportiert wurde. Für zahlreiche ägyptische Artefakte aus spätbronzezeitlichen ägäischen Kontexten kann wahrscheinlich gemacht werden, dass sie erst lange nach der Produktionszeit exportiert wurden. Leon Pomerance hielt Grabräuberei und einen damit in Zusammenhang stehenden Antikenhandel für eine mögliche Erklärung für das plötzliche Auftauchen frühdynastischer Artefakte in spätbronzezeitlichen ägäischen Kontexten.15 Aber auch der umgekehrte Weg ist denkbar: Ein Objekt wird recht bald nach seiner Herstellung in Ägypten exportiert und bleibt dann (aus welchen Gründen auch immer) sehr lange – möglicherweise über Generationen – in Verwendung bis es eines Tages in einen archäologischen Kontext gerät. Sturt Manning hat diese chronologische Problematik treffend zusammengefasst: „In the allimportant cases of imports/exports, which form our key synchronisms, we usually do not know (i) how much time elapsed between production in one culture and importation into another culture, and then (ii) how long the object was in use in its import context (and whether it was further exchanged), and finally (iii) how, after its period of deliberate use, the object actually came to enter the archaeological record.“16 Aufgrund dieser nicht immer klar zu quantifizierenden Unsicherheiten ist es nötig bei chronologischen Schlüssen sehr vorsichtig zu sein und es ist zu beachten welche Schlüsse man im Lichte dieser Unsicherheiten überhaupt aus dem vorhandenen Material ziehen kann: Wenn ein ägyptisches Objekt in einem minoischen Kontext gefunden wird, so ist klar, dass der Kontext nach der Produktion des importierten Stückes geschlossen wurde. Wenn der Produktionszeitraum des ägyptischen Importes nun eingeengt werden kann, so wissen wir wann der Kontext frühestens geschlossen wurde. Daraus leitet sich wiederum ab, dass zumindest die späteste in diesem Kontext vor-
15 16 17
POMERANCE 1973, 21–30. MANNING 1996, 26. Die typologische Einordnung der Skarabäen erfolgt nach WARD 1978, 25–33; TUFNELL 1984, 31–38 und
kommende minoische Phase nach diesem Produktionszeitpunkt zu Ende gegangen ist. Chronologische Schlüsse sind also auch bei Kontexten möglich, welche einen sehr weiten Datierungsspielraum haben, was ja gerade bei den Kuppelgräbern der Vor- und Altpalastzeit der Fall ist. Im Gegensatz zu minoischen Funden in Ägypten und der Levante, wo die vergesellschafteten Funde ja den spätesten möglichen Beginn der durch den minoischen Export repräsentierten minoischen Phase angeben, bezeichnet ein ägyptischer Fund auf Kreta (in unserem Fall ein Skarabäus) einen Zeitpunkt vor dem die jüngste im Kontext vertretene minoische Phase nicht zu Ende gegangen sein kann. Werden diese Schlussfolgerungen konsequent auf das Material angewandt, ist es nicht nötig, hoch spekulative Überlegungen zur Zeitspanne zwischen Produktion und Deponierung anzustellen und auch gelegentlich auftretende Erbstücke, welche möglicherweise mehrere Generationen im Besitz einer Familie waren (gerade bei Exotica wie Skarabäen scheint dies ja kein unwahrscheinliches Szenario zu sein), trüben das so gewonnene chronologische Bild nicht. Von den zehn in diesem Artikel diskutierten Skarabäen stammen acht aus Grabkontexten und nur zwei aus Siedlungsbefunden. Insbesondere die Funde aus Lebena, Archanes Grabbau 7 und Knossos sind chronologisch auswertbare Befunde, während die Funde aus Archanes Grabbau 6, Poros, Gournes, und aus der Grotte von Trapeza das gewonnene Bild im Großen und Ganzen bestätigen. Im Folgenden werden zunächst die Datierung der jeweiligen Kontexte und der gefundenen Skarabäen diskutiert,17 anschließend wird die Auswirkung auf die absolute Datierung der altpalastzeitlichen Chronologie besprochen. Lebena Grab I Das als Grab I bezeichnete Kuppelgrab war zum Zeitpunkt der Erforschung bereits eingestürzt und es wurden Hinweise für eine oder mehrere Beraubung(en) festgestellt, welche sich aber auf den mittleren Bereich des Kuppelgrabes konzentrierten. Die Schichten am aufgehenden Mauerwerk hingegen konnten nach Angaben des Aus-
WARD & DEVER 1994, 161–165. Die jeweils angegebenen Maße stammen aus PHILLIPS 1991 (wenn nicht anders angegeben).
110 Felix Höflmayer
gräbers ungestört untersucht werden (hier ist einer der genannten Skarabäen gefunden worden). Es wurden zahlreiche Keramikgefäße, Steingefäße aber auch Perlen, Anhänger und Sie-
gel gefunden, welche eine Datierung des Grabes in die Zeit von FM II bis MM IA erlauben.18 Der Skarabäus (Abb. 2) wurde in der Nähe des Eingangs gefunden.19 Der Kopf ist leider leicht beschädigt, ähnelt aber sehr Kopftypus A3.20 Auf dem Rücken trennt eine dreifache Linie die beiden elytra, was Rückentypus III bzw. LS oder LN entspricht. Der Skarabäus ist zwischen Siegelfläche und Körper durchbrochen, die Beine sind gekerbt. Der Seitentypus entspricht daher c2.21 Die Siegelfläche ist durch eine Linie begrenzt. Im Zentrum befindet sich ein nfr-Zeichen, flankiert von zwei antithetisch angeordneten C-Spiralen. Zwei anx-Zeichen befinden sich an den Längsenden jeweils von einem U-förmigen Rahmen umfasst. Für diese Motive in dieser Kombination lässt sich meines Wissens keine exakte Parallele nennen.22 Der Ausgräber Stylianos Alexiou verglich die Anordnung und die Motive der Siegelfläche, namentlich das Zeichen zwischen den beiden CBögen, mit Siegelabdrücken aus Uronarti und aus Lahun und kam so zu einer Datierung in die späte 12. oder in die 13. Dynastie,23 worin ihm Paul Åström gefolgt ist.24 Die Datierung blieb zu dieser Zeit auf den Vergleich der Motive auf der Siegelfläche beschränkt. William Ward datierte später unter Einbeziehung der formalen Eigenschaften des Rückens und der Seiten das Stück in die 12. Dynastie25 und wies die von Alexiou und Åström vertretene Datierung zurück.26 Peter Warren setzte das Stück in Wards Phase 427 und
18
21
Abb. 2 Skarabäus aus Lebena Grab I (nach KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 301)
19
20
ALEXIOU 1958; PELON 1976, 27–30; BELLI 1984, 102; ALEXIOU in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 11–14, Abb. 2–5, Taf. 1–2; WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 27–55; GOODISON & GUARITA 2005, 189. Iraklion Museum S-K 1925. 2,1 × 1,5 cm. ALEXIOU 1958, 5–6 und Abb. 5; CMS II.1, 204 Kat.-Nr. 180; YULE 1983, 366 Anm. 22; LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON 1990, 233–34 Kat.Nr. 142, Taf. 47 Nr. 142; PHILLIPS 1991, II, 643–644 Kat.Nr. 270, III, 1111 Abb. 270; KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 301; WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 36–37; BEN-TOR 2006, 78 und 82 Abb. 1a Nr. 2 mit Parallelen. J. Phillips erkannte einen offenen Kopf (Typus B2): PHILLIPS 1991, II, 643–644 Kat.-Nr. 270; während O. Keel und E. Kyriakides einen trapezförmigen Kopf erkennen wollten: KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 301. Dieser Einschätzung können wir nicht folgen. Siehe dazu auch die jüngst von Daphna Ben-Tor publizierte Zeichnung: BEN-TOR 2006, 82 Abb. 1a Nr. 2.
22
23
24 25 26 27
Peter Warren (WARREN 1980, 495) ordnete die Seite Typus c3 der Phase 4 zu, bemerkte aber selbst, dass die vorderen Beinpaare sich nicht am Übergang von pronotum zu elytra treffen (dies ist aber das Charakteristikum von Typus c3). Auch J. Phillips wollte einen Seitentypus c3 erkennen: PHILLIPS 1991, II, 643–644 Kat.Nr. 270. Auf diesen Umstand hat auch bereits Peter Warren 1980 aufmerksam gemacht: WARREN 1980, 495. ALEXIOU 1958, 5–6 mit Anm. 2. Als Vergleichsbeispiele nannte er: REISNER 1955, 60 Nr. 165–166 und PETRIE 1891, Taf. 10 Nr. 151. Gleichzeitig erwähnte er aber auch die Ansicht des damaligen Direktors der ägyptischen Abteilung des British Museum, I.E.S. Edwards, der das Objekt aufgrund der erwähnten Bögen nicht als „native Egyptian product“ ansah. ÅSTRÖM 1961/62, 142–143. WARD 1971, 77. WARD 1981, 70. WARREN 1980, 495.
Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta 111
Abb. 3 Skarabäus aus Lebena Grab II (nach KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 300)
Gerald Cadogan ist ihm darin gefolgt.28 Phase 4 wird heute ins frühe Mittlere Reich (späte 11. und frühe 12. Dynastie) datiert.29 Auch Jacke Phillips kam in ihrer Dissertation aufgrund der formalen Merkmale des Skarabäus zu einer Datie-
28 29 30
31
32
33
CADOGAN 1983, 507. Siehe dazu: BEN-TOR 2006, 77–78. PHILLIPS 1991, II, 643–644 Kat.-Nr. 270. Als Parallele nannte sie aus Kahun: PETRIE 1891, Taf. 10 Nr. 151; aus Uronarti: REISNER 1955, 60 Nr. 166; DUNHAM 1967, 71 Nr. 166; aus Mostagedda: WARD 1978, Taf. 11 Nr. 277 (fälschlich als Taf. 2 angegeben) = BRUNTON 1937, Taf. 69 Nr. 5; aus der ägyptischen Sammlung des University College London: WARD 1978, Taf. 11 Nr. 281 = PETRIE 1925, Taf. 8 Nr. 230. Als generelle typologische Einordnung nennt sie: WARD 1978: Rückentypus III, Kopftypus B2, Seitentypus c3. QUIRKE & FITTON 1997, 442: Erste Zwischenzeit oder frühes Mittleres Reich, allerdings ohne Parallelen zu zitieren. WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 36 zitiert eine mündliche Mitteilung von Christa Mlinar vom 4. November 2000: Ausschlaggebend sind nach Mlinar unter anderem die Tatsache, dass der Skarabäus durchbrochen gearbeitet ist sowie die dreifache Linie auf dem Rücken. WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 36 zitiert eine
rung in die frühe 12. Dynastie30 ebenso wie zahlreiche andere Forscher (Steven Quirke,31 Christa Mlinar,32 Daphna Ben-Tor33). In der Publikation des Fundplatzes führte Peter Warren darüber hinaus noch weitere Parallelen an, welche alle aus Wards Perioden 3 und 4 stammen.34 Im Jahre 2000 datierten Othmar Keel und Evangelos Kyriakides diesen Skarabäus in dem Katalog zu der Ausstellung Kriti – Aigyptos in die frühe 18. Dynastie.35 Sie begründeten diese von den früheren Datierungsversuchen doch recht abweichende Einordnung mit der durchbrochenen Seite, welche im Mittleren Reich und in der Zweiten Zwischenzeit außerordentlich selten sei.36 Allerdings tauchen durchbrochene Skarabäen eben auch schon früher, namentlich in der Ersten Zwischenzeit auf.37 Somit scheint es nicht zwingend das Objekt tatsächlich ins Neue Reich zu datieren. Aufgrund dieser bisher angeführten Argumente wird man wohl nicht fehlgehen diesen Skarabäus in das frühe Mittlere Reich oder knapp davor zu setzen, am ehesten scheint mir aufgrund der formalen Kriterien Phase 3 nach WARD 1978 bzw. Phase I nach WARD & DEVER 1994 am wahrscheinlichsten. Lebena Grab II In dem in Gerokampos gelegenen Kuppelgrab II38 wurde ein weiterer ägyptischer Skarabäus gefun-
34
35
36 37 38
mündliche Mitteilung von Daphna Ben-Tor vom 9. Oktober 1998; BEN-TOR 2006, 78. WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 36: aus Mostagedda: WARD 1978, Taf. 11 Nr. 277 (siehe dazu auch Anm. 30) und 287 = BRUNTON 1937, Taf. 69 Nr. 5 und 7 = beide Wards Periode 3; aus Byblos: WARD 1978, Taf. 12 Nr. 321 = DUNAND 1954, 282 Nr. 9418, Taf. 200 = Wards Periode 3; WARD 1978, Taf. 15 Nr. 380 = DUNAND 1954, 450 Nr. 11476, Taf. 201 = Wards Periode 4; Sammlung Matouk: WARD 1978, Taf. 12 Nr. 322 und 325, Taf. 13 Nr. 327 = alle drei Wards Periode 3; aus der ägyptischen Sammlung des University College London: WARD 1978, Taf. 13 Nr. 328 = PETRIE 1925, Taf. 8 Nr. 189 = Wards Periode 3; aus dem jarre Montet (Motiv anch in Rahmen): WARD 1978, Taf. 9 Nr. 247 = Wards Periode 4). KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 301. KEEL 1995, 52 § 106. KEEL 1995, 52 § 107, 57 § 113. PELON 1976, 27–30; BELLI 1984, 102–103; ALEXIOU in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 15–18; WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 56–141; GOODISON & GUARITA 2005, 190.
112 Felix Höflmayer den. Auch hier wurde eine nachträgliche Beraubung nahe des Eingangs festgestellt, doch die umgebenden Schichten blieben ungestört, da sie durch das eingestürzte falsche Gewölbe der Kuppel geschützt waren.39 Die späteste nachweisbare bronzezeitliche Belegung stammt aus MM IA, zahlreiche frühere Bestattungen, welche bis in FM I reichen, konnten ebenfalls beobachtet werden.40 Der Skarabäus (Abb. 3) wurde nicht in situ aufgefunden, sondern kam erst durch Sieben von Erdmaterial aus dem nordwestlichen Bereich des Kuppelgrabes zu Tage. Da die Gefäße aus diesem Bereich aus dem späten FM I stammen, wurde der Import in der Literatur teilweise mit dieser Phase assoziiert.41 Dies führte zu gewissen chronologischen Problemen, da – wie unten zu zeigen sein wird – auch dieser Skarabäus in die späte Erste Zwischenzeit oder in das frühe Mittlere Reich datiert. Eine Zuordnung zu FM I wäre im Lichte der anderen Fundkontexte ungefähr zeitgleich produzierter Skarabäen erstaunlich früh, doch kann eine Deponierung in MM IA und eine nachträgliche Verlagerung in den Bereich mit dem frühminoischen Fundmaterial nicht ausgeschlossen werden, zumal ja das Stück ohnehin nicht in situ gefunden worden ist.42 Der Skarabäus ist vollständig erhalten.43 Der
39 40
41 42 43
44
45
46
ALEXIOU in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 15. ALEXIOU in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 17. Siehe auch WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 115–122. Eine Aussage, dass auch MM IB in Grab II belegt sei (WARREN 1980, 492), bezieht sich in Wahrheit auf Grab III (Zervou): Für diese Information bedanke ich mich bei Peter Warren. YULE 1983, 366–367 Anm. 23. CMS II.1, 193. Iraklion Museum S-K 1987. 1,15 × 0,8 cm. CMS II 1, 226 Kat.-Nr. 201; YULE 1983, 366 Anm. 22; LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON 1990, 234 Kat.-Nr. 143, Taf. 47 Nr. 143; PHILLIPS 1991, II, 646–647 Kat.-Nr. 271, III, 1111 Abb. 271; KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 300; BEN-TOR 2006, 78 und 82 Abb. 1a Nr. 1 mit Parallelen. J. Phillips wollte einen offenen Kopf erkennen: PHILLIPS 1991, II, 646–647 Kat.-Nr. 271; während O. Keel und E. Kyriakides ihn als rechteckig beschrieben: KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 300. J. Phillips gab Seitentypus d5 an, doch da der Skarabäus vorne und hinten von der Basis separiert ist, scheint mir Typus b3 eher gerechtfertigt. WARREN 1980, 495. Als Parallelen nannte er aus Qau: WARD 1978, Taf. 7 Nr. 202, 194, 200, 193 = BRUNTON 1927, Taf. 33 Nr. 157, 186, 187, 190 = Wards Perioden 2–3; aus Mostagedda: WARD 1978, Taf. 7 Nr. 185 =
Kopf ist leider so beschädigt, dass er typologisch nicht eingeordnet werden kann.44 Eine doppelte Linie trennt die beiden elytra (Rückentypus II bzw. LS oder LN). Der Körper ist nicht durchbrochen und die beiden vorderen Extremitäten treffen sich an der doppelten Linie zwischen pronotum und elytra (Seitentypus b345). Der Skarabäus ist längs durchbohrt. Auf der Siegelfläche ist eine Pflanze dargestellt, die von zwei spiralförmigen Ornamenten flankiert wird, welche ebenfalls Teil dieser Pflanze sein könnten. Auf der linken und rechten Seite finden sich ferner je ein Blatt. Peter Warren nannte für dieses Stück Parallelen aus Wards Perioden 2 bis 4.46 Diese relative Einordnung blieb in der Forschung im Großen und Ganzen unwidersprochen. Gerald Cadogan47 übernahm diese Datierung und diese Parallelen, ebenso Warren und Hankey 198948 und Warren 2004.49 Auch Stephen Quirke und Lesley Fitton ordneten den Skarabäus der Ersten Zwischenzeit oder dem frühen Mittleren Reich zu (allerdings ohne Parallelen zu nennen),50 ebenso wie Othmar Keel und Evangelos Kyriakides, welche aber nur Parallelen aus Wards Periode 2 angaben.51 Auch Daphna Ben-Tor tritt für eine Datierung in die späte 11. oder die frühe 12. Dynastie ein, wobei sie Parallelen aus Wards Perioden 3 und 4 nennt.52
47 48 49 50 51
52
BRUNTON 1937, Taf. 60 Nr. 68 = Wards Periode 2; aus Matmar: WARD 1978, Taf. 7 Nr. 196 = BRUNTON 1948, Taf. 33 Nr. 85 = Wards Periode 3. Typologisch ordnete er den Skarabäus dem Seitentypus d1 der Periode 3 nach WARD zu. CADOGAN 1983, 513. WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 129. WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 133 Kat.-Nr. 525. QUIRKE & FITTON 1997, 442. KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 300. Als Parallelen nennen sie: WARD 1978, Taf. 7 Nr. 202 und 194 (in der Publikation findet sich fälschlicherweise die Angabe Taf. 6). Zu diesen Parallelen siehe Anm. 46. BEN-TOR 2006, 78 mit Anm. 9. Als Parallelen nennt sie für das Motiv: WARD 1978, Taf. 7 Nr. 193, 194 und 197 = siehe für 193 und 194 Anm. 46; Nr. 197 stammt aus dem Ägyptischen Museum in Kairo; für die Rücken- und Seitenbeschaffenheit nennt sie WARD 1978, Taf. 7 Nr. 196 und 212 = siehe für Nr. 196 Anm. 46; Nr. 212 stammt aus BRUNTON 1937, Taf. 60 Nr. 69 = Wards Periode 3. Zwar gebe es auch Parallelen für diesen Skarabäus aus Periode 2, doch aufgrund der Rücken- und Seitencharakteristika stünde er formal in Periode 3 und die früheren Parallelen für das Motiv lägen nur nahe, dass eben das Motiv bereits in der Ersten Zwischenzeit entstanden sei.
Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta 113
Jacke Phillips hingegen kam zu einer Datierung in die 12. Dynastie.53 Die Forschung ist sich also in Bezug auf die Datierung weitgehend einig, Phase 2 oder 3 scheinen aufgrund der formalen Eigenschaften am wahrscheinlichsten (frühes Mittleres Reich oder kurz davor). Lebena Grab IIa Aus demselben Komplex stammt ein weiterer ägyptischer Skarabäus (Abb. 4). Dieser wurde in der angebauten Tholos IIa gefunden54 und auch hier kann der Kontext aufgrund der auf den Bestattungsschichten lagernden Steinblöcke der eingestürzten Kuppel als ungestört gelten. In diesem Teil des Grabkomplexes konnten zwei Schichten beobachtet werden, in welchen zahlreiche Gefäße, Siegel und Knochen gefunden wurden. Aus dem „pure MM IA upper level“, wie es Warren und Hankey ausgedrückt haben,55 stammt der fragliche Skarabäus.56 Der Kopf ist zwar etwas abgerieben, ähnelt aber sehr Typus A3.57 Auf dem Rücken befindet sich zwischen den beiden elytra eine dreifache Linie (Rückentypus III bzw. LS oder LN). Die Extremitäten sind ausgearbeitet, der Skarabäus ist aber nicht durchbrochen. Das erste und zweite Beinpaar trifft sich ungefähr in der Mitte des pronotum (Seitentypus b1). Das Objekt ist in Längsrichtung durchbohrt. Auf der Siegelfläche sind eine Z-Spirale und zwei blattähnliche Füllmotive dargestellt, von einer Linie eingefasst. Peter Warren nannte eine Parallele aus Mostagedda und weitere aus dem Ägyptischen Museum
53
54
55
56
PHILLIPS 1991, II, 646–647 Kat.-Nr. 271. Als Parallele nennt sie einerseits einen Skarabäus aus dem Grab der Maket in Kahun: PETRIE 1891, Taf. 26 Nr. 31; andererseits eine bereits von Peter WARREN angeführte Parallele aus Qau: WARD 1978, Taf. 7 Nr. 202 (fälschlicherweise ist die Taf. 6 angegeben). Siehe zu dieser Parallele Anm. 46. Ihre typologische Einordnung ist WARD 1978 Rückentypus II, Kopftypus B, Seitentypus d5. Zum Kontext siehe: PELON 1976, 27–30; BELLI 1984, 102–03; ALEXIOU in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 18–19; WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 141–157; GOODISON & GUARITA 2005, 190. WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 129. Siehe auch WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 195. Iraklion Museum S-K 1997. 1,2 × 0,9 cm. CMS II.1, 229 Kat.-Nr. 204; YULE 1983, 366 Anm. 22; LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON 1990, 234–235 Kat.-Nr. 144, Taf. 47 Nr. 144; PHILLIPS 1991, II, 647 Kat.-Nr. 272, III, 1111 Abb. 272; KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 307 Kat.-Nr. 302;
Abb. 4 Skarabäus aus Lebena Grab IIa (nach KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 302)
Kairo und datierte den Skarabäus in die späte 11. Dynastie.58 Dieser Datierung sind in der Literatur – so weit ich sehen kann – alle Forscher gefolgt. Gerald Cadogan übernahm die von Peter Warren vorgeschlagenen Parallelen und Datierung,59 auch Stephen Quirke und Lesley Fitton datierten diesen Skarabäus in die späte Erste Zwischenzeit oder in das frühe Mittlere Reich.60 Othmar Keel
57
58
59 60
BEN-TOR 2006, 78 und 82 Abb. 1a Nr. 3 mit Parallelen. Wiederum wurde der Kopf des Skarabäus von verschiedenen Bearbeitern typologisch verschieden eingeordnet. J. Phillips erkannte einen offenen Kopf (PHILLIPS 1991, II, 647 Kat.-Nr. 272), während O. Keel und E. Kyriakides ihn als viereckig beschrieben (KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 307 Kat.-Nr. 302). WARREN 1980, 495; WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 129; WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 153 Kat.-Nr. 68. Als Parallele aus Mostagedda nannte er: WARD 1978, Taf. 9 Nr. 239 = BRUNTON 1937, Taf. 60 Nr. 72 = Wards Periode 3; aus dem Ägyptischen Museum Kairo: WARD 1978, Taf. 9 Nr. 236–238 = Kairo JdE 75288–75290 = Wards Periode 2 und 3. Die Seite des Skarabäus ordnet er dem Typus d1 der Periode 3 zu, den Rücken dem Typus III (nach WARD 1978). CADOGAN 1983, 513. QUIRKE & FITTON 1997, 442 (allerdings ohne Parallelen anzugeben).
114 Felix Höflmayer und Evangelos Kyriakides nannten für das Objekt im Wesentlichen dieselben Parallelen,61 ebenso wie Daphna Ben-Tor62 oder Jacke Phillips.63 Die Forschung ist sich in Bezug auf die Datierung dieses Skarabäus also einig und ein Zweifel an dieser ist aus unserer Sicht nicht angebracht. Phase 3 oder 4 und eine Datierung in das frühe Mittlere Reich erscheinen am wahrscheinlichsten. Archanes Grabbau 7 Aus der Nekropole von Phourni in der Nähe von Archanes stammen zwei Skarabäen, die zusätzliche Hinweise auf eine Synchronisierung der altpalastzeitlichen Phasen mit der ägyptischen Chronologie liefern. Der Grabbau 7, welcher chronologisch das stärkere Argument liefert, ist zwar schlecht erhalten, da er von dem Kuppelgrab B überbaut wurde, dennoch kann die Dauer seiner Benutzung auf einen relativchronologisch engen Zeitraum (MM IA) eingeschränkt werden. Der Grabbau selbst bestand aus mindestens sechs Räumen, in welchen nicht nur der Skarabäus, sondern auch Teile von Steingefäßen, Obsidianklingen, einige Muscheln und zwei kleine Stücke Goldblech gefunden wurden.64 Die Errichtung von Kuppelgrab B, welche den Grabbau 7 weitgehend zerstörte, wurde ursprünglich in die Altpalastzeit datiert,65 die früheste Keramik stammt aber aus MM IA.66 Keramik aus dem westlich angrenzenden so genannten „blinden Korridor“, welche von dem Bearbeiter Alexandros Lahanas in MM IA datiert wurde, liefert ihm zufolge einen terminus ante quem für die Errichtung des Kuppelgrabes B, wodurch die Benutzung des Grabbaus 7 auf eine kurze Zeit in MM IA eingeengt wird.67
61
62
63
64
65
KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 307 Kat.-Nr. 302. Als Vergleich nannten sie: WARD 1978, Taf. 9 Nr. 236, 237, 239 (siehe dazu Anm. 58). BEN-TOR 2006, 78. Als Parallelen nennt sie WARD 1978, Taf. 9 Nr. 236 und 237 (siehe dazu Anm. 58), weiters WARD 1978, Taf. 7 Nr. 196 = BRUNTON 1948, Taf. 33 Nr. 85 = Wards Periode 3; WARD 1978, Taf. 7 Nr. 212 = BRUNTON 1937, Taf. 60 Nr. 69 = Wards Periode 3. PHILLIPS 1991, II, 647 Kat.-Nr. 272. Als Parallelen nennt auch sie WARD 1978, Taf. 9 Nr. 236–38 (siehe dazu Anm. 58). SAKELLARAKIS 1967b; SAKELLARAKIS 1971; SAKELLARAKIS & SAKELLARAKI 1991, 96–97; SOLES 1992, 143–144; SAKELLARAKIS & SAKELLARAKI 1997, 206–208. Aus diesem Grund finden sich in der Literatur manchmal verwirrende Angaben zum Fundort: WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 129 gaben eine Datierung des Fundkon-
Abb. 5 Skarabäus aus Archanes Grabbau 7 (nach PHILLIPS 1991, III, Taf. 997 Nr. 42)
Der Skarabäus ist nur zum Teil erhalten (Abb. 5).68 Kopf und fast das gesamte pronotum fehlen, ebenso wie das rechte elytron. Somit ist von der Siegelfläche nur etwas mehr als ein Viertel erhalten und auch typologisch steht man vor einigen Schwierigkeiten. Über den Kopf kann aufgrund des Erhaltungszustandes nichts gesagt werden. Die beiden elytra sind von einander durch zwei Linien und ein Leitermotiv (Rückentypus H bzw. LN oder LS) getrennt. Der Skarabäus ist sowohl längs als auch quer durchbohrt. Auf der erhaltenen Siegelfläche sind mit einander verbundene Spiralen dargestellt. Der Skarabäus wurde von Peter Warren in die späte 11. Dynastie datiert und mit Parallelen aus Sedment, aus dem jarre Montet, sowie aus der Sammlung Matouk, welche alle aus Wards Perioden 3 oder 4 stammen, verglichen.69 Darin ist ihm Gerald Cadogan gefolgt, auch wenn er die damalige Datierung des kretischen Kontextes für zu ungenau hielt, um das Stück chronologisch zu verwerten.70 Auch Jacke Phillips datierte den Skarabäus in die Zeit der späten 11. bis in die Mitte
66 67
68
69
70
textes in MM IB–II an, womit sie den Fund wohl dem Kuppelgrab B zuschrieben, ebenso wie LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON 1990, 186 Kat.-Nr. 9. SOLES 1992, 135. LAHANAS 2004, 7–8 mit Abb. 4–6. Siehe auch SAKELLARAKIS & SAKELLARAKIS 1991, 90. Iraklion Museum (Fayence) 378. 2,22 × 1,44 × 0,96 cm. LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON 1990, 186 Kat.-Nr. 9, Taf. 44 Nr. 9; PHILLIPS 1991, II, 400 Kat.-Nr. 42, III, 997 Abb. 42. WARREN 1980, 495; WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 129. Als Parallele aus Sedment nennt er WARD 1971, 114 Abb. 25 Nr. 5 = WARD 1978, Taf. 10 Nr. 261 = PETRIE & BRUNTON 1924, Taf. 57 Nr. 1 = Wards Periode 3; aus dem jarre Montet: WARD 1978, Taf. 10 Nr. 255 = Wards Periode 3; aus der Sammlung Matouk: WARD 1978, Taf. 10 Nr. 256 = Wards Periode 4. CADOGAN 1983, 516.
Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta 115
wird, kann also frühestens in der frühen 12. Dynastie begonnen haben. Die folgenden auf Kreta gefundenen Skarabäen stammen aus Kontexten, die erst in der Altpalastzeit geschlossen wurden. Diese Befunde bieten zwar keine stärkeren chronologischen Argumente als die vier zuvor behandelten Skarabäen, bestätigen jedoch das oben gewonnene Bild. Archanes Grabbau 6
Abb. 6 Skarabäus aus Archanes Grabbau 6 (nach CMS II.1 Nr. 395)
der 12. Dynastie und nannte Parallelen aus Lahun und die bereits von Peter Warren vorgebrachte Parallele aus dem jarre Montet.71 Trotz des schlechten Erhaltungszustandes erscheint eine Datierung in das frühe Mittlere Reich also angebracht. * Diese vier Skarabäen, welche alle mehr oder weniger in den Bereich des frühen Mittleren Reichs (späte 11./frühe 12. Dynastie) fallen, wurden also alle in Kontexten gefunden, welche in MM IA datiert werden können. Unabhängig davon, ob die tatsächliche Deponierung bei den „offenen“ Kontexten erst in MM IA oder gar schon in FM I-III stattgefunden hat, kann ausgesagt werden, dass MM IA erst nach der Herstellung der Skarabäen im frühen Mittleren Reich zu Ende gegangen sein kann. Die Altpalastzeit, deren Beginn in der Regel mit MM IB angegeben
71
72
73 74 75
76
PHILLIPS 1991, II, 400 Kat.-Nr. 42. Als Parallele aus Lahun nennt sie: PETRIE 1891, Taf. 8 Nr. 73, 75 und 87; zur Parallele aus dem jarre Montet siehe Anm. 69. Typologisch ordnete sie den Skarabäus wie folgt ein: TUFNELL 1984: Rückentypus H, Seitentypus e6b. SAKELLARAKIS 1967a; SAKELLARAKIS 1973, 167–174; SAKELLARAKIS 1975, 318–319; SAKELLARAKIS & SAKELLARAKI 1991, 97–104; SOLES 1992, 142–143; SAKELLARAKIS & SAKELLARAKI 1997 202–205. SAKELLARAKIS 1967, 276. Siehe auch SOLES 1992, 143. SAKELLARAKIS & SAKELLARAKI 1997, 202. Siehe z. B. WARREN 1980, 494; WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 129. Iraklion Museum (Fayence) 464. 1,78 × 1,31 × 0,87 cm. CMS II.1, Nr. 395; YULE 1983, 366 Anm. 22; LAMBROUPHILLIPSON 1990, 186 Kat.-Nr. 10, Taf. 44 Nr. 10; PHIL-
Grabbau 6, in welchem der zweite aus Archanes stammende Skarabäus gefunden wurde, befindet sich westlich des Kuppelgrabes B.72 Die Konstruktion besteht aus insgesamt sechs Räumen, von denen vier etwas besser erhalten sind. Ursprünglich wurde der Bau von Sakellarakis in FM II – MM IA datiert,73 später jedoch in FM III – MM IB.74 Dies scheint auch der Grund zu sein, warum in der Literatur dieser Grabbau machmal als „prepalatial ossuary“ bezeichnet worden ist.75 Der Skarabäus ist relativ gut erhalten (Abb. 6), allerdings sind Beschädigungen an der Siegelfläche sowie am Kopf vorhanden.76 Das Stück hat einen bogenförmigen Kopf,77 welcher wahrscheinlich Typus A3 entspricht. Eine doppelte Linie befindet sich zwischen den beiden elytra (Rückentypus II, bzw. LS). Der Skarabäus ist in Längsrichtung durchbohrt. Auf der nicht vollständig erhaltenen Siegelfläche sind zwei Hunde oder Böcke mit über den Rücken erhobenen Schwänzen punktsymmetrisch gegenständig nach innen gerichtet (tête-bêche) angeordnet. Peter Warren nannte Parallelen aus Wards Perioden 3 und 4, das Motiv selbst ist aber schon in Periode 2 belegt.78 Gerald Cadogan übernahm die Datierung in Wards Periode 2.79 Später datier-
77
78
79
LIPS 1991, II, 397–398 Kat.-Nr. 40, III, 997 Abb. 40; BENTOR 2006, 78 und 82 Abb. 1a Nr. 4 mit Parallelen. Leider war dieser Skarabäus nicht Bestandteil der großen Ausstellung Kriti – Aigyptos im Museum von Iraklion, wodurch er auch nicht Eingang in den hervorragend fotografierten Katalog fand. PHILLIPS 1991, II, 397–398 Kat.-Nr. 40. Siehe auch die Zeichnung in BEN-TOR 2006, 82 Abb. 1a Nr. 4. WARREN 1980, 494–495; WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 129. Als Parallelen nennt er aus dem jarre Montet: WARD 1978, Taf. 6 Nr. 174 = Wards Periode 4; aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung des University College London: WARD 1978, Taf. 6 Nr. 176 = PETRIE 1925, Taf. 13 Nr. 839 = Wards Periode 3; aus dem Ägyptischen Museum Kairo: WARD 1978, Taf. 6 Nr. 175 = Kairo JdE 75272 = Wards Periode 3. CADOGAN 1983, 513.
116 Felix Höflmayer te man diesen Skarabäus ins frühe Mittlere Reich, wie Stephen Quirke und Lesley Fitton,80 Daphna Ben-Tor mit Parallelen aus dem jarre Montet,81 oder Jacke Phillips.82 Uns erscheint aufgrund der formalen Eigenschaften des Skarabäus eine Einordnung in Wards Periode 2 oder 3 und somit eine Datierung in das frühe Mittlere Reich oder kurz davor am wahrscheinlichsten. Poros Bei den Grabungen in Poros, einem Vorort von Iraklion, wurde ein weiterer Skarabäus gefunden (Abb. 7). In einem Areal östlich der venezianischen Stadtmauer wurden Schichten angeschnitten, welche von der Vor- bis zur Nachpalastzeit reichen. Im östlichen Bereich wurden Siedlungsbefunde der Altpalastzeit entdeckt, darunter ein Gebäude mit mehreren Räumen. Die hier aufgefundene Keramik wurde in MM IB datiert. In einem kleinen Raum dieses Gebäudes wurde im September 1988 in einer verbrannten Schicht vergesellschaftet mit Polychrom- und Barbotineware aus MM IB ein ägyptischer Skarabäus gefunden.83 Der Skarabäus ist hervorragend erhalten.84 Er hat einen offenen Kopf (Kopftypus B2), zwei Linien zwischen den beiden elytra (Rückentypus II, bzw. LN oder LS). Die Extremitäten sind gekerbt. Die beiden vorderen Beinpaare treffen sich an der Linie zwischen pronotum und elytra (Seitentypus b3). Das Motiv der Siegelfläche fällt in die so genannte nb.ty-Klasse. Im unteren Drittel des querformatigen Bildfeldes sind zwei nb-Körbe dargestellt. In der Mitte darüber ist ein anch erkennbar, flankiert von je einem hochrechteckigen Zeichen, aus welchem ein pflanzliches (?) Objekt erwächst.
80
81
82
83 84
QUIRKE & FITTON 1997, 442 (allerdings ohne Parallelen anzugeben). BEN-TOR 2006, 78. Als Parallelen für das Motiv nennt sie aus der Sammlung Matouk: WARD 1978, Taf. 6 Nr. 170 = Wards Periode 3; sowie aus dem jarre Montet: WARD 1978, Taf. 6 Nr. 174: siehe Anm. 78; für Rückenund Seitengestaltung nennt sie Parallelen aus dem jarre Montet: WARD 1978, Taf. 14 Nr. 350 = Wards Periode 4; WARD 1978, Taf. 14 Nr. 360 = Wards Periode 4. PHILLIPS 1991, II, 397–398 Kat.-Nr. 40. Sie nennt die bereits von Peter Warren publizierten Parallelen. Typologisch ordnete sie den Skarabäus wie folgt ein: nach WARD 1978: Rückentypus II, Kopftypus A3, Seitentypus b2. BLACKMAN 1999, 117–118; DIMOPOULOU 2000, 28. Iraklion Museum S-K 3267. Maße nach DIMOPOULOU in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 315 Kat.-Nr. 318: 1,4 × 1,1 × 0,8 cm.
Abb. 7 (nach KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 318)
Peter Warren und Vronwy Hankey setzten diesen Skarabäus unter Berufung auf Geoffrey T. Martin in die späte Erste Zwischenzeit oder die frühe 12. Dynastie,85 ebenso wie Jacke Phillips.86 Dieser Datierung ist Nota DimopoulouRethemiotaki gefolgt.87 Daphna Ben-Tor datierte das Stück in Wards Perioden 3 oder 4 und somit ebenfalls in die späte 11. oder frühe 12. Dynastie.88 Auch hier wird diese Datierung übernommen.
85
86 87
88
PHILLIPS 1991, II, 754 Kat.-Nr. 371; DIMOPOULOU 2000, 28 Kat.-Nr. 1; DIMOPOULOU in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 315 Kat.-Nr. 318; BEN-TOR 2006, 78 und 83 Abb. 1b Nr. 9 mit Parallelen. WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 214. Parallelen: WARD 1978, Taf. 12 Nr. 317 = BRUNTON 1927, Taf. 34 Nr. 193 = Wards Periode 2 und WARD 1978, Taf. 12 Nr. 318 = Ägyptisches Museum Kairo JdE 87394 = Wards Periode 3. PHILLIPS 1991, II, 754 Kat.-Nr. 371. DIMOPOULOU 2000, 28 Kat.-Nr. 1; DIMOPOULOU in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 315 Kat.-Nr. 318. BEN-TOR 2006, 78. Als Parallele für das Motiv nennt sie aus Mostagedda: WARD 1978, Taf. 12 Nr. 315 = BRUNTON 1937, Taf. 60 Nr. 75 = Wards Periode 3; ferner WARD 1978, Taf. 12 Nr. 317 (siehe dazu Anm. 85); aus der Sammlung Matouk: WARD 1978, Taf. 12 Nr. 320 = Wards
Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta 117
Zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts wurden in Gournes von Hatzidakis unter anderem zwei Gräber ausgegraben.89 Eines der Gräber besteht aus drei Räumen und wurde vom Ausgräber als drei unterschiedliche Grabanlagen interpretiert (Grab B, G, D).90 In Grab (oder besser: Raum) B wurden zwei Skarabäen gefunden, von denen einer in der Literatur überwiegend als ägyptischer Import angesehen wurde, während der andere als minoische Imitation gilt. Leider ist die Datierung des Kon-
textes aufgrund der mangelhaften Publikationslage nicht vollständig klar. Der Ausgräber datierte die Keramik in seinen Berichten in FM III und MM,91 während später Zois das gesamte Material aus Gournes neu publizierte und es in MM I setzte.92 Allerdings befanden sich unter den von Zois publizierten Stücken auch einige scheibengedrehte Gefäße, welche in MM IB oder gar MM II, jedenfalls aber in die Altpalastzeit zu datieren seien93. Laut Gisela Walberg gehören die Gefäße, welche eindeutig Raum B zuordenbar sind, alle in ihre Prä-KamaresPhase.94 Jacke Phillips setzte zwar ebenfalls das Material im Wesentlichen in MM IA, betonte aber, dass einige Gefäße bereits in MM IB gehörten.95 Auch MacGillivray wies darauf hin, dass zwar zahlreiche Gefäße aus Gournes, die von Zois publiziert wurden, in MM IA zu datieren seien, die spätesten jedoch aus MM IB stammten.96 Der erste hier diskutierte Skarabäus (Abb. 8) ist teilweise erhalten, das linke elytron fehlt beinahe zu Gänze, auch der linke Teil des pronotum ist beschädigt.97 Das Stück hat einen offenen Kopf, eine Linie trennt die beiden elytra von einander. Die Extremitäten sind nicht differenziert angegeben. Die Siegelfläche teilt sich in drei Paneele, von denen das mittlere mit einem Rautenmuster, die beiden anderen mit schraffierten Dreiecken versehen sind. In der Regel ist dieser Skarabäus als minoische Imitation beschrieben worden. Bereits Friedrich Matz glaubte nicht an einen ägyptischen Import, sondern an eine Nachahmung ägyptischer Vorbilder aus dem Mittleren Reich.98 Befürworter eines ägyptischen Imports wie Pendlebury oder Ward datierten den Skarabäus vorsichtig in die späte Erste Zwischenzeit,99 ohne jedoch exakte Paralle-
Periode 3; für den Seiten- bzw. Rückentypus nennt sie aus Byblos: WARD 1978, Taf. 12 Nr. 321 = DUNAND 1954, 282 Nr. 9418, Taf. 200 Nr. 9418 = Wards Periode 3; aus der Sammlung Matouk: WARD 1978, Taf. 12 Nr. 325 = Wards Periode 3. HATZIDAKIS 1915, 61–62; HATZIDAKIS 1918, 46–53. SOLES 1992, 149–150. HATZIDAKIS 1915, 61–62; HATZIDAKIS 1918, 46–53. ZOIS 1969, 2–24. WARREN 1980, 492; YULE 1980, 12; BETANCOURT 1985, 67; WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 51. WALBERG 1983, 107, 147. Siehe auch CADOGAN 1983, 513. PHILLIPS 1991, II, 422. MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 99. Iraklion Museum S-K 1184. 1,62 × 1,08 × 0,65. HATZIDAKIS 1918, 55, Taf. 4 z; MATZ 1928, 22–23 Typus T Nr.
268, Taf. 13 Nr. 19; PENDLEBURY 1930, 15 Kat.-Nr. 17, Taf. 1; CMS II.1, Kat.-Nr. 402; LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON 1990, 253–254 Kat.-Nr. 185, Taf. 49 Nr. 185; PHILLIPS 1991, II 422–423 Kat.-Nr. 57, III, 1001 Abb. 57; Pini 2000, 109 Kat.-Nr. 3; 108 Abb. 1,3 und 112 Abb. 5–6; KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 316 Kat.-Nr. 321. MATZ 1928, 28. Allerdings klassifizierte er sämtliche zu seiner Zeit bekannten auf Kreta gefundenen Skarabäen als Imitationen. PENDLEBURY 1930, 15 Kat.-Nr. 17 nennt die Parallele: BRUNTON 1927, Taf. 33 Nr. 156 = WARD 1978, Taf. 3 Nr. 91 = Wards Periode 1; WARD 1971, 93–94 mit Abb. 13, 2 nennt als Parallele für die Kopfgestaltung aus dem jarre Montet: WARD 1978, Taf. 15 Nr. 373 = Wards Periode 4; als Parallele für die Seitengestaltung: WARD 1978, Taf. 14 Nr. 350 = Wards Periode 4; WARD 1978, Taf. 14
Abb. 8 (nach KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 321)
Gournes
89 90 91 92 93
94 95 96 97
98
99
118 Felix Höflmayer
Abb. 9 (nach KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 320)
len nennen zu können. Einige Forscher sind dieser Datierung dennoch gefolgt.100 Das Motiv auf der Siegelfläche lässt allerdings eher eine ägäische Produktion vermuten.101 Auch Stephen Quirke102 und Jacke Phillips gingen von einer minoischen Imitation aus,103 ebenso wie Evangelos Kyriakides.104 Auch die Tatsache, dass das Bildfeld der Siegelfläche durch eine Linie begrenzt ist, welche
100
101
102 103 104 105
106
Nr. 364 = Wards Periode 4; WARD 1978, Taf. 15 Nr. 375. Später hielt Pendlebury eine minoische Imitation nicht mehr für ausgeschlossen: PENDLEBURY 1939, 120: „ … though it may be a local copy.“ WARREN 1980, 494; CADOGAN 1983, 513; BETANCOURT 1985, 67. Diese Datierung findet sich auch in WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 129. Pini 1980, 427 Kat.-Nr. 54, 433; YULE 1980, 78 mit Anm. 217; YULE 1983, 366 Anm. 22; Pini 2000, 108–109 Kat.Nr. 3, 110 Anm. 20 (auf Seite 113) mit kretischen Parallelen: CMS IV.112 und 20. QUIRKE & FITTON 1997, 442. PHILLIPS 1991, II, 422–423 Kat.-Nr. 57. KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 316 Kat.-Nr. 321. Zu diesem Unterscheidungskriterium siehe: PINI 1990, 120–121; PINI 2000, 110 und 111 mit Abb. 4a und b. Iraklion Museum S-K 3657 (alt: 1184bis). 1,18 × 0,78 × 0,54 cm. HATZIDAKIS 1918, 56, Taf. 5 i; MATZ 1928, 22–23 Typus T Nr. 269; PENDLEBURY 1930, 15 Kat.-Nr. 18, Taf. 1;
keilförmig geschnitten ist, und nicht wie bei ägyptischen Importen eine im Querschnitt symmetrische Vertiefung um die Siegelfläche läuft, spricht für eine minoische Produktion.105 Der zweite in Raum B gefundene Skarabäus (Abb. 9) ist abgesehen von ein paar kleineren Beschädigungen am rechten elytron sowie im Kopfbereich vollständig erhalten.106 Der Kopf erscheint zwar leicht abgerieben, ist aber als offen oder sanduhrförmig zu erkennen (Typus B3).107 Eine doppelte Linie mit Leitermuster trennt beiden elytra (Typus H bzw. LN). Die Extremitäten sind teilweise gekerbt, die mittleren weisen ein Fischgrätmuster auf (Typus d13). Der Skarabäus ist in Längsrichtung durchbohrt. Die Siegelfläche ist durch ein Spiralmuster gekennzeichnet, wobei zwei C-Spiralen das Bildfeld teilen. Auf jeder Seite befindet sich eine Lotusblüte, welche in eine Spirale übergeht, flankiert von je einer Z-Spirale. Abgesehen von Friedrich Matz, der – wie bereits erwähnt – sämtliche auf Kreta gefundenen und zu seiner Zeit bekannten Skarabäen für Imitationen hielt,108 waren alle Forscher der Ansicht, dass es sich hierbei um einen ägyptischen Import handelt. Bereits John Pendlebury datierte das Stück in die frühe 12. Dynastie und nannte zwei Parallelen aus Kahun.109 William Ward nannte Parallelen aus dem jarre Montet und datierte das Stück in das frühe Mittlere Reich (Wards Periode 4),110 eine Datierung, die von einigen Forschern übernommen wurde.111 Auch Jacke Phillips und Daphna Ben-Tor datierten den Skarabäus in die späte 11. oder frühe 12. Dynastie (Wards Perio-
CMS II.1, Kat.-Nr. 405; YULE 1983, 366 Anm. 22; LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON 1990, 253 Kat.-Nr. 184, Taf. 49 Nr. 184; PHILLIPS 1991, II, 423 Kat.-Nr. 58, III, 1001 Abb. 58; KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 316 Kat.-Nr. 320; BEN-TOR 2006, 78, 83 Abb. 1b Nr. 7 mit Parallelen. 107 J. Phillips erkannte einen rechteckigen Kopf: PHILLIPS 1991, 423 Kat.-Nr. 58: Typus C5 nach TUFNELL 1984, 32–34 mit Abb. 12. 108 MATZ 1928, 28. 109 PENDLEBURY 1930, 15 Kat.-Nr. 18. Als Parallele nannte er: PETRIE 1891, Taf. 8 Nr. 68 und 71. 110 WARD 1971, 94 und 93 mit Abb 13,3. Als Parallele für das Motiv nannte er aus dem jarre Montet: WARD 1978, Taf. 10 Nr. 264–266, 268, 271 = alle Wards Periode 4; als Parallele für die Seitengestaltung nannte er: WARD 1978, Taf. 14 Nr. 348, 353 = beide Wards Periode 4. 111 WARREN 1980, 494; CADOGAN 1983, 513; BETANCOURT 1985, 67; WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 129.
Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta 119
den 3 und 4).112 Stephen Quirke und Lesley Fitton gaben in ihrem Artikel hingegen als Datierung nur allgemein ‚Mittleres Reich’ an,113 ebenso wie Othmar Keel und Evangelos Kyriakides.114 Parallelen lassen sich sogar noch aus der 13. Dynastie nennen.115 Trapeza Auch in der von Pendlebury in den 1930er Jahren ausgegrabenen Höhle von Trapeza fand sich ein ägyptischer Skarabäus.116 In der Höhle wurde Material der unterschiedlichsten Zeitstufen gefunden. Sie scheint im Neolithikum und in FM I bewohnt worden zu sein, während sie in MM I als Bestattungsort genutzt wurde. Es wurde aber auch noch späteres Material gefunden. Leider waren fast alle Kontexte und Schichten aufgrund von späteren Beraubungen gestört, so wurden Fragmente eines Deckels in der gesamten Höhle in verschiedenen Abhüben verstreut gefunden.117 Der Skarabäus selbst stammte aus dem ersten Abhub zwischen Laufmeter 16 und 19 hinter dem Eingang zur Höhle, bei welchem die obersten 50 cm des anstehenden Erdmaterials abgetragen wurden. In unmittelbarer Umgebung fand sich Keramik aus dem Neolithikum, sowie aus den Phasen FM I bis MM II.118 Das Stück ist ausgezeichnet erhalten (Abb. 10).119 Der Skarabäus hat einen offenen Kopf (Typus B1) und eine dreifache Linie zwischen den beiden elytra (Typus III bzw. LN). Das vordere Beinpaar trifft sich knapp hinter dem Über-
Abb. 10 (nach KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 325)
gang von pronotum zu elytra. Die Extremitäten sind gekerbt. Der Skarabäus ist durchbrochen gearbeitet (Typus c2). Auf der Siegelfläche sind mehrere miteinander verbundene S- und C-Spiralen dargestellt. In der Regel ist dieses Stück in die späte 11.
112
BEN-TOR 2006, 78. Als Parallele für das Motiv nannte sie: WARD 1978, 42 Abb. 7 Nr. 3 = Wards Periode 4; aus dem jarre Montet: WARD 1978, Taf. 9 Nr. 248 = Wards Periode 4; WARD 1978, Taf. 10 Nr. 264 = Wards Periode 4. Als Parallele für Rücken- und Seitengestaltung nannte sie aus dem jarre Montet: WARD 1978, Taf. 9 Nr. 247 = Wards Periode 4; WARD 1978, Taf. 14 Nr. 354 = Wards Periode 4; und aus dem British Museum: WARD 1978, Taf. 14 Nr. 356 = BM 57025 = Wards Periode 4. 113 QUIRKE & FITTON 1997, 442. 114 KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 316 Kat.-Nr. 320. Als Parallele gaben sie an: für das Motiv: aus Tell el-Ajjul: GIVEON 1985, 90 (fälschlicherweise als 95 angegeben) Nr. 83–84; KEEL 1997, 375 Nr. 795; für die Form aus dem jarre Montet: KEEL 1995, 26 Abb. 8 Nr. 20, 47, 51. PHILLIPS 1991, II, 423 Kat.-Nr. 58. Als Parallele nannte sie: PETRIE 1925, Taf. 8 Nr. 203–04. Typologisch ordnete sie das Stück wie folgt ein: TUFNELL 1984: Rücken H, Kopf C5, Seite d13. 115 Die charakteristische Seite und eine vergleichbare
116
117
118
119
Kopfgestaltung in Verbindung mit Spiralen auf der Siegelfläche findet sich auch bei zwei Beispielen aus Tell el-Ajjul: KEEL 1997, 498–499 Nr. 1160 und 1162 (13. Dynastie). PENDLEBURY, PENDLEBURY & MONEY-COUTTS 1935–36; WIDENOR in: WATROUS 1996, 61–62. PENDLEBURY, PENDLEBURY & MONEY-COUTTS 1935–36, 14–18. PENDLEBURY, PENDLEBURY & MONEY-COUTTS 1935–36, 21. Nach Gisela Walberg sind die Kamares-Phasen 1 bis 3 vertreten: WALBERG 1983, 121–22. Iraklion Museum S-K 1569. 1,85 × 1,32 × 0,81 cm. PENDLEBURY, PENDLEBURY & MONEY-COUTTS 1935–36, 96 Abb. 21 Nr. 16, 101 Kat.-Nr. 16, Taf. 14 Nr. 16; CMS II.1, 515 Kat.-Nr. 434; LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON 1990, 270–271 Kat.Nr. 237, Taf. 50 Nr. 237; PHILLIPS 1991, II, 785 Kat.-Nr. 388, III, 1147 Abb. 388; KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 318 Kat.-Nr. 325; BEN-TOR 2006, 78, 83 Abb. 1b Nr. 8 mit Parallelen.
120 Felix Höflmayer oder frühe 12. Dynastie datiert worden, es wurde aber auch eine Datierung in die 18. Dynastie vorgeschlagen. Bereits John Pendlebury setzte diesen Skarabäus in die beginnende 12. Dynastie, wobei die Datierung jedoch nur aufgrund der Siegelfläche erfolgte.120 Auch William Ward datierte das Stück in die 12. Dynastie (allerdings ohne dies zu begründen),121 ebenfalls Stephen Quirke und Lesley Fitton.122 Daphna Ben-Tor schloss auch die späte 11. Dynastie nicht aus123 und auch Jacke Phillips datierte das Stück in die späte 11. oder frühe 12. Dynastie.124 Othmar Keel und Evangelos Kyriakides setzten dieses Stück allerdings in die frühe 18. Dynastie. Sie argumentierten, dass die Form für die 18. Dynastie typisch sei und das Motiv – zwar im Mittleren Reich verbreitet – auch später noch vorkomme.125 Auch hier argumentieren Keel und Kyriakides wieder mit den durchbrochenen Seiten, welche für die frühe 18. Dynastie typisch sind, doch auch hier ist entgegenzuhalten, dass dies ebenso ein Charakteristikum der Ersten Zwischenzeit darstellt.126 Knossos In Knossos kam bei Grabungen südlich der Royal Road ein ägyptischer Skarabäus zu Tage, welcher für die chronologische Anbindung der mittelminoischen Zeit von außerordentlicher Bedeutung ist (Abb. 11). In diesem Areal konnten eine Reihe von übereinander liegenden Böden aufgedeckt werden.127 Auf dem untersten Boden fand sich noch Keramik der Phase MM IA, welche mit einfachen Spiralmotiven dekoriert war und dem Polychrome Geometric Style angehört. Auf dem Boden darüber gab es bereits erste scheibengedrehte Keramik sowie Metallgefäße imitierende Formen128
und somit den Nachweis für MM IB. Die Keramik kann dem Alternating Red and White sowie dem White Banded Style zugeordnet und mit der Phase Ia nach Levi in Phaistos verglichen werden. Auf dem spätesten Boden, wo auch der Skarabäus gefunden wurde, fand sich schließlich Eggshell Ware und auch bereits das erste Auftauchen der Crude Ware und gehört somit in MM IIA.129 Die Keramik aus diesem
120
124
121 122 123
PENDLEBURY, PENDLEBURY & MONEY-COUTTS 1935–36, 99; PENDLEBURY 1939, 121. Als Parallelen wurde ein Stück aus Kahun genannt: PETRIE 1891, Taf. 8 Nr. 73; aus dem Ashmolean Museum, Oxford und aus der Sammlung Newberry: NEWBERRY 1905, Taf. 18 Nr. 26 und 27; und aus dem University College London: PETRIE 1925, Taf. 7 Nr. 34–51 (im Artikel findet sich fälschlicherweise der Hinweis auf: Petrie, Scarabs and Cylinders with Names). WARD 1971, 97 Anm. 405. QUIRKE & FITTON 1997, 442. BEN-TOR 2006, 78. Als Parallelen nannte sie aus dem University College London: WARD 1978, Taf. 10 Nr. 263 = PETRIE 1925, Taf. 7 Nr. 118 = Wards Periode 3; sowie aus dem jarre Montet: WARD 1978, Taf. 10 Nr. 271 = Wards Periode 4.
Abb. 11 Skarabäus aus Knossos (nach KARETSOU et al. 2000, 313 Kat.-Nr. 314)
125
126 127
128 129
PHILLIPS 1991, II, 785 Kat.-Nr. 388, III, 1146 Abb. 388. Als Parallele nannte sie ein Stück aus Sedment: WARD 1978, Taf. 10 Nr. 261 = PETRIE & BRUNTON 1924, Taf. 57 Nr. 1 = Wards Periode 3. Ihre typologische Einordnung lautet wie folgt (nach WARD 1978): Rückentypus II, Kopftypus B1, Seitentypus c2. KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 318 Kat.-Nr. 325. Als Parallele für das Motiv nannten sie aus Uronarti: DUNHAM 1967, 68 Nr. 74. KEEL 1995, 52 §107, 57 §113. HOOD 1960, 22–23; HOOD 1966, 111. Siehe auch HOOD 1961/62 und vor allem MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 51. HOOD 1961/62, 94. HOOD 1959, 20 Abb. 31; MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 51. Der Kontext wurde früher fälschlicherweise in MM IIB datiert: HOOD 1961/62, 94–96.
Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta 121
oberen Boden südlich der Royal Road markiert darüber hinaus die zweite Zerstörung des alten Palastes von Knossos (dem später dann noch eine dritte folgen sollte, welche wiederum das Ende der Altpalastzeit definiert). Ein verwandter Kontext wäre der south-west room der Royal Pottery Stores, welche ebenfalls der zweiten Zerstörung zum Opfer fielen.130 Der Skarabäus in diesem Kontext ermöglicht uns nun also das früheste mögliche Ende von MM IIA zu definieren. Der Skarabäus selbst ist hervorragend erhalten und in Längsrichtung durchbohrt.131 Das Stück hat einen trapezförmigen Kopf (Typus D4), eine feine Linie zwischen den beiden elytra (Typus I bzw. LS). Die Extremitäten sind gekerbt (Typus d13). Die Siegelfläche ist durch eine Linie zweigeteilt. Auf dem oberen Teil ist ein wAH-Zeichen zwischen zwei Federn dargestellt, während im unteren Bereich ein nfr-Zeichen von zwei anx-Zeichen flankiert wird. Bereits der Ausgräber Sinclair Hood datierte das Stück in die späte 12. oder frühe 13. Dynastie, ohne aber Parallelen anzugeben.132 Paul Åström hingegen versuchte im Zusammenhang mit seiner niedrigen mittelminoischen Chronologie Argumente für eine jüngere Datierung zu finden.133 Zwar nannte er Parallelen aus Uronarti134 (welche als der 13. Dynastie zugehörig publiziert wurden), wollte das Stück aber lieber in die Hyksoszeit oder
noch später datieren.135 Dieser Einschätzung ist man in der Forschung allerdings nicht gefolgt. William Ward bestätigte die Datierung Hoods, hielt aber auch die mittlere 12. Dynastie für möglich.136 Zahlreiche andere Forscher sind Hood und Ward gefolgt.137 Othmar Keel und Evangelos Kyriakides hingegen datierten den Skarabäus etwas später, nämlich in die 13. bis 15. Dynastie.138 Jacke Phillips kam dagegen ebenfalls auf eine Datierung in die späte 12. oder frühe 13. Dynastie,139 was auch Christa Mlinar bestätigt hat.140 DIE CHRONOLOGIE DER ALTPALASTZEIT Folgende Schlüsse lassen sich nun aus dem Material ziehen: Ägyptische Skarabäen des frühen Mittleren Reichs kamen bereits in der Vorpalastzeit nach Kreta, fanden sich aber auch noch in späteren, altpalastzeitlichen Kontexten. Die Skarabäen aus Lebena Grab I, II und IIa sowie das Stück aus Archanes Grabbau 7 liefern den Beweis, dass die minoische Altpalastzeit nicht vor dem frühen Mittleren Reich begonnen haben kann, da alle aus Kontexten stammen, welche in MM IA geschlossen wurden. Zur Bestätigung dieses Befundes wären nun MM IB-Funde aus datierbaren ägyptischen Fundzusammenhängen notwendig. Das einzige Gefäß, welches mit einiger Wahrscheinlichkeit der Phase MM IB zugeordnet werden kann,141 stammt aus
130
CADOGAN, DAY, MACDONALD, MACGILLIVRAY, MOMIGLIANO, WHITELAW & WILSON 1993, 25, 26; MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 36–37. Siehe ferner MACGILLIVRAY 1994, 46–49. 131 Iraklion Museum S-K 1898. 1,87 × 1,27 × 0,81 cm. HOOD 1959, 19–20, Abb. 32; CMS II.2, Kat.-Nr. 34; LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON 1990, 211–212 Kat.-Nr. 69, Taf. 46 Nr. 69; PHILLIPS 1991, II, 561–62 Kat.-Nr. 163, III, 1061 Abb. 163; KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 313 Kat.-Nr. 314. 132 HOOD 1959, 19; HOOD 1961/62, 96. 133 ÅSTRÖM 1961/62, 145. 134 REISNER 1955, 62 Abb. 10, 64 Abb. 12, 65 Abb. 13 = DUNHAM 1967, 73, 75, 76. 135 Als Parallelen nannte er aus Tell ed-Duweir: ROWE 1936, 32 Kat.-Nr. 119 mit Taf. 3 Nr. 119; aus Megiddo: ROWE 1936, 33 Kat.-Nr. 123 mit Taf. 3 Nr. 123; aus Tell el-Ajjul: ROWE 1936, 67 Kat.-Nr. 255 mit Taf. 7 Nr. 255 = KEEL 1997, 446–447 Kat.-Nr. 1008; ebenfalls aus Tell elAjjul: ROWE 1936, 85 Kat.-Nr. 333 mit Taf. 9 Nr. 333 = KEEL 1997, 206–207 Kat.-Nr. 309; aus dem Ägyptischen Museum Kairo: NEWBERRY 1907, 90 Kat.-Nr. 36357, Taf. 11 Nr. 36357; 138 Kat.-Nr. 36547, Taf. 11 Nr. 36547; 183 Kat.-Nr. 36730, Taf. 11 Nr. 36730. Außerdem berief er
136 137
138
139
140
141
sich auf eine mündliche Mitteilung von Jürgen Settgast, welcher den Skarabäus in die Hyksoszeit oder in die 18. Dynastie datiert hätte: ÅSTRÖM 1961/62, 145 mit Anm. 56. WARD 1971, 81 mit Anm. 334. WARREN 1980, 497; CADOGAN 1983, 516; QUIRKE & FITTON 1997, 442. KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 313 Kat.-Nr. 314. Als Parallele nennen sie aus Tell el-Ajjul: KEEL 1997, 242–243 Nr. 409 und aus Uronarti: DUNHAM 1967, 76 Nr. 324, 327–328. PHILLIPS 1991, II, 561–562 Kat.-Nr. 163. Sie nannte (wie auch Åström) Parallelen aus Uronarti: REISNER 1955, 65 Abb. 13 Nr. 324, 327–333 = DUNHAM 1967, 76 Nr. 324, 327–333; aus der ägyptischen Sammlung des University College London: PETRIE 1925, Taf. 10 Nr. 440; aus der Sammlung Matouk: MATOUK 1977, 410 Nr. 2330. Typologisch ordnete sie das Stück wie folgt ein: nach TUFNELL 1984: Rückentypus I, Kopftypus D1, Seitentypus d13. Christa Mlinar, persönliche Mitteilung am 30. Juni 2005, für die ich mich herzlich bedanke. MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 103; LAHANAS 2004, 42.
122 Felix Höflmayer Grab 88 der Qubbet el-Hawa, welches bereits in der 6. Dynastie angelegt wurde und zahlreiche spätere Nachbestattungen aufwies, welche bis in die Zweite Zwischenzeit andauerten.142 Aus diesem Grund ist dieser Befund chronologisch nicht verwertbar. Auch aus Lischt sind einige Scherben bekannt, welche teilweise in die Phase MM IB gesetzt wurden,143 doch auch hier lässt der Kontext keinerlei chronologische Schlüsse zu.144 Aus Kontexten, welche in MM IB datiert wurden (Archanes Grabbau 6, Poros, Gournes) stammen Skarabäen, welche ebenfalls noch dem frühen Mittleren Reich zugeordnet werden können. Der Import aus Gournes hingegen scheint jünger zu sein, kann aber nicht herangezogen werden um das Ende von MM IB zu datieren, da außerhalb der Paläste MM IB-Keramik auch noch in Gebrauch stand, als bereits MM II in Knossos, Phaistos und Mallia in Verwendung war.145 Die frühesten minoischen Importe in gut datierbaren Kontexten Ägyptens oder der Levante stammen aus Sidon und Tell el-Dabca. Die erst
vor einigen Jahren gefundene Tasse aus Sidon wurde in MM IIA datiert und stammt aus einem Kontext, der in die späte 12. Dynastie gehört.146 In Tell el-Dabca sind in Stratum L (mittlere 12. Dynastie: ca. 1900–868) Fragmente von Oval-mouth amphorae gefunden worden, welche vorsichtig in MM IIA (?) datiert wurden.147 Dies zeigt, dass MM IIA bereits vor der späten 12. Dynastie, vielleicht sogar vor Sesostris III. in Gebrauch stand. Umgekehrt kann durch den in Knossos in einem MM IIA-Kontext gefundenen Skarabäus der frühen 13. Dynastie belegt werden, dass MM IIA erst nach der 12. Dynastie zu Ende gegangen ist. Und da die frühesten Funde von MM IIB in Ashkelon148 und in Tell el-Dabca149 ebenfalls aus der frühen 13. Dynastie stammen, kann der Übergang von MM IIA zu MM IIB mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit in die frühe 13. Dynastie datiert werden, also wohl um 1775.150 Der jüngst geäußerte Vorschlag von Robert Merrillees, MM IIB um 1825 beginnen zu lassen151 sollte also um etwa ein halbes Jahrhundert gesenkt werden.
142
147
143 144 145 146
EDEL in: KEMP & MERRILLEES 1980, 176–214; KEMP & MERRILLEES 1980, 215–219. FITTON, HUGHES & QUIRKE 1998, 132. KEMP & MERRILLEES 1980, 1–6. WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 50–51. MACGILLIVRAY 2004. Zum Kontext siehe: BADER 2003, 34–35 mit Abb. 4 und FORSTNER-MÜLLER & KOPETZKY 2006, 60.
148 149
150 151
CZERNY 1998, 46 mit Abb. 21. STAGER 2002, 357, 358 Abb. 19. MACGILLIVRAY 1995; MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 105. Siehe auch: WALBERG 1991. Chronologie nach KITCHEN 2000. MERRILLEES 2003, 138.
Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta 123
Bibliographie ALEXIOU, S.
CZERNY, E.
1958
1998
Ein frühminoisches Grab bei Lebena auf Kreta, AA 1958, 1–10.
Zur Keramik von cEzbet Rushdi (Stand Mai 1997), Ä&L 8, 41–46.
ALEXIOU, S. & WARREN, P.
DIMOPOULOU, N.
2004
2000
The Early Minoan Tombs of Lebena, Southern Crete, SIMA 30, Sävedalen.
ÅSTRÖM, P.
Seals and Scarabs from the Minoan Port Settlement at Poros-Katsambas, 27–38, in: W. MÜLLER (ed.), Minoisch-mykenische Glyptik. Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion. CMS Beiheft 6, Berlin.
1961/62 Remarks on Middle Minoan Chronology, Kritika Chronika 15/16, 137–150.
DUNAND, M.
1978
Methodical Viewpoints on Middle Minoan Chronology, OpAth 12, 87–90.
1954
The Middle Minoan Chronology, 3–7, in: P. ÅSTRÖM, L.R. PALMER & L. POMERANCE (eds.), Studies in Aegean Chronology, SIMA-Pb 25, Göteborg.
1967
1984
BADER, B. 2003
DUNHAM, D.
The Egyptian Jars from Sidon in their Egyptian Context, AHL 18, 31–37. The Tutankhamun Burnt Group from Gurob, Egypt: Bases for the Absolute Chronology of LH III A and B. Dissertation University of Pennsylvania.
BELLI, P. 1984
Second Cataract Forts II. Uronarti, Shalfak, Mirgissa, Boston.
FITTON, L., HUGHES M. & QUIRKE, S. 1998
BELL, M.R. 1991
Fouilles de Byblos II. 1933–1938, Paris.
Northerners at Lahun. Neutron Activation Analysis of Minoan and Related Pottery in the British Musuem, 112–140, in: S. QUIRKE (ed.), Lahun Studies, Reigate.
FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., KOPETZKY, K. 2006
An Upper Egyptian Import at Sidon, AHL 24, 60–62.
GIVEON, R. 1985
Nuovi documenti per lo studio delle tombe circulari cretesi, SMEA 25, 91–142.
Egyptian Scarabs from Western Asia from the Collections of the British Museum. OBO SA 3, Freiburg – Göttingen.
BEN-TOR, D.
GOODISON, L., & GUARITA, C.
2006
2005
Chronological and Historical Implications of the Early Egyptian Scarabs on Crete, 77–89, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN & A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak II. OLA 149, Leuven-Paris-Dudley, MA.
BETANCOURT, P.P. 1985
The History of Minoan Pottery, Princeton.
BLACKMAN, D. 1999
Archaeology in Greece 1998–99, AR 1998–1999, 1–124.
BRUNTON, G.
A New Catalogue of the Mesara-Type Tombs, SMEA 47, 171–212.
HATZIDAKIS, I. 1915
Prwtominwúkoˆ t£foi par¦ tÕ cwr…on Goàrnej, ArchDelt 1, 59–63.
1918
Minwúkoˆ t£foi ™n Kr»tV, ArchDelt 4, 44–87.
HELCK, W. 1976
Ägyptische Statuen im Ausland – ein chronologisches Problem, UF 8, 101–115.
19952 Die Beziehungen Ägyptens und Vorderasiens zur Ägäis bis ins 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Von Rosemarie Drenkhahn durchgesehene und bearbeitete Neuauflage. Erträge der Forschung 120. Darmstadt.
1927
Qau and Badari I. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account Twenty-ninth Year 1923, London.
1937
Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture. British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt. First and Second Years 1928, 1929, London.
1959
Archaeology in Greece, 1958, AR 5, 3–22.
1960
Archaeology in Greece, 1959, AR 6, 3–26.
Matmar. British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt, 1929–1931, London.
1961/62 Stratigraphic Excavations at Knossos 1957–61, Kritika Chronika 15/16, 92–98.
1948
CADOGAN, G. 1983
Early Minoan and Middle Minoan Chronology, AJA 87, 507–518.
HOOD, M.S.F.
1966
The Early and Middle Minoan Periods at Knossos, BICS 13, 110–111.
KARETSOU, A., ANDREADAKI-VLAZAKI, M.
KRHTH – AIGUPTOS. Politismiko… desmo… trièn cilietièn. Kat£logoj, Iraklion.
CADOGAN, G., DAY, P., MACDONALD, C.F., MACGILLIVRAY, J.A., MOMIGLIANO, N., WHITELAW, T.M. & WILSON, D.E.
2000
1993
KEEL, O.
Early Minoan and Middle Minoan Pottery Groups at Knossos, BSA 88, 21–28.
1995
Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel.
124 Felix Höflmayer Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit. Einleitung, OBO SA 10, Freiburg-Göttingen. 1997
Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit. Katalog Band I: Von Tell Abu Farag bis cAtlit, OBO SA 13, FreiburgGöttingen.
KEMP, B.J., & MERRILLEES, R.S. 1980
Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt, Mainz am Rhein.
KITCHEN, K.A. 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 B.C. Proceedings of an International Symposium at Schloß Haindorf, 15th–17th of November 1996 and at the Austrian Academy, Vienna, 11th–12th of May 1998, CChEM 1, Wien.
1907
Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire. Nos. 36001–37521. Scarab-shaped Seals, London.
PENDLEBURY, J.D.S. 1930
Aegyptiaca. A Catalogue of Egyptian Objects in the Aegean Area, Cambridge.
1939
The Archaeology of Crete. An Introduction, London.
PENDLEBURY, H.W., PENDLEBURY, J.D.S. & MONEY-COUTTS, M.B. 1935–36 Excavations in the Plain of Lasithi I: The Cave of Trapeza, BSA 36, 5–131. PELON, O. 1976
Tholoi, tumuli et cercles funéraires. Recherches sur les monuments funéraires de plan circulaire dans l’égée de l’âge du bronze (IIIe et IIe millénaires av. J.-C.). Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 229, Paris.
PETRIE, W.M.F.
LAHANAS, A.
1891
Illahun, Kahun and Gurob. 1889–90, London.
2004
1925
Button and Design Scarabs. Illustrated by the Egyptian Collection in University College, London, London.
Ein Keramikdepot aus Archanes und seine Bedeutung für die Entwicklung der mittelminoischen Keramik. Dissertation Universität Freiburg. http://deposit. ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=972733507
PETRIE, W.M.F. & BRUNTON, G. 1924
LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON, C. 1990
Hellenorientalia plus Orientalia. A Catalogue of Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Mitannian, Syro-Palestinian, Cypriot and Asia Minor Objects from the Bronze Age Aegean. SIMA-Pb 95, Göteborg.
PHILLIPS, J.S. 1990
Egypt in the Aegean during the Middle Kingdom, 319–333, in: Akten des Vierten Internationalen Ägyptologen-Kongresses, BSAK 4, Hamburg.
1991
The Impact and Implications of the Egyptian and ‘Egyptianizing’ Material found on Bronze Age Crete, ca. 3000 – ca. 1100 B.C. Dissertation University of Toronto.
MACGILLIVRAY, J.A. 1995
A Minoan Cup at Tell el-Dabca, Ä&L 5, 81–84.
1998
Knossos: Pottery Groups of the Old Palace Period. British School at Athens Studies 5, London.
2004
A Middle Minoan Cup from Sidon, 124–131, in: C. DOUMET-SERHAL, A. RABATE & A. RESEK (eds.), A Decade of Archaeology and History in the Lebanon, Beirut.
PINI, I. 2000
MANNING, S.W. 1996 1999
Dating the Aegean Bronze Age: without, with, and beyond, radiocarbon, Acta Archaeologica 67, 15–37. A Test of Time. The Volcano of Thera and the Chronology and History of the Aegean and East Mediterranean in the Mid Second Millennium BC, Oxford.
Sedment I–II. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account Twenty-seventh Year 1921, London.
Eleven Early Cretan Scarabs, 107–113, in: A. KARETSOU (ed.), KRHTH – AIGUPOS. Politismiko… desmo… trièn cilietièn. Melštej, Iraklion.
POMERANCE, L: 1973
The Possible Role of Tomb Robbers and Viziers of the 18th Dynasty in Confusing Minoan Chronology, 21–30, in: Antichità Cretesi. Studi in onore di Doro Levi I, Catania.
MATOUK, F.S.
QUIRKE, S., & FITTON, L.
1977
1997
Corpus du scarabée égyptien II. Analyse thématique, Kein Erscheinungsort.
MATZ, F. 1928
Die frühkretischen Siegel. Eine Untersuchung über das Werden des minoischen Stiles, Berlin-Leipzig.
MERRILLEES, R.S. 2003
The First Appearances of Kamares Ware in the Levant, Ä&L 13, 127–142.
NEWBERRY, P.E. 1905
Ancient Egyptian Scarabs. An Introduction to Egyptian Seals and Signet Rings, London.
An Aegean Origin for Egyptian Spirals?, 421–444, in: J. PHILLIPS, L. BELL & B.B. WILLIAMS (eds.), Ancient Egypt, the Aegean and the Near East: Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell, San Antonio, TX.
REISNER, G.A. 1955
Clay Sealings of Dynasty XIII from Uronarti Fort, Kush 3, 26–69.
ROWE, A. 1936
A Catalogue of Egyptian Scarabs, Scaraboids, Seals and Amulets in the Palestine Archaeological Museum, Kairo.
Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta 125
SAKELLARAKIS, I.A. 1967a Minoan Cemeteries at Arkhanes, Archaeology 20, 276–281.
BC. Studies in Egyptian Foreign Relations during the First Intermediate Period, Beirut. 1978
Studies on Scarab Seals I. Pre-12th Dynasty Scarab Amulets, Warminster.
1981
The Scarabs from Tholos B at Platanos, AJA 85, 70–73.
1967b 'Anaskaf¾ 'Arcanîn, Praktika 1967, 151–161. 1971
'Anaskaf¾ 'Arcanîn, Praktika 1971, 276–283.
1973
'Anaskaf¾ 'Arcanîn, Praktika 1973, 167–187.
1975
'Anaskaf¾ 'Arcanîn, Praktika 1975, 255–321.
SAKELLARAKIS, I.A. – SAKELLARAKI, E. 1991
Archanes, Athen.
1997
Archanes. Minoan Crete in a New Light; Athen.
SCHACHERMEYR, F. 1964
Die minoische Kultur des alten Kreta, Stuttgart.
WARD, W.A. & DEVER, W.G. 1994
WARREN, P.M. 1980
SOLES, J.S. 1992
The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete. Hesperia Supplement 24, Princeton.
Studies on Scarab Seals III. Scarab Typology and Archaeological Context. An Essay on Middle Bronze Age Chronology, San Antonio, Tx. Problems of Chronology in Crete and the Aegean in the Third and Earlier Second Millennium BC, AJA 84, 487–499.
WARREN, P.M., & HANKEY, V. 1989
Aegean Bronze Age Chronology, Bristol.
STAGER, L.E.
WATROUS, L.V.
2002
1996
The MB IIA Ceramic Sequence at Tel Ashkelon and Its Implications for the “Port Power” Model of Trade, 353–362, 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.
WIENER, M.H. 2003
TUFNELL, O. 1984
Studies on Scarab Seals II. Scarab Seals and their Contribution to History in the Early Second Millennium B.C., Warminster.
The Cave Sanctuary of Zeus at Psychro: A Study of Extra-urban Sanctuaries in Minoan and Early Iron Age Crete, Aegaeum 15, Liège. The Absolute Chronology of Late Helladic III A2 Revisited, BSA 98, 239–250.
YULE, P. 1980
Early Cretan Seals. A Study of Chronology, Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 4, Mainz am Rhein. Notes on Scarabs and Aegean Chronology, BSA 78, 359–367.
WALBERG, G. 1983
Provincial Middle Minoan Pottery, Mainz am Rhein.
1983
1991
The Finds at Tell el-Dabca and Middle Minoan Chronology, Ä&L 2, 115–120.
ZOIS, A.A.
WARD, W.A. 1971
Egypt and the East Mediterranean World 2200–1900
1969
Probl»mata cronolog…aj tÁj minwúkÁj kerameikÁj. Goàrnej. TÚlisoj. M£lia, Athen.
RESHEP AND ASTARTE IN NORTH SINAI: A RECENTLY DISCOVERED STELA FROM TELL EL-BORG By James K. Hoffmeier & Kenneth A. Kitchen
In the course of excavations at Tell el-Borg, North Sinai, in 2006 we discovered a small limestone votive stela that contains the figures of Reshep and Astarte (TBO 760;1 Fig. 1a–b). Given the scholarly interest in the presence and role of foreign deities in Egypt, and because of the intriguing iconographic features on this stela, it seems appropriate to publish this new discovery in a timely manner. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF THE STELA Tell el-Borg is located around ten kilometers (six miles) east of Qantara Sharq, Sinai and about five kilometers (3 miles) southeast of Tell Hebua II, now confirmed to be Egypt’s frontier town of Tjaru/Sile.2 Two forts from the New Kingdom have been discovered, the earlier one dating from the 18th Dynasty and the second one from the 19th and 20th Dynasties.3 We have presented evidence elsewhere to show that the first fort was likely constructed during the reigns of Thutmose III (1479–1425 B.C.) and/or Amenhotep II (1427– 1400 B.C.), and was abandoned after the reign of Akhenaten. This terminal date rests on the discovery of a stamped jar handle of anx xprw ra (Ankhkheperu-Re) – the ephemeral successor or coregent of Akhenaten (1338–1336 B.C.) – among the sherds sealed in the very top of the moat.4 The second fort was constructed immediately east of the 1
2
3
TBO =Tell el-Borg Object, the system for cataloguing small finds at Tell el-Borg. In recent years, two inscriptions have been discovered in 1999 and 2005 at Hebua I that mention Tjaru. See M. ABD EL-MAKSOUD & D. VALBELLE, Tell Héboua-Tjarou, L’Apport del l’Épigraphie, RdE 56 (2005) 8, 19–21. Abd el-Maksoud’s excavations during the spring and summer of 2007 at Hebua II have shown that it too is a part of the Tjaru military complex. For publications on Tell el-Borg J.K. HOFFMEIER, Tell elBorg in North Sinai, Egyptian Archaeology 20, Spring (2002) 18–20. J.K. HOFFMEIER & M. ABD EL-MAKSOUD, A New Military Site on ‘The Ways of Horus’ – Tell el-Borg 1999–2001: A Preliminary Report, JEA 89 (2003) 169–197. J.K. HOFFMEIER, Tell el-Borg on Egypt’s Eastern Frontier: A Preliminary Report on the 2002 and 2004 Seasons, JARCE 40 (2004) 85–112. J.K. HOFFMEIER,
front of the earlier fort. In fact, in Field IV, Wall C of the second fort was constructed over the SE corner of the moat of the earlier fort. This stratigraphic evidence demonstrates that the second fort was likely built late in the 18th Dynasty or at the very beginning of the 19th Dynasty.5 In 2005, a section of the moat of the Ramesside period fort was discovered and partially cleared (Field V, Area 2, squares A–B). It was a poorly made structure that measured 6.4 meters across at the top, and was at least 2.5 meters deep (Fig. 2). The superstructure was made of mud-brick that laid on a 45° angle in a trench that had been excavated into the sand. The foundation was made of an assortment of limestone blocks and fragments and was around 40 centimeters in depth. During the 2005 season, the ground water was touching the very bottom of the foundation. By the 2006 season, the water level had risen nearly another 15 cm, thus posing a danger to the blocks. At the end of the 2005 season, most of the limestone blocks were recovered from the rising water table. Among them were 17 pieces that contained some sort of inscription. The most important were seven partial or complete doorjambs from an earlier structure bearing the cartouches of aA xprw ra imn Htp HkA nTry iwnw (Aa-kheperu-ra Amenhotep, Divine Ruler of Heliopolis).6 The building from which they came was obviously still
4
5
6
Recent Excavations on the ‘Ways of Horus’: The 2005 and 2006 Seasons at Tell el-Borg, ASAE 80 (2006) 257–279. Some brief reports and pictures of the work at Tell el-Borg are also available at the project’s web-site, www.tellelborg.org. Several studies have presented the evidence for the dating of the moat, including J.K. HOFFMEIER & M. ABD EL -M AKSOUD , JEA 89 (2003) 193–194 and J.K. HOFFMEIER, ‘The Walls of the Ruler’ in Egyptian Literature and the Archaeological Record: Investigating Egypt’s Eastern Frontier in the Bronze Age, BASOR 343 (2006) 13–14. We currently favor the reign of Horemheb for this construction. See forthcoming J.K. HOFFMEIER, ASAE 80 (2006) 261–262. Two blocks mentioning Tjaru/Sile have been published. See J.K. HOFFMEIER & R.D. BULL, New Inscrip-
128 James K. Hoffmeier and Kenneth A. Kitchen
Fig. 1a TBO 760 stela of Astarte and Reshep; Photograph: J.T. Lim
Reshep and Astarte in North Sinai: A Recently Discovered Stela from Tell el-Borg 129
Fig. 1b TBO 760 stela of Astarte and Reshep; Computerised reconstruction: L. Pinch-Brock
130 James K. Hoffmeier and Kenneth A. Kitchen
Fig. 2 Tell el-Borg; Photograph: H. Alexander
standing during the reign of Akhenaten (1352–1336 B.C.) as the name of Amen was hacked out during the Amarna period iconoclasm. We have proposed that these blocks originally came from an important building associated with the first fort, which probably continued in use till the end of the Amarna period (ca. 1330 B.C.).7
This suggests that the reused blocks in the foundation of the moat most likely date to the period between 1425 B.C. (the reign of Amenhotep II) and ca.1300 B.C. when the moat was constructed. While excavating in Field II, Area 2, Square C during the most recent season, the stela under study was discovered. Unlike the other inscribed
tions Mentioning Tjaru from Tell el-Borg, North Sinai, RdE 56 (2005) 79–86, pls. XII–XIII) and the remainder are discussed in J.K. HOFFMEIER, Recent Excavations on
the ‘Ways of Horus’: The 2005 and 2006 Seasons at Tell el-Borg, ASAE (forthcoming). HOFFMEIER & R.D. BULL, RdE 56 (2005) 79–86.
7
Reshep and Astarte in North Sinai: A Recently Discovered Stela from Tell el-Borg 131
Fig. 3 Tell el-Borg; Photograph: J.K. Hoffmeier
blocks from the moat, the stela’s inscribed side faced upwards (Fig. 3). Based on the archaeological context (in the foundation of the moat), the stela must pre-date the Amarna period. DESCRIPTION OF STELA Rounded at the top, the stela is 35 cm tall and 24 cm wide, and it is about 4.5 cm thick (Fig. 1a–b). It is divided into two parts. The top section contains the two deities, and the bottom panel shows two men who are bringing offerings to Reshep and Astarte. The quality of the limestone is rather poor – somewhat porous. The bottom register has been damaged. A large section of the lower right hand portion has flaked off, obliterating the entire lower half of the second devotee. The general quality of the execution of the sunk reliefs is quite good, considering it is a private stela from a remote location, although the inscriptions are not as deeply incised and are difficult to read, especially the signs on the lower section. The top section containing the two deities is outlined by a circular line that follows the curvature of the top of the stela. The lines of the lunette extend down along the outside edges of the stela to
8
the surface on which the figures stand. The line representing the ground serves to demarcate the two panels; however, there are no outside lines in the lower portion, only a line representing the surface on which the two humans stand. On the left Reshep stands on a plinth – indicating a cult statue was in view. His right arm is upraised, holding a pear-shaped mace combined with a blade. He wears a long kilt that extends down to the ankle area and he is decked with the white crown, and has the narrow curved beard of Egyptian divinities. In his left hand he clutches a shield, which curves inward at the top and faces the deity. Above the shield his name and epithet are written: rSp nb pr iHw, “Reshep Lord of the estate (or house) of the stable of horses.” This is a previously unattested epithet for Reshep. IHw is a stable and normally is written with the house determinative ( ), indicating that it was a structure of some sort. However, there are examples in which a horse and plural strokes are written,8 just was we have here ( ). What exactly a pr iHw is remains uncertain, but it may refer to the entire stable establishment.
Wb 1, 121= A. ERMAN & H. GRAPOW, Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache 1–5 (Leipzig 1926–1931).
132 James K. Hoffmeier and Kenneth A. Kitchen Directly opposite Reshep, is the figure of Astarte, the goddess associated with warfare, horses and chariots.9 She sits enthroned on a leonine-legged chair, which in turn rests on the back of a horse. A spear clutched in her left hand is elevated over her head, as her right handle grasps a shield, which nearly touches that of Reshep. Also in the right hand one can see the top part and tip of a second spear extending beyond the top of the shield, which like Reshep’s shield curves inward, facing the goddess. She wears a tightly fitted dress that reaches her ankles, with the outline of her breast clearly delineated. On her head is the horned Atf-crown ( ). Astarte’s name (aAstrt) is written between the shield and spear that is held in her right her hand and her face. The signs are written after astrt and before the cobra determinative ( ) often used with female deities. Thus the name reads: astrt rn, meaning “Astarte name.”10 This is a most peculiar writing for which we can offer no parallel to this formula: deity-name + rn + determinative. It may be an Egyptian writing for the Canaanite epithet of Astarte, namely astrt rn bal, “Astarte the name of Baal.”11 In this case, either the name of Baal is missing due to lack of space or it was an intentional abbreviation. The appearance of a Semitic term in her epithet should not be surprising given her Levantine origin.12 In the lower register two worshipers are shown presenting offerings. The state of preservation of this part of the stela is poor, making the reading of the reliefs and inscription challenging. The man on the left wears a wig, the bottom of which touches the top of his left shoulder, and his kilt is knee-length. His one hand appears to be extend-
9
10 11
J. LECLANT, “Astarté à cheval d’après les representations égyptiennes,” Syria 37 (1960) 1–67. C. ROMMELAERE, Les Chevaux du Nouvel Empire Égyptien: Origines Races, Harnachement (Brussels 1991) chapter 8. Rn means ‘name’, cf. Wb 2, 425. J. HOFTIJZER & K. JONGELING, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Languages II (Leiden/New York, 1995) 1158. The earliest occurrence of this name is in the Kirta Epic from Ugarit, where it is found but once, but occurs again in a Phoenician text centuries later (D. PARDEE, The Kirta Legend, in: Context of Scripture I, 343 n. 101, in: W.W. HALLO & K.L. YOUNGER (eds.), The Context of Scripture (Leiden, 1997). Another interpretation of rn bal is “sky of Baal”, see N. WYATT, col. 205, in: K. VAN DER TOORN, B. BECKING, & P.W. VAN DER HORST
ed in a gesture of adoration, while the other may hold a libation vessel. A pedestal-type offering table stands before him with circular loaves (?) on it. Above the offering is the vertical inscription that includes the name and title of the devotee. The text reads imy-r ssmt btw, maA xrw – “the overseer of horses, Betu, the justified.” If our reading for the man’s name is correct, then we are dealing with a name known previously, but not common in Egypt. Ranke documents one occurrence in the Middle Kingdom and one in the New Kingdom.13 The name is quite possibly a foreign one, perhaps Hurrian. It might derive from the name Pentu/Bentu, a personal name attested at Nuzi, if we assume the assimilation of the n to t.14 The second figure stands on the right side of the bottom register and holds lotus flowers in each hand. The opened flowers are in direct alignment with the worshipper’s face, while the stems extend downwards. Below them is a wooden stand that supports what appears to be an amphora. The entire lower portion of this figure is missing and the top is so poorly preserved as to make it impossible to discern if this is a man or a woman. No trace of the second individual’s name is visible. DISCUSSION OF ICONOGRAPHY The Figure of Reshep Izak Cornelius recently studied the iconography of Reshep in Egyptian sources,15 proposing three different forms in which he appears, as 1. The menacing god, in which the deity is shown brandishing a weapon, 2. The standing god, and 3. the riding/driving god. Cornelius assembled 27 examples of Reshep portrayed in the menacing
12
13
14 15
(eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Grand Rapids/Leiden 1999). We are grateful to K.L. Younger for these references. Alan Schulman has made this point with respect to the use of Semitic terms in epithets of Reshep. See: Reshep Times Two, 165, in: W.K. SIMPSON & W.M. DAVIS (eds.), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan: Essays in honor of Dows Dunham on the occasion of his 90th birthday, June 1, 1980, Boston. H. RANKE, Die Ägyptischen Personennamen I (Glückstadt 1935) 99, no. 9. I.J. GELB, Nuzi Personal Names (Chicago 1943) 114. I. CORNELIUS, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Bacal. Orbis Biblicus et Orinetalis 140 (Fribourg 1994).
Reshep and Astarte in North Sinai: A Recently Discovered Stela from Tell el-Borg 133
god stance on stelae or reliefs on a permanent surface.16 There are many examples of the menacing god in glyptic art, but identifying the deity is challenging as Bacal and Reshep are at times indistinguishable.17 Clearly the Tell el-Borg stela falls into the menacing god category. Here Reshep is portrayed with his right hand upraised, clutching a pear-shaped blade-mace. In ten of the examples from Cornelius’s corpus, this type of mace is used. In the other hand, our deity holds a shield that curves inward at the top, pointing inwards towards Reshep’s head. This particular perspective has several parallels, apparently representing a side view of the shield.18 The most common shield form shows a frontal perspective, and typically, along with the shield, the god holds a spear. Thirteen of Cornelius’s examples have the shield-spear combination. The new stela omits the spear. The omission may be due to the fact that the deity’s name was written over the top of the shield, and below it is the head of Astarte’s horse. So there was simply no room for the spear. Space considerations – especially interference with an offering table – may account for the absent spear in some cases. Normally, if the shield is shown over the offering table and an inscription is above it, the spear is omitted. One notable exception is found on a Ramesside era stela from Deir el-Medineh, the artist includes the spear by placing it behind the offering table with the bottom of the shaft protruding below the table.19 Reshep is portrayed in keeping with normal Egyptian canons, including the narrow beard that curves out at the end, which is the traditional form for an Egyptian god. The standard headgear of this deity, the white crown, is worn, but no flowing streamers or band around the crown are visible, which are attested elsewhere. There are cases when he is portrayed in a more Semitic manner with
Cornelius has also classified the iconography of Semitic goddesses in Egyptian sources. They are 1. the armed goddess, 2. the seated goddess, 3 the standing goddess, 4 the equestrian goddess, and 5 the naked woman holding objects.23 Astarte usually is depicted in the first and fourth type, and within these, there are variations. The armed goddess type has sub-categories of the menacing seated goddess and the menacing standing goddess, while the equestrian goddess typically shows Astarte riding bare back on a horse in New Kingdom Egypt in a menacing pose. There are a few cases, however, where she is not in an attacking posture.24 Anat is also portrayed in nearly identical ways, and sometimes is iconographically indistinguishable from Astarte.25 Portrayals of Astarte on a chariot are found in the Levant in a bronze figurine, but only in Ptolemaic times is she shown driving a chariot in Egypt.26 In the Tell el-Borg stela, Astarte adopts the menacing posture, with a spear raised in her left hand, which is held near the very end of the shaft. The spear is the weapon of choice for this goddess, but the mace, blade mace and even a bow and arrow are all attested in Egyptian New Kingdom sources.27 The Atf-crown is the standard diadem for Astarte. Some portrayals include horns and a ribbon flowing downwards from the back of
16
23
17 18
19 20 21 22
Ibid. pls. 1–19. Ibid. 167–169. Ibid. pls. 2, 6, 8, & 21. One of the four examples of this side view presentation of the shield on a Ramesside period stela has the curved part turned outwards towards the worshiper. See CORNELIUS, pl. 6. Ibid. pl. 14. Ibid. pls. 22–23. R. GIVEON, Resheph in Egypt, JEA 66 (1980) 144. On the lute in Egypt and as an element of Reshep’s iconography, see K. BOSSE-GRIFFITHS, Two Lute-Players of the Amarna Era, JEA 66 (1980) 72–73.
long hair, a large beard, and a fillet that secures a gazelle’s head to his brow.20 The Tell el-Borg stela includes the gazelle’s head, an iconographic detail associated uniquely with representations of Reshep. It has been observed that the gazelle head or horns “are Resheph’s distinguishing mark,” according to Raphael Giveon.21 Another regular iconographic element of the Reshep repertoire is the lute,22 but it is not present in the new stela. The seated Astarte
24 25
26
27
I. CORNELIUS, The Many Faces of the Goddess: The Iconography of the Syro-Palestinian Goddess Anat, Astarate, Qedeshet, and Asherah ca. 1500–1000 BCE, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 204 (Fribourg 2004) 21. CORNELIUS, The Many Faces of the Goddess, pls. 4–6-7. See discussion and illustrations throughout CORNELIUS, The Many Faces of the Goddess. CORNELIUS, The Many Faces of the Goddess, 93–94; pl. 1.6, and 32. CORNELIUS, The Many Faces of the Goddess, for the spear, see 1.1.a, 1,2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4a, 31; for other weapons, see pls. 1.1, 1.7, 4.4.
134 James K. Hoffmeier and Kenneth A. Kitchen
Fig. 4 Astarte seal
Fig. 5 Nuzi seal in ‘Mittanian style’
the crown. In the new example, the horns are present, but there is no trace of a ribbon.
The most striking iconographic element of Astarte is that she is ensconced on a chair that rests on the back of a horse. The rear chair foot rests on the rear haunches, very close to the tail, while the front feet rest on the middle of the horse’s back. This placement allows space for Astarte’s feet to rest at the front of the back, just below the flowing mane. To our knowledge, this combination of seated goddess on the back of a horse is without parallel in Egyptian art. It appears to be a conflation of the seated menacing goddess and equestrian motifs. The closest possible parallels to this combination in Egyptian sources is found on some New Kingdom period scarabs in which a wingeddeity appears to be sitting as if on a chair on the back of a horse, but there is no chair! (Fig. 4)28 In fact the divinity seems to be hovering over the equine. Cornelius initially identified the wingedfigure on these scarabs with Baal. Edward Lipin,ki challenged this identification, believing that the deity is female, and is likely Astarte or Anat.29 The main argument he advances is the presence of the wdAt-eye ( ) on some of the scarabs which could point to Anat because her name was symbolized “at Ugarit by the cuneiform logogram of the eye.”30
This suggestion apparently convinced Cornelius, because in his recent monograph on the iconography of Semitic goddesses in Egypt, he reclassified these images as “the goddess stands or kneels (not riding) on horseback.”31 The problem with Lipin,ki’s suggestion is that the appearance of the -sign is, as Carol Andrews reminds us, “the most powerful of protective amulets.”32 So the appearance of this apotropaic symbol on a scarab is fitting and thus may have nothing to do with the Ugaritic writings. The second problem with Lipinksi’s identification is that in all four of the scarabs with the winged-deity under consideration, the figures wear the double crown of Upper and Lower Egypt (Fig. 4). Among all the clearly identifiable illustrations of Anat and Astarte, these deities never wear the double crown, rather the Atfcrown. Thus equating these winged-deities on horses with Anat or Astarte is at best questionable. Despite the uncertainty of the identity of these winged-deities, this motif, absent the throne, comes closest in Egyptian representations to Astarte’s presentation on TBO 760. Outside of Egypt there are examples in glyptic art of deities seated on the throne that are perched on the back of an animal. From Pre-Sargonic Mesopotamia, for example, comes a cylinder seal where a deity is enthroned on the back of a bull that faces right while the god faces left, and a second bull facing the other directions serves as the footstool for the
28
30
The horse
29
CORNELIUS, The Many Faces of the Goddess, pls. 4.22, 23, 24, 25. E. LIPIØSKI, Egypto-Cannanite Iconography of Reshef, Bacal, %oron, and Anat, CdÉ 71 (1996) 262.
31 32
Loc. cit. CORNELIUS, The Many Faces of the Goddess, 40–41. C. ANDREWS, Amulets, in: 79, D.B. REDFORD (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt I, New York 2001.
Reshep and Astarte in North Sinai: A Recently Discovered Stela from Tell el-Borg 135
Fig. 7 Tomb of Userhet, no. 56
Fig. 6 Tomb of Amen-Nedj, no. 84 (top) Tomb of Menkheperre-Senb, no. 86 (bottom)
deity.33 A similar instance occurs on a seal from the 20th year of Ammiditana.34 The closest parallel artistically and chronologically to the new enthroned Astarte on a horse is the depiction of a Mesopotamian god on a seat that is placed on the back of what appears to be a horse (Fig. 5). This seal is in the “Mitannian Style” and dates to ca. 1400 B.C. according to Edith Porada.35 In the absence of a royal cartouche on the stela, the presentation of the horse offers helpful details for dating the scene. Astarte’s horse has an elongated and slender body, a thin upright neck with a broad flowing mane whose width is only a little less than the thickness of the neck itself. The tail is long and thin, and its curvature gives it a question mark shape (Fig. 6).36 This type of horse compares well with the horses in the tomb of Renni, Paheri, Djehuti, Amun-nedjeh, Sennefer, Amenemhet, Nebamun, and Rekhmire, all spanning from the reigns of 33
34
35
This is Berlin VA 3878 in D. COLON, First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East (London 1987) 165. For the dating see p. 27. I am grateful to Alan Millard for directing me to this and the other Mesopotamian examples cited here. B. BUCHANAN, Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection (New Haven 1981) 352–53. E. PORADA, Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections I: Plates (Washington, D.C. 1948) # 1029E pl. 157, and pp. 143–144. Porada suggests that the animal supporting the enthroned deity is an ox. A
Longiligne
Bréviligne
Fig. 8 Rommelaere’s two types of 18th dynasty horses
Amenhotep I to Thutmose III.37 At the end of this period and into the reign of Amenhotep II, a stockier horse begins to appear as the earlier type fades out (Fig. 7). Catherine Rommelaere made a diachronic study of the horse based on 18th Dynasty representations. She determined that there are two types depicted. The shape of the one type is an elongated slender horse that she calls ‘Longiligne.’ The second horse is stockier horse and shorter, hence ‘Bréviligne.’38 She convincing-
36
37
38
closer look suggests that it looks more like a horse than an ox, especially the manner in which the ears are shaped. The tail does seem to be that of a bovine. Perhaps a composite animal is intended? C. ROMMELAERE, Les Chevaux du Nouvel Empire Égyptien. Origines, races, harnachement (Bruxelles, 1991), 68–70. Illustrations of these have all been conveniently assembled and illustrated in ROMMELAERE, Les Chevaus du Nouvel Empire Égyptien, 152–167. ROMMELAERE, Les Chevaux du Nouvel Empire Égyptien, 34–37.
136 James K. Hoffmeier and Kenneth A. Kitchen
When the horse of Astarte is compared with the two types of horses found in 18th Dynasty representations, it clearly matches the Longiligne variety. Consequently, the new stela most likely dates no later than the reign of Amenhotep II. The archaeological context of the stela suggests a date before ca. 1320–1300 B.C. The fact that the stela was found in association with other blocks bearing the names of Amenhotep II is not insignificant. When all these factors are weighed, a date in the reigns of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II is likely. Consequently this stela of Reshep and Astarte is one of the earliest representations of these martial deities who became increasingly
important in the course of the New Kingdom. Moreover, to our knowledge, this is the first example in which Reshep and Astarte appear together in Egyptian art. The owner of the stela was the ‘overseer of horses,’ apparently during the 18th Dynasty when the first Tell el-Borg fort flourished. Considering that he was likely a foreigner himself, his devotion to Reshep and Astarte, who are associated with horses and warfare, is quite fitting. The former’s title ‘Lord of the house of the stable of horses,’ shows the close relationship between the deity and Betu, the stable master. The personal name Reshep, a stable master, is found in the Wilbour Papyrus from the 20th Dynasty.41 The convergence of the two martial deities, Reshep’s epithet, the depiction of a horse and an officer responsible for the stable at a military site is altogether appropriate and expected. Ironically, this stela was discovered only about 3 meters west of a burial of four equines within the moat (Fig. 2). Two of these may be horses.42 While Reshep’s name is attested in Asiatic personal names in Egypt as early as the Middle Kingdom,43 it is not until the New Kingdom that this West Asian storm-god begins to play a greater role in Egyptian religion and is associated with horses and warfare. Thirty years ago the late Alan Schulman lamented that while Reshep ‘is associated with horses’ in the New Kingdom, the evidence was ‘surprisingly scant.’44 The recently discovered stela provides new evidence for this important but somewhat elusive foreign deity from the early 18th Dynasty, while at the same time expanding the repertoire of forms for the iconography of Astarte.
39
43
ly demonstrated that this difference is not merely an artistic one, but reflects a shift in the breed of horse. The earlier horse, she suggests was the Akhal Teke horse of Central Asia, whereas the later heavier equid is the Arabian Pur-sang.39 The change from one type of horse to the other during the second half of the 15th century B.C. coincides with the period when Thutmose III and Amenhotep II campaigned extensively in the Levant. Thousands of horses were brought to Egypt as booty during the three decades of aggressive military activity. The Megiddo booty list of Thutmose III alone records that 2041 horses, 191 foals, 6 stallions and colts (the number is lost) were taken to Egypt.40 This influx of horses to Egypt apparently brought the new breed which in time, by sheer numbers and cross-breading, replaced the earlier, slighter variety. The shift in artistic representation, then, merely reflects the change in breed. CONCLUSIONS
40 41
42
ROMMELAERE, Les Chevaux du Nouvel Empire Égyptien, 34–46. K. SETHE, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie IV (Berlin 1961) 663. A.H. GARDINER, Wilbour Papyrus III (London 1948) 43, Text A 41,5; 72 Text A 68, 36. He is son of Thut-em-Heb. During the most reason season, preliminary studies began on the four equids
44
The name apr rSpw occurs in Brooklyn Papyrus 35.1446. See W.C. HAYES, A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom I the Brooklyn Museum (New York 1955) 94. A. SCHULMAN, Reshep on Horseback?, JSSEA Newsletter 7 no. 4 (1977) 13.
AMENEMHET II AND THE SEA: MARITIME ASPECTS OF THE MIT RAHINA (MEMPHIS) INSCRIPTION By Ezra S. Marcus*
Abstract The inscribed granite blocks found at Mit Rahina (Memphis) are a unique source of information from the early 12th Dynasty of Egypt. This inscription apparently derived from the court records of Amenemhet II and details activities during two years of his reign, including endowments, building activities, and aspects of Egypt’s foreign relations. The last involved both military and commercial expeditions to the Levant, by land and by sea, activities that shed new light on this period. This paper considers the inscription from a heretofore unappreciated maritime perspective by analyzing the seaborne expeditions and the detailed descriptions of their cargoes both qualitatively and quantitatively. These descriptions may be characterized as the earliest “bill of lading” or “cargo manifest” known from the ancient Mediterranean world. The results are synthesized with the extant textual and archaeological record, in order to elucidate the nature of these expeditions and the ships involved, the significance of maritime transport and the implications of this capability for developments both in Egypt and the Levant. INTRODUCTION Throughout its long history, Egypt’s foreign relations were reliant, at least partially, on maritime communication.1 Despite the existence of a contiguous land route with southwestern Asia,
*
1
Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies, University of Haifa The antiquity of maritime contacts between Egypt and the Levant has long been a matter of debate. PRAG (1978; 1986), claims contacts with Byblos already in the Chalcolithic Period. In contrast, BEN-TOR (1991, 3–4) rejects the notion of any regular maritime contact with the Lebanon prior to the Old Kingdom. However, the underwater find from the Carmel Coast of a Naqada IIb-c period Egyptian jar filled with the originally-live mollusca Aspatharia Rubens (SHARVIT, GALILI, ROSEN, et al. 2002), the deep-water finds of Early Bronze Age I Canaanite and Naqada II Egyptian ceramics off the southern Levantine coast (BARAG 1963, 18, pl. 5a:1;
seaborne transport was necessary in order to satisfy Egypt’s need for foreign products, both of great size and quantity, and to augment the terrestrial projection of military power. Beginning in Pre-Dynastic times, the increasing demand, inter alia, for large quantities of Mediterranean horticultural (olive oil, wine, etc.) and wood products (timber and resins), of which royalty, the elite, and religious institutions were always the greatest consumers, was a major impetus for the king assuming, or claiming to assume, a central role in their procurement. The means of this procurement became solely maritime probably sometime around the Dynasty I/Early Bronze Age II horizon, ca. 3000 BCE, when the northern Sinai land route, the “Way of Horus,” was abandoned (BRANDL 1992; MARCUS 2002a; YEKUTIELI 2002; DE MIROSCHEDJI 2002), but it is only in the 4th Dynasty that the first record exists of a king, Sneferu, dispatching a maritime expedition.2 Subsequent Old Kingdom (OK) textual references and pictorial depictions attest to a royal hand in such endeavors, which is complemented by the archaeological realia of high-profile imported raw materials and products in Egypt, and the plethora of Egyptian finds at her partner port in the Lebanon: Byblos. When turning to the Middle Kingdom (MK), however, the pattern of evidence for such activity is one-sided. Numerous material finds in Egypt and Byblos attest to such maritime
2
MARCUS 2002a, 407; GOPHNA 2002), the distribution of foreign coniferous woods (including cedar) along the southern Levantine littoral and Egypt, and other evidence (GOPHNA and LIPSCHITZ 1996; MARCUS 2002a), all appear to demonstrate that the maritime capability implicit in Prag’s position were not lacking at least by the Early Bronze Age Ia. The Palermo Stone and Cairo fragment #4 refer to “the bringing of forty ships filled with aS wood” and the building of 100 cubit long vessels and a palace door, variously of aS and mrw wood, as well as other evidence of foreign expeditions (BREASTED 1906, §146-§148; WILSON 1950, 227; SMITH 1971, 167; MEIGGS 1982, 63; WILKINSON 2000, 141–145, 232–236).
138 Ezra S. Marcus activity, but, until recently, the written record has been largely silent, with only vague allusions to shipping throughout this period and the Second Intermediate Period (MARCUS 1998; 2002b). Given this extraordinary lacuna, the Mit Rahina (Memphis) inscription of Amenemhet II, which contains detailed references to seaborne expeditions and transported goods, is a singular discovery, whose potential for shedding light on Egyptian maritime activity has been largely overlooked since its publication (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991).3 The goal of this study is to identify those maritime aspects of the text and treat them within their proper historical and archaeological context. Such a treatment will demonstrate that significant developments occurred in Egypt during the reign of Amenemhet II that may have impacted on the Levant as well. THE ANNALS OF AMENEMHET II Previous research on the text When initially discovered and its existence reported in the late 1970s – early 1980s (FARAG 1980; POSENER 1982), the Middle Kingdom inscription of Amenemhet II from Mit Rahina (Memphis) elicited, variously, anticipation and doubt among scholars of Egypt and the Levant alike.4 This reaction was to be expected as after nearly a century of disappointment at the near lack of epigraphic evidence for MK Egyptian military operations in the Levant and the absence of clarity regarding relations between the two regions, here was a text that had the potential to fill both of these lacunae. Thus, relying on photographs and the first impressions of FARAG and POSENER, a number of translations and interpretations appeared (HELCK 1989; GOEDICKE 1991; REDFORD 1992, 78–80; O’CONNOR 1996, 52–54).5 However, it was not until a detailed transcription and interpretation was published by ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA (1991), complemented
3
4
Surprisingly, the two most recent major works on Bronze Age seafaring in the Mediterranean mention it only briefly and merely as evidence for contacts with Cyprus and the Lebanon (WACHSMANN 1998, 10; FABRE 2005, 30, n. 83). Note the cautious mention already in 1982 by NAÝAMAN (1982, 141). WARD (1987, 528, nn. 90–91) prematurely rejected the 12th Dynasty date and attributed it to a 19th Dynasty donation to the funerary monuments of Senusret I and Amenemhet II.
by an additional copy by MALEK and QUIRKE (1992; MALEK 1992), that the text could be fully appreciated and evaluated, although further authoritative collations and publications remain forthcoming.6 Since then, this text has begun to be appreciated as a basis for characterizing the nature of relations between Egypt and the Levant (EDER 1995, 176–195; REDFORD 1992, 80; 1996, 79; DANTONG 1998; MARCUS 1998; 2002b; COHEN 2000, 89–97; 2002a, 41–45). Others have utilized it more specifically for the identification of various ethnonyms (DE FIDANZA 1998), toponyms (QUACK 1996, 79), as background for the study of royal sculpture and building activities during the reign of Amenemhet II (FAY 1996, 40, 61), for the philological data it contains on Egyptian characterization of metals (GIUMLÍA-MAIR and QUIRKE 1997), the information it offers on Egyptian mining activities (SHAW 1998, 248–250) and for the light it sheds on MK temple construction (ALTENMÜLLER 1998). Lastly, references to endowments to the Temple of Montu at Tôd have led some to see the text as a background for the famous Tôd Treasure of Amenemhet II (LILYQUIST 1993, 36; PIERRAT 1994, 23–24). The inscription The text in question is inscribed on a single red granite block, termed “M”, which was found in secondary use as a pedestal for a statue of Rameses II in a temple at Memphis; a fragment previously discovered by PETRIE, termed “P”, is part of the same inscription. These blocks were probably part of the walls of an inner chamber of the Temple of Ptah, which is mentioned in the “P” fragment (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 1, 40; MALEK and QUIRKE 1992, 13).7 The text, which represents a small portion of the court records or annals of Amenemhet II, is written in columns and lists events apparently organized in chronological order. ALTENMÜLLER & MOUSSA (1991, 4) divide the 41 columns into 40 subject headings.8 What follows are selected por-
5
6
7
8
O’Connor’s consideration is less an interpretation than a response to BERNAL’s (1991, 230–235) misuse of the text as evidence of wide-ranging Egyptian conquests north of the Levant. See also OBSOMER (1995, 595–606) for a largely overlooked transliteration and translation of the text. However, QUIRKE (2003b) notes that several of the blocks might originally have come from Amenemhet II’s pyramid temple at Dahshur. QUIRKE (2003a) offers a slightly different division.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 139
tions of their first 27 subject headings (underlined) for columns M1-26 only and, except where noted, 1. 2. 4. 5. 6.
M1 M2–3 M4 M5 M5–6
following Altenmüller and Moussa’s translation for those sections relevant to this study.
Donation of a field for offerings to the funerary cult of Senusret I Establishment of an offering endowment for Senusret I Offering endowment for the Sokarfest of days 25–26 Choiak for a cult Endowment of a statue to a temple of Senusret I (?) Endowment of a statue of Amenemhet II and cult equipment for Senusret I in the funerary cult temple of Senusret I 7. M6 Further endowments 8. M7 Offering endowments 9. M7 Dispatching of expedition troops to the Lebanon Sending of a military expedition into Lebanon (#nty-S) 10. M8 Raising of recruits (?) 11. M8 Dispatching of expedition troops to Asia Sending of a military expedition together with the ‘head of the fighting troops of the army’ (imy-r mnfAt mSa), to destroy/cut apart Asia (%Tt) IwA (a foreign country) 12-13. M9–10 Endowment of cult equipment for two recipients [gap of ca 10 + 7 groups erased - double donations - possibly to the gods Montu of Armant and Montu of Tôd] 12. (from) Silver (?): ... 2 (from) Asiatic copper: @st-vase 2 Hand washing tool 1 Incense arm 2 a hn-box for the opening of the mouth with all of its tools from the state administration. 13. M9 for Montu in Armant (from) Asiatic copper 1 ds-jug M10 for Montu of Tôd (from) Asiatic copper 1 ds-jug 16. M11–12 Tribute from Nubians 17. M12–13 Tribute from Asiatics M12 The children of the princes of Asia coming with bowed heads They bring here: (precious metal:) Silver 220 dbn M13 [Gold (?)] [. . .] (Animals:) [(?) Cattle and] small domestic animals Total 56 heads (Slaves:) Asiatics 1002 (Lead and lead minerals:) Lead 6 dbn White lead 55 dbn 18. M13–14 Return of an expedition from the Sinai M13 Arrival of the army (expedition) that was sent to the turquoise terraces. They bring here: (precious stone:) Turquoise 14 13/32 HoAt and the rest (Ore minerals:) #t-awA - mineral 8,700 dbn BiA-qis - mineral 5,570 dbn (Minerals:) The ? - mineral 6 hoAt M14 ... (Minerals:) Alum of a special kind 26 13/16 HoAt Natron 10 9/16 HoAt (Organic products:) Sea stars 8 sSAit - aromatics 41 sacks (Precious metal:) Silver 9 ¾ dbn (Animals:)
140 Ezra S. Marcus
21.
22.
23.
Cattle 10 Young Ibex 3 (Hides:) Cheetah hide M15 Tribute from xrw nomads (?) from TmpAw The coming of the xrw nomads (?) from TmpAw, with heads bowed down; with their arms they bring here: Lead 238 1/4 dbn M16–18 Return of the army from Iw3i and IAsii and a list of tribute M16 [The coming of the mSa-army and] the fighting army (mnfAt), which have been sent to cut up the fortifications of IwAi and to cut up the fortifications of IAsii. Amount of captives who were brought from the foreign lands: Asiatics: 1554 (Booty containing the following tools:) (from) Bronze and wood: Axes 10 Sickle 33 Daggers 12 Saws 4 1/4 Knives 79 Chisel 1 Razor blades 4 M17 [gaps] x+330 (Harpoon or spear with 5 points) 2 (Weapon, maybe scepter or sword) 45 mab(A) harpoon 6 (More tools:) Balance pan? 3 Six-spoked wheel 60 (Raw materials:) Copper scrap 646 dbn New copper 125 dbn (Weapon:) (from) Bronze : Spear/arrow with triangular point 30 Spear/arrow with elliptical point 26 (from) Copper and wood Lance 1 (Jewelry:) Armlet 3 Jewelry for head and ear 38 (Staffs:) (from) Wood and Silver: Staff with metal decoration M18 ... (Minerals:) [Amethyst](?) 58 dbn #swD 1 1/4 Malachite 1734 dbn (Organic products:) (from) ivory %At (plate for furniture fitting?) 4 (Wood products:) (from) Wood: Asiatic household goods 54 Hnw vessels “Travel box” 1 Comb 13 Axles 8 (Metal:) Lead 375 dbn M18–21 Expedition goods from Lebanon, list of raw materials and goods M18 The coming of the expedition troops that were sent to the Lebanon (#nty-S) in two ships. They bring:
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 141
M19
M20
M 21
9
10
(precious metal:) Silver [Gold] (Metal:) Bronze Copper (Minerals:) White lead Marble Emery Grinding stone sand (Stone and seals:) (from) Dolerite9 Saddle quern Hopper (upper) hard stone of Dolerite (from) White and black hard stone (pounder?) (from) Gold and silver Asiatic seal (Minerals (?):) . . . quartz (Aromatics and salves:) (Aromatics and salve oil of) Cedar (aS) of first quality (Aromatics and salve oil of) Olive tree (bAq)10 (Aromatics and salve oil of) Pine (sfT) 176 hbnt jugs (Aromatics:) (fragrant stuff of ) Ti- šps tree (cinnamon or camphor?) . . .rt . . .-fragrant (?) Terebinth resin (snTr) (Medicinal plants:) Fruit of the Tntm plant Fruit of coriander Fruit of the kSw plant Herb against (a disease, with the) struggling (Trees:) ... [. . .] Fig trees Sycamore (People:) Asiatics (determinative with men & women) (hand worked products:) (from) Bronze and gold and ivory Mirror (from) Bronze, Gold and silver: Daggers (from) Bronze and ivory: Daggers
Another figurative reading for this phrase is green jasper (ALTENMÜLLER 1990; EDER 1995, 180). ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA translate aS as fir (1991, 16), although the argument for Lebanese cedar is much more convincing (DAVIES 1995; EDER 1995, 183; WARD 2000, 20–22). In any event, it is clearly a coniferous
1676 1/2 dbn ... 4882 dbn 15,961 dbn 4882 dbn 13 stones 16,588 dbn 39,556 dbn
1 stone 6 stones 5 stones 4 stones 1
[. . .] 5/8 hoAt 5 3/8 HoAt 66+3/8 HoAt and the rest
271 sacks 7 Hnw vessels 92 Hnw vessels 8 1/2 HoAt 55 3/4 HoAt 4 HoAt 1/ HoAt 4
3+x 73 1 65
2 16 21
long wood, even if the correspondence between the ancient wood terminology and textual references to their oils and resins is still unclear (MEIGGS 1982, 63; WARD 1991, 13–14). Similarly, bAq is more likely olive than moringa (STAGER 1985; LEV-YADUN & WARD 1992).
142 Ezra S. Marcus
24.
27.
(Plants:) %Abt - plants 4 sacks BhAw- plants 197 sacks SfSft - plants . . . sacks (Timber:) Cedar (aS) 231 (trunks) M21–23 Redistribution by the state administration of delivered goods M 21 (Tribute from a foreign country?) A tribute was given M 22 [by a foreign country to the state administration], that was brought to the palace (1. Group consisting of:) Raw silver 32 dbn (in the form of) ¡nw vessels 20 Copper (in the form of) sickle blades 920 dbn (in the form of) lumps 25 dbn (Minerals:) Emery 83 stones (Materials and textiles:) %XAt-dress (?) and int-textile 2 IsmAt-dress 2 Red init-dress 3 (Desert animals:) Ibex 1 (Orchard fruits:) Figs 100 Hn Raisins 2 large Hnw vessels (Wine:) Wine 5 hbnt jugs (2. Group, consisting of:) (Minerals:) Polishing sand 6 mAmA vessels (Aromatics:) %frt(?) oil [. . . ] Incense (snTr) 8 Hnw vessels M 23 [gap of 3 groups] (3. Group, consisting of:) (Minerals:) Quartz 2 mAmA vessels (Aromatics:) Tšps-wood no figure 2. (Tribute from Syria (Tnw) (?):) 1 gAwt-tribute from Tnw (?): [copper] 1 mAmA vessel 3. (Tribute from Lebanon #nty-S): 1 gAwt-tribute from Lebanon: Cedar (aS) 73 trunks M25–26 Rewarding of the soldiers and officials for their services M 25 (contains) slaves, fields, gold (of honor), dresses and other beautiful things 1) head of fighting troops 2) recruitment officer 3) recruits who have returned from the hacking up of the fortifications of iwAi and iAsi and who were looking for a supply of workers for the pyramid city “powerful is Amenemhet II” with captives M 26 [booty was brought] from the cities of these two foreign places and the foods of the Asiatic captives was eaten 4) for the king’s children 5) for the king’s nobles 6) for the king’s bird catcher
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 143
Chronology of the text
to the winter prt season based on the assumption that the bringing of tribute by foreigners coincided with the Nehebkau festival, which marks the beginning of the civil year (I prt 1). The remaining section of Year 3, M16–27, is attributed to the summer season šmw with offerings to the msiit festival possibly mentioned.
Owing to the fragmentary nature of the text, any regnal years that might have appeared along the upper margin have long been lost. Nevertheless, Altenmüller and Moussa have offered some ingenious interpretations for the absolute date of the text and its internal chronology. These provide important chronological datums that can aid in interpreting the broader context to be considered below. The historical date of columns M1–27 is probably the last year of the coregency of Senusret I and Amenemhet II, Year 45 and Year 3, respectively, with the remainder belonging to the latter’s 4th year and first as sole regent (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 38). These dates are based on a number of the text’s internal features and historical grounds. The unusual width of column M28, 9.0 cm versus 5.8 cm for the remainder, and the fact that it contains the name and titles of Amenemhet II suggests that it marks an important division within the text.11 Prior to that columnar marker, Senusret I is mentioned frequently; afterwards his name is absent. The references to his funerary endowments in columns M1-7 suggest his death some time during the first third of the year (see below). The events that follow, the dispatching abroad of expeditions of military conquest and commerce, the arrival of obeisant foreign dignitaries, the rewarding of soldiers, all suggest that Amenemhet II was seeking, through the projection of power, to legitimize himself after the death of his father. That Year 3 of his reign was of political significance can be seen in the many stelae in which it is mentioned (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 39; OBSOMER 1995, 143). ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA (1991, 26–27) suggest a further division of Year 45/Year 3 into three separate sections reflecting the seasons of the Egyptian year. Columns M1–10 are placed in the autumn Axt season largely based on the mention in column M4 of the Sokar festival, which falls in the fourth month. Columns M11–15 are assigned
The relevance of this text for assessing EgyptianLevantine relations is largely dependent on the understanding of the terminology employed in describing the interactions between these regions as well as the identification and, therefore, geographical location of the toponyms. Unfortunately, there is little consensus among scholars on both issues, largely owing to the equivocal nature of the language and the rarity of similar place names elsewhere in the Egyptian toponymic record. The terminology for the dispatching of the expeditions to #nty-S (Section 9; M 7) and %Tt (Section 11; M 8) is fairly similar. Both use the same language for the actual departure (mAa mSa) except that the latter expedition is accompanied by the overseer(s?) of infantry and troops and with the express intent of hacking up IAw of %Tt. Depending on whether mSa is interpreted as “army” or just generic “group” (SCHULMAN 1964, 10–13), “expedition” (DANTONG 1998, n. 23), or “gang” (FAULKNER 1953, 38), opinions differ as to whether these were, respectively, commercial and military expeditions (GOEDICKE 1991; EDER 1995, 178; O’CONNOR 1996, 53; DANTONG 1998) or both punitive actions that elicited tribute or booty (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 23, 33–35; REDFORD 1992, 79; 1996, 79; OBSOMER 1995, 597).12 In addition to the difference noted above, GOEDICKE (1991, 93) further distinguishes the three unarmed men signs that follow the term mSa as some sort of non-military escort on the #nty-S mission.13 Finally, only the report of the expedition to %Tt (Section 22; M
11
13
12
See, also, QUIRKE’s explanation (2003a) for the thicker vertical between lines 27 and 28. Military escorts on what are seemingly commercial ventures are not unknown from other periods. For example, note the exchange of goods between the representatives of Hatshepsut and the king of Punt, which was carried out in the presence of a military escort (WACHSMANN 1998, fig. 212).
Terminology, toponymics and Egyptian-Levantine relations
OBSOMER (1995, 597) associates the recruitment of manpower by Amenemhet II, which is recorded in the intervening entry between the two expeditions, as a mustering of soldiers to be associated with the preceding dispatch to #nty-S. GOEDICKE (1991, 93) sees no direct supervision of the king in the leading of any forces while QUIRKE (2003a) is unsure to which entry the recruitment is to be associated, if at all. It seems
144 Ezra S. Marcus 16–18) has a specifically military description, wherein mnfAt fighting forces (SCHULMAN 1964, 13–14) are described as having devastated the fortified cities of IAwi and IAsii, the latter perhaps an opportunistic target that was attacked in addition to the primary mission.14 Regarding the means by which these expeditions were conveyed, each departure entry includes a boat determinative although only the expedition sent to #nty-S has a boat with a raised sail, which JONES (1988, 214) would translate as to “sail or travel”. Moreover, whereas the expedition to #nty-S returns in two dpt ships,15 literally “transport ships” (JONES 1988, 150), a gap in the beginning of the preceding entry obscures whether the expedition to %Tt returned to Egypt by land or sea.16 Depending on whether IAw and IAwi are the same location, between five and six toponyms are mentioned in association with expeditions and tribute. The first recorded is #nty-S, which literally means “the place by the lake” (DANTONG 1998, n. 24; QUIRKE 2003a) or woodland (GREEN 1983, 43–44; EDER 1995, 178; WIMMER 2005, 130), although GOEDICKE (1991, 90, n. 10) would prefer reading the latter morpheme as “yam” and the phrase as meaning “in front, namely, beyond the sea”. In New Kingdom times, this toponym is synonymous with the Lebanon or the Lebanese coast and most scholars have considered it as such for the Middle Kingdom as well (FAULKNER 1986, 194; ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991; GOEDICKE 1991; REDFORD 1992, 78–80; QUIRKE 2003a). %Tt of the second expedition is a general term for “Asia”
(FAULKNER 1986, 255), but a more precise localization is unclear. GOEDICKE (1991, 93, n. 31) associates it with the arid zones, specifically Sinai and the adjoining Negev, yet he then compares IAw of %Tt with a toponym of the Execration Texts thought to denote “old Tyre” (GOEDICKE 1991, 93, n. 32). Opinions are divided as to whether IAw and IAwi are the same or two different cities and therefore two separate campaigns (EDER 1995, 185–186). However, the latter city is more easily read as Ura (HELCK 1989; EDER 1995, 191), which is known from the New Kingdom for its role as the Cilician port of the Hittites (BEAL 1992).17 Although similar in spelling, IAwi does not appear with the epithet %Tt “of Asia”, nor does the other city IAsii, which is identified by most as Alashiya, i.e., Cyprus (HELCK 1989; REDFORD 1992, n. 47; EDER 1995, 191; QUACK 1996). The identification of the latter toponym and its significance will be considered in detail below. Finally, GOEDICKE (1991, 90–93) suggests that the toponym *mpAw should be equated with Tunip, an identification that is followed by EDER (1995, 188–189).18 However, another interpretation considers this term to be an ethnonym for a nearby eastern Egyptian desert people (DE FIDANZA 1998). Thus, given the variations outlined above it should not be surprising that interpretations based on this text regarding Egypt’s relations with hither Asia during the 12th Dynasty are varied. Among the broader generalizations, the main variations include some sort of commercial coercion or political domination propped up by military
likely given the rewarding of recruits in Section 27 (M25) who had returned from the conquest of IAwi and IAsii that the recruitment should be associated with the latter entry. If, despite the slightly different spelling, IAwi is identical to IAw of the departure entry, as most scholars seem to agree, the absence of any reference to the second city in the description of the army’s destination and its recording only after the event underscores the reliability and historicity of the recording process of these court annals. This observation together with the specifications of exact material and quantity and the general use of infinitive constructions in the text’s language supports the assumption that an actual administrative record of the royal palace was the basis for this inscription (EDER 1995, 177). Several scholars have erroneously stated that as few as one (STAGER 2002, 360) and as many as ten ships were
involved (POSENER 1982, 8; GOEDICKE 1991, 90; REDFORD 1992, 79), although at the time GOEDICKE (1991, n. 11) noted the difficulty in reading the numeral. ALTENMÜLLER & MOUSSA (1991, 35, n. 24) are of the opinion that the expedition to %Tt returned on foot. If the dispatch and return entries are connected, QUACK (1996, 79) and EDER (1995, 191) argue that the expedition returned by ship, based on the ship determinative (in the dispatch). GOEDICKE (1991, 93) states that as “the latter [the dispatch to #nty-S] moved by boat ... the same is to be envisaged for the military action [to %Tt].” Perhaps he is of the opinion that the dispatch of forces was by ship and the return on foot. REDFORD (1992, 79, n. 47) associates it with Alse. This site has recently been identified with Tell cAsharneh in Syria (GOREN, FINKELSTEIN and NAÝAMAN 2004, 116–121).
14
15
16
17 18
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 145
expeditions (POSENER 1982, 8), a mixture of commercial and military activity (GOEDICKE 1991, 97; EDER 1995, 176–195; COHEN 2000; 2002a, 45), or a general policy of exploitation backed by punitive expeditions (REDFORD 1992, 79–80).19 Other than ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA (1991, 33–39), who constructed a political history in which this text reflects the last year of coregency between Senusret I and Amenemhet II and, following his father’s death, the latter’s efforts to legitimize his power both within Egypt and without, many, but not all of these assessments were made based on Farag’s preliminary and incomplete copy. The text alone may be equivocal with regards to intention and, indeed, projecting these events on the entire Middle Kingdom may be unfounded. However, the text can and must be considered within a larger contemporary context, as in describing these events and acts, the Egyptian scribe, and his memorializer in stone, used very specific language. Through what POSENER (1982, 8) called “the characteristic Egyptian mania for precision” this text expresses a degree of detail and, perhaps, historical veracity that offer avenues of inquiry yet to be explored, such as the heretofore overlooked maritime aspects.
This practice may be inferred from the expedition dispatched in the 4th Dynasty by Sneferu (see above, n. 2) and is depicted pictorially in both the Old and New Kingdoms, e.g., in the Sahure reliefs and the Tomb of Kenamun, respectively (WACHS20 MANN 1998, 12–15, 42, 314, figs. 2.3, 3.2). The maritime component of the military expedition to %Tt, in which Iwii and IAsii are destroyed, however, is still questionable, but any seafaring would have, at the very least, included voyages to the region and back. Moreover, if these cities are identified, respectively, as Ura or some other site on the continent, and Cyprus, then one or two additional short crossings may have also occurred. In each and all of these instances, the maritime acumen and nautical technology necessary to carry out such voyages existed certainly by the third millennium, BCE, and should not have been beyond the capabilities of the Egyptians early in the subsequent millennium.21 STAGER (2002, 360) sees this text as marking the resumption of the Old Kingdom “Byblos run”, although Egypt’s perennial partner harbor is nowhere mentioned in this text nor in ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA’s (or anyone’s) analysis (contra COHEN 2000, 95; 2002a, 44).22
MARITIME ASPECTS OF THE TEXT
Length and schedule of the voyages
In approaching this text from a maritime perspective a number of salient issues warrant consideration: the voyages themselves, their destination and scheduling; the cargo conveyed, its character and size, and what that may mean regarding the capabilities of the ships of this period.
According to the chronology suggested by ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA, the departure of both expeditions took place at the end of the Axt or the beginning of the prt seasons, approximately the very end of October or beginning of December and the return in the season of šmw, probably by the month of March (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 26–28). If so, the ships would have set sail from Egypt in the winter and returned sometime in spring, placing these voyages outside the normal rhythm of the Mediterranean sailing season (CASSON 1971, 270–272; WACHSMANN 1998, 300–301). Similarly, this period falls outside the typical military campaign season, which avoids the rainy winter season in favor of the spring and summer (GNIRS 2001, 402). However, as these dates follow
The voyages As few as two or as many as six voyages may be inferred from the text under discussion. These include the voyages to and from #nty-S (the Lebanese coast), the existence of which are specifically indicated in the text. The fact that two vessels (out of an unknown number) are mentioned returning to Egypt accords well with the practice of ships sailing in flotillas or convoys.
19 20
21
See, also, SCANDONE-MATTHIAE (1984, 188). The two identical Iron Age wrecks explored in the deep waters off the coast of Sinai were probably part of a convoy (BALLARD, STAGER, MASTER, et al. 2002). For a review of seafaring in the Levant during the preceding millennium, see MARCUS (2002a). Regarding contacts between Egypt, or her Levantine intermedi-
22
aries, with Cyprus and the Aegean, see PELTENBURG (1995) and WARREN (1995, 1–2), respectively. Note the impact such contacts probably had on the development of sailing technology in the latter region (BROODBANK 2000, 342–346). See, also, the discussion below.
146 Ezra S. Marcus the Egyptian civil calendar, which wandered through the actual seasons in what is known as the Sothic cycle, these events should be shifted approximately five months forward in time, placing them precisely in the expected sailing schedule, i.e., departure in spring and return in the autumn.23 The length of the actual voyages is a matter of speculation, but some of the distances and rates of speed can be suggested from later sources (cf. CASSON 1971, 281–296.). A direct sail from the shores of the eastern Delta to the modern border of Lebanon and Syria covers a distance of approximately 270 nautical miles. A vessel sailing at 3 to 6 knots (nautical miles per hour) would make that voyage in 45 to 90 hours, i.e., 2–4 days. In contrast, a ship’s course that brought the vessels as close to the shore as possible would cover approximately 377 nautical miles in 63 to 126 hours, or 2.5–5 days. Naturally, ships would not have traveled in such straight lines, and if they called at ports along the way or were waylaid by inclement weather, the distance covered and the time would have increased commensurately. Even if the speed is cut to 1 knot, the maximum actual time at sea (12–15 days) is fairly negligible compared to the entire length of the expedition. The identification of IAsii with Cyprus The possible mention of Alashiya (Cyprus) is one of the more provocative and problematic issues of the Annals of Amenemhet II. Inherent in this identification is a reassessment of relations between Egypt and Cyprus at this time and the level of social complexity on the largest of the Levantine islands.24 ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA (1991, 35, n. 24) reject the identification of Alashiya with IAsii based on the following argument: 1) the high number of ‘Amw captives; 2) the expedition came on foot, which precludes the toponym being on an island; 3) the two cities are close to each other and, if one is identified as Ura
23
The Sothic cycle, in which the lunar civil year wanders backwards within the sidereal year at a rate of 1 day every four years, is approximately 1456 years long and the two would have coincided in 139, 1317 and 2773 BCE (ROSE 1994; DEPUYDT 1995). If the events in this text occurred in the last year of the coregency of Senusret I and Amenemhet II, i.e., 1908 BCE, following the high chronology, then the civil dates must be shifted approximately five months forward to reflect their actual season, as follows: 1908–1317=591 years;
on the coast of Asia Minor, they would be too far apart; 4) the fortifications seem more likely to reflect a site in the Syrian region; 5) the mnfAt troops are described as returning on foot, eating Asiatic food on the march (M26); and 6) if the chronological reconstruction is to be accepted they argue that the entire campaign lasts no more than four months, which is too short to include an expedition to Cyprus. QUACK (1996, 79–80) refutes several of the main points of their argument by noting the boat determinative in association with the dispatch of this expedition, the fact that the eating of Asiatic food (M 26) was done after the army returned (M 16), and that the four month period is certainly not too short for an expedition to that region. Other aspects of Altenmüller and Moussa’s arguments may also be questioned. First, the booty brought back from these two cities is listed collectively; the aAmw and, in fact, all of the items could have come from Iwii. Second, there are no comparanda for the ethnonym used by the Egyptians to designate the inhabitants of Cyprus during the Middle Kingdom. Third, if the expedition returned on foot, a point which is obscured in the gap at the beginning of the entry, that might have only referred to the final stage of the return. Fourth, by ship, the coasts of Syria and Asia Minor are quite close to Cyprus, between 70 and 120 km, 38 and 65 nautical miles, respectively, depending on where the crossing is made. This distance may be covered by a ship traveling in a straight sail of 3 knots in only 12–21 hours! This leg would be a negligible addition to the estimated sea time for a voyage to the northern Levant. Fifth, following their chronological reconstruction, the army’s departure for %Tt (M8) took place in the season of Axt after the Sokar festival of the fourth month and its return (M16) occurred sometime in the season of šmw, although it is not clear precisely when within that season. Thus, the time frame may range from four
24
591/4=147.75 days to shift forward. If the low chronology is followed the difference is only about 8 days: 1872–1317=555; 555/4=138.75 days forward. The identification of Alashiya with Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age (LBA) has been established with a strong degree of confidence as a result of petrographic analyses of Amarna tablets from Alashiya (GOREN, BUNIMOVITZ, FINKELSTEIN, et al. 2003; GOREN, FINKELSTEIN, et al. 2004).
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 147
to seven months. Even using the minimum time frame, and a rate of movement of between 25 and 30 km per day (DORSEY 1988, 895; MURNANE 1990, 95), a continuous march of between 3000 and 3600 kilometers could have been achieved, which is more than enough to reach Cilicia, carry out a military campaign and return.25 Thus, even a completely land-based expedition could very well have taken place, let alone a return on foot. GOEDICKE (1991, 94) notes that military operations against two walled cities would be difficult and that the number of prisoners of war suggests fair-sized settlements. If the text is taken literally, the first point is indeed well taken given the short time involved and might suggest either relatively soft targets or some degree of exaggeration. However, if the expedition traveled by sea, the army would have had more time to accomplish what was reported. The second point is difficult to assess as there are no details regarding what percentage of the population was taken prisoner and whether they derived from one or both of the two cities.26 However, the figure does provide a minimum estimate for the size of these settlements. Using a population density range of 100–250 individuals per hectare (ha)(BROSHI and GOPHNA 1986; GOPHNA and PORTUGALI 1988; FALCONER 1994, 312; GREENBERG 2002), it may be suggested
25
26
27
28
The length of the coastline from the Egyptian Delta to the modern border of Syria and Turkey is approximately 891 km. The modern road from there to Tarsus is another 300 km. It is interesting to note that the total amount of prisoners divided by two cities equals the same number, 777 (an equivalent human tribute?), who ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA (1991, 36) suggest were destined for the building activities of Amenemhet II. Data for site size and chronology are limited by the degree of excavation. Thus, the following figures should be considered estimates. In Lebanon, for example, some of the possible contemporary sites have the the following sizes: Byblos, Tel Arqa and Kamid el-Loz - 5 ha; and Beirut - 2 ha (THALMANN 1998, 54; BADRE 1997, 90). Despite modern exacavations and geomorphological research on its ancient shoreline (MARRINER, MORHANGE and DOUMET-SERHAL 2006), the limits of Middle Bronze Age Sidon are still unknown. Further north, in Syria, Tell Sukas is also approximately 3.5 ha (calculated based on the topographical map), while Ugarit is 20 ha (THRANE 1978, fig. 1; YON 1997, 255). The absolute chronology of the Middle Cypriot Period, particularly the MC I and II phases, when presumably
that, if the 1554 prisoners transported all derive from the population of the “devastated” cities, they reflect a total settled area of between 6.2 and 15.5 ha. While site sizes of 3–8 ha are not unknown in the northern Levant during this period, the upper limit is quite rare.27 However, the most problematic issues that ensue from the identification of IAsii with Cyprus are the very existence on that island of settlements, let alone fortified, that were worthy of conquest, and the limited evidence for its external contacts during this period. At such an early stage of the Middle Cypriot (MC) Period, settlements of significant size remain rare and for the most part lack the type of wealth that would have attracted Egyptian attention.28 At present, the only exceptions are the wealthy cemeteries on the northern side of the island, at Lapithos-Vrysi tou Barba and Bellpais-Vounous, although their settlements have eluded detection (SWINY 1989, 26–28). Those sites that have been investigated seem to suggest relatively modest degrees of foreign contacts, if at all, with the world off-island.29 In particular, no Middle Kingdom Egyptian finds have yet to be discovered on Cyprus (KNAPP 1994, fig. 9.4). The earliest fortifications on Cyprus date to the very end of the Middle, if not the Late, Cypriot Period (SWINY 1989, 17; HUNT 1992).
29
these events should have taken place, lacks a firm foundation, owing to the paucity of stratified sites, largely one-sided synchronisms with the mainland and insufficient radiocarbon determinations. Typically, the MC I and part of the MC II is synchronized with the Levantine Middle Bronze Age IIa and the Egyptian 12th and 13th dynasties (SALTZ 1977; MERRILLEES 1977; 1992; COLEMAN 1992, I:287, II: 225, table 1; MANNING 1995, 110–115). In her review of scarab-bearing contexts at Megiddo, TUFNELL (1984, 4) takes the available cross-synchronisms a step further and, based on a scarab style associated with Senusret II, argues that MC pottery was not introduced (to Megiddo, at least) earlier than his reign. Radiocarbon assays would place the transition from Early to Middle Cypriot sometime after 2000 BCE (MANNING and SWINY 1994, 162–165, fig. 11). Regarding the nature of the settlements – of which only one, Alambra-Mouttes, might have reached 35 ha – the lack of social complexity and paucity of foreign contacts, see KNAPP (1990; 1994) and SWINY (1989). On the issue of foreign influences on the Cypriot ceramic repertoire, see HERSCHER (1975, 53–56; 1979) and MERRILLEES (1979). Levantine ceramics found on Cyprus include a juglet from Larnaca-Ayios Prodromos, and a Syro-
148 Ezra S. Marcus On the other hand, outside Cyprus, substantial evidence exists for contacts with Alashiya and Cyprus, although all much later than the period of Amenemhet II. Apart from the toponym under discussion, the name Alashiya appears in at least 13 texts from Mari, Babylonia and Alalakh, particularly in relation to the trade in copper (MILLARD 1973; HELTZER 1989, 8; SASSON 1996; WISEMAN 1996; MICHALOWSKI 1996).30 In fact, a rare mention of uruki a-la-ši-ia “the city of Alašiya” (CHARPIN 1990), suggests that the scribes of Mari may have known of the existence of a city with a name that in other instances was also applied to an entire land, which is a common phenomenon among islands (e.g., Rhodes or Samos).31 Middle Cypriot pottery is quite common in the Middle Bronze (MB) Age Levant and in the Egyptian Delta, but the earliest well-stratified examples in Egypt were found at Tell el-Dabca Stratum G/4, which dates to the early 13th Dynasty or more than a century after the Mit Rahina inscription (BIETAK 2002).32 Similar well-stratified examples occur in contemporary (late MB IIa) phases in the southern Levant (ARTZY and MARCUS 1992; STAGER 2002). The only possibly earlier occurrence is at Dhaharat elHumraiya, where two Levantine Painted Ware (LPW) jugs may have been found with an MC jug in Tomb 62, although the excavator notes that the tomb was disturbed (ORY 1948, 88, figs. 36, 37, pl. XXXII:1). However, if the contemporaneity of these two vessels were reliable, and the fact that this cemetery is characterized solely by single interments makes this plausible, it might place this MC import closer to the period in question (see
discussion of Levantine Painted Ware below). Unfortunately, the booty mentioned in the text (M16–18), whether from IAsii or Iwii, or both conquered cities, contributes little to resolving the question. The copper or bronze implements and weapons could have come from Cyprus (cf. BALTHAZAR 1990; PHILIP 1991), although such types are undocumented in Egypt. The quantities of copper and copper scrap certainly are not of levels that would have made IAsii famous for copper, but it must not be forgotten that while evidence exists for smelting, metallurgy and the importation of tin to Cyprus at this time, the beginning of copper exportation from Cyprus to Egypt and the Levant has not been the subject of archaeometalurgal research.33 In the final analysis, the identification of Alashiya in this text is as equivocal as are the possible early contacts of Cyprus with Egypt and the Levantine coast. However, if this toponym should be positively identified with Cyprus it would mark an Egyptian knowledge of this island that, while incompatible with current textual and material evidence, both underscores the insular nature of Cypriot society and culture and opens up further research questions regarding how such contacts were affected.
Cilician jug from Nicosia-Ayia Paraskevi (MERRILLEES and TUBB 1979; HERSCHER 1988, 153, fig. 3:12). Another SyroCilician jug is reported from Lapithos-Vrysi tou Barba (KNAPP 1994, fig. 9.4). Other possible Levantine forms have been illustrated, but they have not been properly examined by specialists during the years since they were published (MARCUS 1998, n. 191). Most of these examples are from periods much later than that under discussion. However, a wheel-made handleless painted jar, with a crude pendant decoration around its neck and two rows of net-pattern-filled triangles (ÅSTRÖM 1972, 129, 232–233, fig. XL:9), shows a strong affinity to early LPW examples from the mainland. Numerous other suspiciously Levantine sherds can be seen on the plates from Kalopsidha and Ayios Iakovos (ÅSTRÖM 1966). Typological and metallurgical analyses of metals (e.g., weapons, tools, and jewelry) show a very selective import and adoption of Levantine and other forms, which may have partially influenced the haphazard implementation of
imported tin-bronze and its technology (GALE and STOSGALE 1989; BALTHAZAR 1990; PHILIP 1991). A recently discovered MBA text from Tell Siyannu is reported to include references to trade with Cyprus and Egypt (BRETSCHNEIDER, AL-MAQDASSI, VANSTEENHUYSE, et al. 2004, 219, n. 12). SASSON (1996, 17) notes the inconsistent use of determinatives among the scribes of Mari. All other Middle Cypriot pottery in MK Egypt derives from insecure or later Egyptian contexts (MERRILLEES 1968, 42–43, 145–147; 2002). That local bronze production and the importation of tin had already begun on the island is indicated by artifactual analysis (GALE and STOS-GALE 1989, 252–255; BALTHAZAR 1990; KNAPP 1994, 279–280; WEBB, FRANKEL, STOS, et al. 2006, 271, table 5), with Ambelikous-Aletri still the earliest identified metalworking site (MERRILLEES 1984; KNAPP 1990, 159–160).
The cargoes At first glance, the cargoes might be described as mixed in terms of the materials and quantities transported. Moreover, had this text lacked all royal and military dimensions, it would be tempting to view these vessels as examples of BRAUDEL’s
30
31
32
33
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 149
“floating bazaars” (1972, 107). However, as will be demonstrated below, both the cargo from #nty-S and from IAsii and Iwii, if indeed the goods from these latter two cities may be described as cargo, are actually dominated, quantitatively, by particular items. Regarding the origin of the cargoes, the toponyms do not allow us to better localize IAsii and Iwii. However, some of the materials and commodities do relate to particular geographical zones and aid in confirming the localization of #nty-S. In addition, details of the cargo size offer an opportunity to assess both the types and scale of material wealth that Levantine polities could accumulate and the capacities of contemporary ships. Note that following the return of these expeditions, the redistribution of gifts and honors bestowed on temples, nobleman, and soldiers, includes much that is clearly of foreign origin and is largely consistent with the goods detailed in the booty and merchandise brought back from the Levant. Distributed items that do not appear among the transported goods may represent items that were listed in unpreserved parts of the inscription. These distributions, however, will not be included in the following discussion. Calculating weights and volumes The detailed information recorded in the Mit Rahina text affords an extraordinary insight into the quantities of raw materials, finished products and people that could be transported by sea during the Middle Kingdom. During this period the standard weight of copper is expressed in the large or copper-dbn of 27.3 gm, and, presumably, everything else in the small gold or standard-dbn of 13.6 gm (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 46–48).34 A study of a Marl C jar from MK Dahshur, bearing an inscription describing a quantity of carob measured in dbn seems to confirm the use of this value (ALLEN 2006, 33–35). ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA (1991, 46) further suggest that bronze and other minerals may have used the copper-dbn. This suggestion, which has
34
35
For unstated reasons, PIERRAT (1994, 24) incorrectly employs the New Kingdom dbn of 91 gm to reach a weight of 150 kg(!) for the silver brought back from xnty-S, a quantity she justifiably finds impressive. However, there is no evidence that this value was used during the Middle Kingdom (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 47, n. 33). Plastered wooden boxes found at the port of Wadi Gawasis bearing inscriptions indicating the transport of
the effect of slightly inflating the amounts calculated below, is followed here. Volume is indicated both in HoAt units of 4.785 liters and sacks that are equivalent to 10 HoAt (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 46–48). In addition, unit volume was apparently expressed in, presumably ceramic, vessels using the Egyptian terms hbnt and Hnw. The text itself does not provide any clear identification of the type or size of the container intended, although there are various relative sizes involved: 1 hbnt equals 10 ds-jugs; and two types of Hnw containers, standard and large, the latter of which is ten times the size of the former (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 45–46). BOURRIAU and QUIRKE (1998) attempted to find a correspondence between the textual evidence for Egyptian ceramic nomenclature and its archaeological realia at Lahun. Their analysis has led them to suggest that hbnt refers to a storage jar of Marl C type and Hnw, which is the most numerous vessel produced (1400 in one document), must refer to the most common vessel encountered, i.e., the Nile B1 drinking cup (BOURRIAU and QUIRKE 1998, 69, 74, 80–81). However true that correspondence may be for Lower Egypt in the late Middle Kingdom, and these terms may vary in time and space even within Egypt (B OURRIAU and Q UIRKE 1998, 73), they may have a completely different connotation in relation to foreign containers. Moreover, clearly in the case of the organic materials they contained, such as incense, oils, aromatics, figs, and wine, these vessels must have been suitable, i.e., sealable, for maritime transport, a capability already well understood in Old Kingdom Egypt (MARCUS 2002a, 409–411; RABAN 1980, 1–8, 57–62).35 Assuming that the Egyptians are systematic in their descriptions, it is possible that one or both represent either Levantine jugs or jars, both of which were suitable maritime containers.36 The fact that Hnw occurs in this text also made out of wood and silver (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 16, 46), is not
36
materials from Punt (ZAZZARO 2006) demonstrates that other types of maritime containers were utilized for organic commodities. However, if the text entry is not referring to the transport, but rather to the formal presentation of goods to the royal court, then Hnw containers could be open offering vessels, following BOURRIAU and QUIRKE’s suggestion. See also the discussion of the Tôd Treasure below.
150 Ezra S. Marcus very helpful in determining the precise identification of the vessel types.37 For purposes of quantification, the absence of any specified unit size for these vessels requires us to model them based on known Levantine forms.38 Unfortunately, until recently, volumetric studies of MB ceramic vessels have been a rarity and the weight of empty vessels has been entirely ignored. A pioneering, but largely overlooked study by RABAN (1980, 64, 204–205, table H-4) notes two main groups of southern Levantine MB IIa transport amphorae that held 10 and 20 liters of volume, which he associated with 2 and 4 Egyptian HoAt; he also notes that those jugs whose volume he calculated were 4.7 and 5.3 liters, also quite close to the Egyptian unit. For the northern Levant, he only calculated the volume of five jars from the Royal Tombs of Byblos, which range from 11 to 34 liters (RABAN 1980, 205, table H-5). Two recent and more systematic studies of MB IIa vessels in Lebanon show groups with capacities of 15 and 2530 liters (THALMANN 2003; 2007; DOUMET-SERHAL 2003b), while a range of 14 to 25 liters was found among imported MB IIa jars at Tell el-Dabca (THALMANN 2007, 437, fig. 7). Thus, for the purposes of modeling that portion of the cargo transported in containers, 10 and 30 liters will serve as a lower and upper bound for jars and a mean of 5 liters for jugs will be used. As information on the weight of these vessels is lacking, at this stage of research, no attempt to calculate their contribution to the mass of the cargo will be attempted.
ver jewelry (possibly inlaid); 58 dbn of amethyst, 1,734 dbn of malachite, and other semi-precious stones; 4 ivory furniture parts, perhaps inlays; 54 examples of Asiatic household goods (pottery?), a box, 13 combs, and 375 dbn of lead; and 1,554 Asiatic prisoners. Clearly, copper, bronze and malachite objects and raw materials could have come from Cyprus, as well as other items, but other materials, such as ivory and lead point to a mainland source. The total weight of material specifically recorded is 2505 copper-dbn plus 434.25 standard-dbn, which results only in 74.3 kg as a minimum weight plus between 270-1620 liters for this cargo (Table 1).39 However, this amount pales at the weight of the prisoners brought back. Assuming a conservative average weight of 40 kg per person, a total of 62,160 kg or 62 tons of human cargo would have been transported. The cargo from #nty-S
This military expedition returned with a mixture of finished products, raw materials and prisoners, including: over 300 assorted hafted copper and bronze weapons, tools and other objects (e.g., balance pans and wheels); 646 dbn of copper, perhaps scrap; 125 dbn of new copper; copper and sil-
This cargo, which was borne by two ships, will be categorized by material. The metals include: 1675.5 dbn silver; an unknown quantity of gold; 4882 dbn of bronze; 15,961 dbn of copper; 1410 dbn of white lead; 16 bronze, gold, and silver (perhaps inlaid) daggers; and 21 bronze and ivory (perhaps pommeled) daggers. Various stones were brought including: 13 pieces of marble; 16,588 dbn of emery, and 39,556 dbn of so-called grinding stone sand. There were also seals of stone, ivory, gold, and silver. The organic cargo included: aromatics, oils, and resins, such as × 5/8 HoAt of (aS) cedar resin; 66 3/8 HoAt of pine (sfT) resin; 5 3/8 HoAt of olive oil; 271 sacks of ti-Sps, perhaps a type of camphor or cinnamon; 92 Hnw vessels of terebinth resin (snTr); 55 3/4 HoAt of coriander; other unidentified plant and fruit products in 7 vessels,12 3/4 HoAt, and 201 sacks; and, finally, trees such as fig and sycamore, and 231 trunks of cedar. In addition, 65 Asiatic men and women were also transported.
37
38
The cargo from IAsii and Iwii
Vessels of metal, let alone silver, are rare, as are those of wood, although their ceramic skeumorphs are well attested in Levantine material culture. Apart from some silver and bronze examples, including types such as bowls, a teapot, a strainer and a flask, from Byblos (MONTET 1928, pl. LXXI:605; TUFNELL and WARD 1966, fig. 9:207–209; AMIRAN 1969, 90, photo 93; ZIFFER 1990, 84*–86*, fig. 139) – among them drinking vessels that would support BOURRIAU and QUIRKE’s identification – no other metal vessels are known. Some small wooden vessels were preserved in MB IIB tombs at Jericho (ZIFFER 1990, 23*–24*, 29–30, figs. 26–28).
39
In fact, the earliest Levantine imports found in MK Egypt are from cEzbet Rushdi, which is roughly contemporary with the text in question, are limited to painted jugs and juglets, and storage jars (CZERNY 1998; 2002; BAGH 1998; 2002b, 93–96). E. Czerny kindly confirmed this point. See also the discussion of these finds below. The other objects for which no weight is specified, but which may be of significant mass, are not included.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 151
Recorded Quantity
Item
Recorded Weight (dbn) 646 125 58 1.25 1734 375
Copper scrap New copper Amethyst? #swD Malachite Lead Asiatic household goods
5 liter jugs 10 liter jars
540
30 l jars
Asiatics @ 40 kg/person
Calculated Volume (liters)
270 54 hnw vessels
1620
Sub-total
Total
Calculated weight (kg) 17.64 3.41 0.79 0.02 47.34 5.10
Cu dbn 2505
Au dbn 434.25
Cu dbn 2505
Au dbn 434.25
1554
74.3 62,160 62,234.3
270–1620
Table 1 A quantitative analysis of cargo brought back from IAsii and Iwii
In contrast to the previous assemblage of goods and materials, and considering that significant portions of this entry have been lost, this cargo is extraordinarily rich and varied. Moreover, while some of the raw materials and finished goods might have had their origin elsewhere, in general, the character of the cargo reinforces the location of #nty-S in the northern Levant.40 The arboreal products, wood, resins and oils, and more specifically the cedar, point to the Lebanon or Syria (LEVYADUN and GOPHNA 1992; see note 10 above). Another significant organic product is snTr or terebinth resin (pistacia atlantica), which has been the subject of considerable research, primarily as a result of its discovery in large quantities on the 14th century BCE Uluburun wreck (PULAK 2005, 73–77). The origin of that particular resin has been localized in the north-central highlands of Israel or northwestern Jordan, based on palynological and malacological study of, respectively, the pollen and land snails that were found in the resin (PULAK 2005, 74). Preliminary petrographic analysis of Canaanite jars from Amarna that contained this resin demonstrate a point of export along the Carmel coast and Akko Plain, either suggesting another production area in the Carmel or Lower Galilee or that these were bottling and transshipment zones (PULAK 2005, 75–76; SERPICO,
40 41
See also the analysis by EDER (1995, 176–195). A detailed petrographic study of the ceramics from the Uluburun wreck is currently being carried out Prof. Y.
BOURRIAU, SMITH, et al. 2003; ARTZY 2006).41 These results do not necessarily mean that these specific regions were the sole source of snTr, or exclude the Lebanon or some other area of the northern Levant as a source utilized during the Middle Kingdom. However, other New Kingdom (NK) sources do refer to the generic RTnw as the source of snTr (KNAPP 1991, 35; ARTZY 1994, 131–132; WACHSMANN 1998, 308). Thus, it is instructive that at the height of NK Egyptian economic and political power, the source of this prized incense for both the Uluburun wreck and Amarna is in the southern, rather than northern, Levant. Among the inorganic materials carried by these ships, some of the stone products also may have derived from the northern Levant. Unfortunately, the philological identifications are for the most part lacking sufficient material confirmation. For example, the import and use of true emery in ancient Egypt, whose closest sources are Asia Minor and the island of Naxos in the Aegean, remains unsubstantiated (LUCAS and HARRIS 1989, 42–43, 260–261; ARNOLD, D. 1991, 265, n. 60). However, MOOREY (1994, 82) notes possible textual references from Mari for its use and for its derivation in the Syrian Steppe. In fact, the Egyptian designation appears to be a Sumerian loan word (EDER 1995, 180). Another
Goren of Tel Aviv University (as reported in a lecture given at the University of Haifa, 28 November 2006).
152 Ezra S. Marcus
Recorded Quantity
Item
Recorded Weight (dbn)
Recorded Volume
1675.5 4882 15,961 1410 16,588 39,556
Silver Bronze Copper White lead Emery Grinding stone sand
Calculated weight (kg) 22.79 133.28 435.73 19.18 225.60 537.96
66 3/8 HoAt Pine resin
hbnt as 5 l jugs
92 Hnw containers 201 sacks 12 ¾ HoAt
5 liter jugs 10 liter jars 30 liter jars Asiatics @40 kg/person
7 Hnw containers 65 275 containers Recorded Quantity
Sub-total L
D 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.4
23 10 5 2
Cedar Planks
880 1760 5280 25.72 12,967.35 266.76 460 920 2760 9617.85 61.01 35 70 210
5 3/8 HoAt 271 sacks 55 ¾ HoAt
Other plant and fruit products
Cedar Trunks
317.6
176 hbnt containers
hbnt as 10 l jars hbnt as 30 l jars Moringa oil Camphor or Cinnamon Coriander 5 liter jugs Terebinth 10 liter jars resin 30 l jars
L
W
23
0.10
23
0.30
10
0.10
10
0.30
5 2
0.55 0.55
Th 0.08 0.15 0.08 0.15 0.08 0.15 0.08 0.15 0.08 0.08
Total Cargo with cargo of cedar trunks Average Cargo per ship Total Cargo with cargo of cedar planks Average Cargo per ship
231
Calculated Volume (liters)
2600 80,072.5 Unit weight (kg) 22,749 58,240 9891 25,320 4946 12,660 1978 5064
4860¼ HoAt Unit volume (m3) 40.62 104 17.66 45.22 8.83 22.61 3.53 9.04
103 0.18 193 0.35 309 0.55 580 1.04 45 0.08 84 0.15 134.4 0.24 252 0.45 89.6 0.16 36 0.064 Weight (kg) 460,879 – 13,457,001 230,440 – 6,728,500 12,253 – 137,863 6127 – 68,931
Table 2 Quantitative analysis of the cargo from #nty-S
3974.54
24313–31188
Total weight (kg) 5,255,088 13,453,026 2,284,821 5,849,142 1,142,411 2,924,571 456,904 1,169,828
Total volume (m3) 9471 24,023 4080 10,445 2040 5222 816 2089
23,802 42 44,629 80 71,407 128 133,888 239 10,349 18.5 19,404 35 31,046 55 58,212 104 20,697 37 8279 15 3 Volume (m ) 45 – 24,054 22.5 – 12,027 39 – 270 19.5 – 135
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 153
abrasive material is the “polishing” or “grinding” stone sand, which, following copper, has the largest weight recorded in the text.42 While there is no elaboration on the precise use or nature of this material, it presumably refers to a material of significant hardness. It is therefore tempting to identify its source either with the black basaltic gravels and sand found on the beaches north of Tripoli (BEYDOUN 1976, 321) or the Neogene basaltic outcrops that are much closer to the shore in the northern Levant (BEYDOUN 1977, 334, fig. 2) and more easily accessible for maritime transport. Lastly, if indeed the identification of n-mH=f is green jasper rather than dolerite (see above, note 9), then its origin might also be sought in the Levant or beyond.43 However, by far, potentially, the most impressive cargo in terms of size and weight is the consignment of 231 trunks of cedar, although, as OBSOMER (1995, n. ae) noted, these could be trunks, beams or boards. While imported planks seem to be more commonly depicted and described in ancient Egypt (WACHSMANN 1998, 310–313),44 the transport of complete trunks should still be considered. Moreover, despite the absence of any details of their dimensions it is nonetheless instructive to model what this timber cargo might have represented to the Egyptian court and to the ships that
42
43
44
In contrast, EDER (1995, 180) suggests that this material should be identified with a kind of frit, acting as a coarse calcareous quartz sand that was used in the production of glass or faience. He further notes that this material is used for the making of seals, has medicinal properties and is also known to come from the Aegean and Mesopotamia. ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA’s identification is followed here as the materials for glass and faience are available in Egypt (NICHOLSON and PELTENBURG 2000, 186–187; NICHOLSON and HENDERSON 2000, 197–198), the seals could have made of a more durable stone like hematite, which might have been mistaken for a black igneous rock and it is not clear what medical purposes this material would have. MOOREY (1994, 98–99) notes possible sources in the Lebanon and Dead Sea region. Jasper of different colors is known in Egypt, but the green type is reported to be speckled with red (LUCAS and HARRIS 1989, 397–398). Unfortunately, seals from the so-called “Green Jasper Workshop”, which is deemed to have been situated in Byblos, have never been subjected to minerological analysis (COLLON 2004). WACHSMANN (1998, 312) cites GLANVILLE’s notion (1932, 8–10) that aS connotes generic “cut wood”, although neither of them explain the term’s occurrence
carried it.45 The basic assumption must be that the Egyptians would have sought to maximize the amount of timber transported, i.e., entire trunks, although The Report of Wenamun speaks of cut boat parts being sent from Byblos to Egypt (WENTE 2003, 121). Thus, both trunks and cut wood are simulated here (Table 2). For length, the maximum upper bound is based on the longest imported timber known from ancient Egypt, which is a 23 m long, 15 cm thick plank of cedar from the Cheops boat (LIPKE 1984, 30; STEFFY 1994, 25).46 The width of this particular timber and other parts of the ship are unknown as no dimensions are published; those quoted are generally derived from drawings (WARD 2000, 54). The unexcavated sister ship has only been explored through fiber optic photography and the dimension of its parts identified and estimated (WARD 2000, 61–68). The widest and narrowest dimensions noted by WARD (2000, 54) are 30 × 10 and 10 × 10 cm, respectively. Thus, for the simulation in Table 2, a minimum length of 2 m is used, based on the notion that a plank 2 × 0.55 × 0.08 m would be sufficient for many ship’s parts as well as material for Egyptian coffin construction (DAVIES 1995, 146–148; WILLEMS 1996, 28–33, table 1; WARD 2000, Tables 5, 11–13, 15). To complete the simulation, lengths of 5 and 10 m are also calculated, as these could have
45
46
along with wood derivatives, such as oil. In addition, he brings the example of wooden planks “among the ships’ cargoes” captured by Kamose at Avaris (WACHSMANN 1998, 312), but the text seems rather to refer to the planks of the ships’ hulls and not the cargo that filled their hulls (HABACHI 1972, 37; REDFORD 1997, 14). In addition to being transported as cargo inside the hull of a ship, WACHSMANN states that timber was towed behind ships in makeshift rafts (1998, 310, n. 118). Apart from the Biblical example he cites wherein timber is transported from the Lebanon on or as rafts, using terms that are open to interpretation, the other example from the palace of Sargon at Khorsabad is of Phoenician logging in a Mesopotamian riverine context (LINDER 1986; TRAKADAS 2002). It is highly unlikely that with the shifting winds in the eastern Mediterranean, which require vessels to change direction frequently in order to navigate, and sailing against the predominant current, that such operations were carried out regularly, if at all. Towing, obviously without an engine, would have placed ships in danger of colliding with the very cargo they towed every time they changed course. Cedars typically grow to a height of 24 m, but examples up to 36 m have been documented (PULAK 2001b, 24).
154 Ezra S. Marcus been used for longer ship parts (WARD 2000, Tables 9–13, 15) or for coffins. For diameter a range or 1.5 to 2.4 meters is used (PULAK 2001b, 24). Thus, volume may be calculated using the equation pR2 × L, where “R” is the radius of the trunk, “L” is the length; weight may be calculated by multiplying the result by 560 (kg/m3), which is the density of cedrus libani (STEFFY 1994, 256; PULAK 2001b, 24).47 The results (Table 2) are extraordinary, as, clearly, if the text is referring to 231 items of uniform size, which was not necessarily the case, then the importation of 5–23 m long trunks of timber was either an immense undertaking or the capabilities of ships during this period is much greater than perhaps surmised (see below). Even the importation of 2 m sections of trunks would entail the transport of between 456 and 1169 tons of timber.48 It would seem more conservative to suggest that planks, representing between 8 and 134 tons of weight and between 15 and 239 m3 (tonnage in nautical terms), were the actual timber cargo. However, note that the 27 planks from the 859 kg Carnegie Dahshur boat were cut from at least 18 different cedar trees (WARD 2000, 84, table 8, 96). In some instances, opposing pairs of planks were cut from the same timber balk after bark was removed (WARD 2000, 21, 96) suggesting that thicker timber or trunks were originally imported. Thus, even though portions of the text are missing, these timber estimates clearly represents the largest component of the merchandise (and subsequent tribute) recorded in the text, both in calculable weight and volume. In addition, this analysis reveals that timber (aS) was the principal cargo and, perhaps, not surprisingly, the very intent of the expedition to #nty-S. Ultimately,
Unlike the Old or New Kingdoms, there are no MK depictions of seagoing vessels (WACHSMANN 1998, 18), or of foreigners arriving by boat to Egypt, although there is no lack of riverine boats in the MK Egyptian artistic repertoire.49 This nearly 1000 year lacuna in the continuum of BA ship depictions has long cast a shadow on studies of
47
49
48
Even if aS proves to be another species, the density of cedar is a useful intermediate value, as other possibilities have greater and lesser densities, e.g., Silver fir (480 kg/m3), European oak (720 kg/m3), Turkey oak (870 kg/m3), and various Mediterranean pines (510580 kg/m3) (STEFFY 1994, 257–259). The entire logistical organization of timber procurement, hauling, preparation for export (i.e., pre-cutting), loading, and transport demands a separate study. Suffice it to say that the calculations here refer to fresh cedar. It may be presumed that the hiatus between cutting and hauling mentioned by Wenamun (WENTE 2003, 121) was as much about letting the cedar dry, with a concomitant loss in weight, as it was about waiting for a more amenable season for transport.
Origin
Weight (kg)
Asiatic tribute Sinai *mpAw
3.8 + 1002 aAmw 1050 3.240 50.5 + 1554 aAmw
IwAi & IAsii #nty-S (minimum)
12,253
Volume (liters) 2238 270–1620 39,000
Table 3 Quantitative comparison of tribute and cargo
while the varied cargo includes many products that are consistent with the eastern Mediterranean littoral zone and specifically Lebanon and Syria, they cannot be used to pinpoint one particular port or region. Rather, they are a combination that could have derived from several ports of call or an entrepôt where such commodities and large quantities of timber were available. The final assemblage of these two ships’ cargoes, as detailed in this entry, should be considered a “bill of lading” or “cargo manifest”, certainly the oldest known from the Mediterranean world and possibly the most detailed. Even at its minimum, the carrying capacity of these ships overshadow any of the land based expedition and the bringing of tribute (Table 3). The ships, their size and significance
Sadly, the only possible exception is the sailing vessel on a locally carved Syrian style cylinder seal from early Dynasty 13 Tell el-Dabca (PORADA 1984), which adorns the cover of this very journal. All that can be said of this ship is that it was powered by both sail and possibly oars (WACHSMANN 1998, 42) and that its iconography reflects the maritime orientation and religious beliefs of its presumably Asiatic user (BRODY 1998, 18, 29; MARCUS 2006, 188). The MK–NK petroglyph boats at Rôd el-Air, Sinai, are nearly all without a mast (i.e., sail) and could very well represent riverine vessels; the only example with a folded sail (no. 13) lacks a secure date (WACHSMANN 1998, 32–38, fig.2.60).
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 155
maritime relations between Egypt and the Levant, by hampering many attempts to assess the character, size and capacity of contemporary seagoing craft. Moreover, this lack has precluded comparisons with and contributions to the meager material evidence and the few extant textual references. Thus, analysis of the Mit Rahina inscription has great potential to impart in this regard. Most of the MK textual references to seagoing ships do not refer to the Mediterranean Sea and generally are from periods other than that of Amenemhet II. One exception to the former is a reference to a kbnt, i.e., a “Byblos” boat (JONES 1988, 148–149)50 in the partially preserved late 12th Dynasty text, Papyrus Lythgoe, from El-Lisht, perhaps part of a literary tale of an Egyptian who traveled to the Levant (SIMPSON 1960). More commonly, references are associated with the Red Sea and Punt. These include several inscriptions from the 12th Dynasty port of Wadi Gawasis (SAYED 1977, 159–163, 170), including a stela of Khentketwer from Amenemhet II’s 28th regnal year (BREASTED 1906, 275, §604–605). The only other exception is the well known story of The Shipwrecked Sailor, in which a ship of one hundred and twenty by forty cubits, with a complement of one hundred and twenty sailors, set sail in the Red Sea (LICHTHEIM 1973, 212–213; SIMPSON 2003a, 48; QUIRKE 2004, 71). Depending on whether the standard (0.45 m) or royal cubit (0.523 m) was implied, this vessel measured 54 m by 18 m, or 63 m by 21 m (WACHSMANN 1998, 10, n. 16).51 In terms of direct archaeological evidence, riverine ships are the only source of evidence for ship form and construction. While it is typically thought that the timber remains of Nile boats, such as those MK examples from Lisht and Dahshur, offer only indirect evidence of the potential of their seagoing counterparts (HALDANE 1984; 1992a; 1992b; PATCH and HALDANE 1990; WARD 2000; WACHSMANN 1998, 220–221), WARD
50
51
52
53
For more recent discussions of this term, see BRADBURY (1996) and FABRE (2005, 92). See, however, MONROE’s caveats about utilizing this text for the dimensions of seagoing vessels (2007, 5). Recent discoveries from Wadi Gawasis include ship planks, ropes and plastered boxes that were used for maritime ventures (FATTOVICH 2005; FATTOVICH and BARD 2006). Two of these anchors were found in the Atlit Bay in close association with MBA storage jars (GALILI,
(2006) now argues that there was no such dichotomy and that Egyptian riverine ships were designed to be disassembled and portaged to the Red Sea for seagoing purposes. In support of this thesis, WARD (2006, 126) notes the similarity between the planking of the aforementioned MK riverine boats and those at 1st Dynasty Abydos, and seagoing cedar ship planks from the MK port at Wadi Gawasis on the Red Sea (SAYED 1980, 156, fig. 3, pl. XXII:5; 1983, 36).52 Another indirect evidence for MK seafaring is the numerous ex-voto and reused anchors, respectively, at Wadi Gawasis (SAYED 1977; 1978; 1980; 1983; WACHSMANN 1998, 259–260) and the Upper Egyptian fort at Mirgissa (NIBBI 1992; BASCH 1994). Lastly, two Egyptian bronze finials in the National Museum in Athens, one of which bears a MK votive inscription, have been interpreted either as tops of mast poles or as supports for a bipodal mast (GOEDICKE 2000). However, given the character of the inscription on the smaller of the two, which is dedicated to “The one whom the land-bringer; the Lord of the Winds and Hathor, Mistress of the North Wind shall love ...” and the functional deficiency of their small diameter (GOEDICKE 2000, 77, 81), they may instead be maritime ex-votos. In the Levant, only indirect archaeological evidence of ships is available in the form of scattered wreck sites and some expressions of maritime cultic practices. These wrecks are reflected in the numerous stone anchors discovered in underwater surveys along the Israeli coast, at least 26 examples of which are datable to the Middle Kingdom/Middle Bronze Age IIA based on terrestrial parallels from Wadi Gawasis, Mirgissa and Byblos (GALILI, SHARVIT and ARTZY 1994; GALILI, SHARVIT and ARTZY 1996).53 The distribution of these anchors is largely limited to the Carmel Coast, with some outliers along the coast of the Sharon Plain, all of which attest to this shoreline being plied during this period.54 The
54
SHARVIT, et al. 1994, 95), but the latter remain unpublished and their precise date within the Middle Bronze Age is unknown. That this section of coastline has been subject to the most intensive surveying of any shore in the eastern Mediterranean should not be overlooked. A single example was found near ancient Arsuf/Apollonia and recently (6 October 2006) five stone anchors of purported Middle Bronze Age date were found near modern Netanya (IAA Press Office 2006).
156 Ezra S. Marcus largest cluster of the so-called Byblian type, 15 in total, was found less than two km north of Tel Nami, near Kibbutz Neve Yam (GALILI 1985; 1987). This particular assemblage presumably came from a single ship that was capable of carrying at least 1,320 kg of weight in anchors.55 Most of that weight is from 13 anchors clustered in an area of 28 m2, which suggests that anchors also served as ballast (GALILI 1985; 1987), a theory supported by evidence found subsequently on the Uluburun wreck, where anchors are aligned along the centerline of the hull and in groups (WACHSMANN 1998, figs. 9.1 and 12.48A). The greatest distance between anchors in this cluster is approximately 7.5 m. The two remaining anchors were found 20 meters apart and approximately 7 and 15 meters, respectively, northeast of the main concentration (GALILI 1985, fig. 5). In reconstructing the wreckage event, GALILI (1985, 149–151, fig. 6) suggests that these two outliers were dragged to these spots by floating parts of the hull. However, it is equally if not more likely that these anchors fell rapidly to the sea bottom from the ship’s stem and stern posts, as the ship swamped and wrecked in the breakers. The 20 m distance between them should, therefore, represent the maximum possible length of the ship, while the 7.5 m between the two most distant anchors within the main cluster, which presumably lay along the bottom of the hull, is the minimum length. In the northern Levant, the absence of systematic underwater survey is likely the principal reason that our knowledge of MB ships and seafaring comes largely from terrestrial evidence of specialized maritime religion (BRODY 1998, passim).56 Ex voto anchors dating to the Middle Bronze Age IIa have been found in the Temple of the Obelisks at Byblos and the Temple of Baal at Ugarit (FROST 1969a; 1969b; 1991).57 These examples, however important for studying and dating the activities of
55
56
The total of the published weights is 1187 kg, but for unexplained reasons the two broken anchors were not weighed. Their combined weight is approximated at 140 kg based on comparison with other anchors in this assemblage. Recently, underwater survey has resumed as a component of archaeological research in Lebanon, e.g., at Tyre (EL-MOURI, EL-HÉLOU, MARQUET, et al. 2005; NOUREDDINE and EL-HÉLOU 2005), along the coast near Tell el-Burak (MAINBERGER 2001) and at Byblos
ancient seafarers, contribute little towards assessing the size and nature of contemporary ships. Thus, the extant textual and archaeological data provides a general range for ship size. The lone contemporary literary reference speaks for vessels of great size (54 × 18 m or 63 × 21 m), while extant riverine vessels have size ranges that are much smaller, less than 10 m long and no more than 2 m wide (WARD 2000, 84). However, the disassembled boat timbers found in secondary use at Lisht have been reconstructed as a vessel with the minimum dimensions of 24 × 8 m (WARD 2000, 126). Moreover, these planks and frames are of a complex and massive construction reflecting a nautical technology for ships capable of carrying extremely heavy loads, such as for the barges that transported Hatshepsut’s obelisks a half millennium later (WARD 2000, 121–128). While these may not represent sea-going craft (WARD 2000, 141–142), they complement the timbers from disassembled Red Sea-going and presumably Punt-bound craft that continue to be uncovered at Wadi Gawasis (SAYED 1980, 156, fig. 3, pl. XXII:5; WARD, C. 2006, 126; FATTOVICH and BARD 2006). In the Mediterranean, the Neve Yam anchor site probably represents a ship of between 7.5 and 20 m in length and carried at least 1.3 tons of anchors. By comparison, the better preserved cargo of the LBA Uluburun wreck is estimated to be approximately 15 m long, with a cargo of at least 20 tons, including 24 anchors totaling 4 tons (PULAK 2001a, 13). A recent study by MONROE (2007) concludes that existing textual and archaeological evidence cannot support much more than 20 tons or 15,000 liters as the upper limit for the capacity of (Late) Bronze Age ships.58 The list of cargo in the Mit Rahina inscription suggests a minimum calculated capacity of approximately 19,500–23,000 liters per ship. Although these figures do not include the volume of those items recorded by weight, nor does it
57
58
(FROST 2001; 2002; 2004; COLLINA-GIRARD, FROST, HÉLOU, et al. 2002). While the anchors from Ugarit can be dated typologically to the Middle Bronze Age, they apparently belong to a Late Bronze context (BRODY 1998, 46–47). In his study, volume is calculated based on ship length, using the amphorae carried by the 4th Century B.C.E. Kyrenia wreck as a guide and extrapolating for the approximately 15% longer Uluburun ship (MONROE 2007, 3, 10, n. 5).
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 157
take into account probable stone anchors or any other non-cargo burden, the volume (tonnage in nautical terms) already exceeds the limits suggested by MONROE. However, if the estimated cut timber component is increased to 5 m planks, this capacity would be increased to approximately 3034,000 liters per ship. Thus, depending on the nature of the timber consignment, this text may require further re-assessment of the size of Bronze Age ships.59 Another consideration in assessing the character and size of the ship is the need to provide room for passengers, whether cargo or crew. While inanimate cargo requires little comfort and extra space, human passengers, even slaves, require a minimum of elbow-room. In both the Old and New Kingdoms, Asiatics are depicted arriving by ship (e.g., the Sahure reliefs and the Tomb of Kenamun), but the number of illustrated individuals is quite small and lacking detail. The MK expedition to Punt led by Antefoker, recorded on a stela from Wadi Gawasis, indicates 3200 soldiers accompanied the expedition (SAYED 1977, 170), but there is no indication of the number or size of the ships involved. The text in question lists two sets of arriving Asiatics, 65 from #nty-S and 1554 from IAsii and Iwii. The significance of these numbers for ship size may be illustrated by comparison with the Atlantic slave trade. Little standardization existed in the transporting of slaves until 1684 C.E., when the Portuguese Crown decreed that the capacity would be set between 2.5 and 3.5 slaves per ton (KLEIN 1999, 148). This ratio declined over time and during the 18th century, C.E., British slave ships, for example, carried an average of 1.6 slaves per ton (GARLAND and KLEIN 1985, 240). By the last decade of the trade this ratio reached one slave per ton (KLEIN 1999, 149–150). Using the range of these ratios as a guideline, the 65 “passengers” on the two ships that returned from #nty-S should have traveled aboard vessels with a capacity of between 32 and 114 tons each. This “comfort” factor would increase ship size considerably. Moreover, if the 1554 Asiatics returning from IAsii and Iwii came by sea, then utilizing the least humane figures of the nefarious Atlantic slave trade would require at least 444 tons of capacity. Clearly, in
59
comparison with the other commodities brought from these two cities, these passengers were the major component of cargo and if, indeed, the Asiatics were transported by ship, multiple craft would have to be inferred. In the absence of any clear reference to shipping and given the otherwise limited size of the remaining goods in the extant portion of this entry, the argument for an overland return is even more compelling. Lastly, in terms of comparative capacity, the text offers unequivocal evidence for the superiority of seaborne over land-based transport. Even the minimum estimated cargo weight and volume borne by the ships returning from #nty-S are, respectively, 12 and 20 times that of the most abundant calculable goods brought back by land, in this case that of the expedition sent to the “turquoise terraces” in Sinai (Table 3). It is unclear why SHAW (1998, 312) claims that the quantities of copper from mining expeditions exceed those obtained by military expeditions. The largest amount of copper recorded in the text was brought back from #nty-S expedition (M19). The quantities transported from Sinai are consistent with the size and carrying capacity of donkey caravans. EVIDENCE FOR MARITIME TRADE DURING THE REIGN OF AMENEMHET II Amenemhet II’s reign is among the least documented of any 12th Dynasty king (FAY 1996, 7; SIMPSON 2001, 455), a evidentiary reality that begs the fundamental question as to whether the maritime aspects of the Mit Rahina inscription are a one-off instance of seaborne trade and belligerency or reflective of the tip of a larger iceberg. In the absence of any textual comparanda, contextualization of these events must rely on a consideration of contemporary archaeological evidence in Egypt and the Levant. Fortunately, the extant data, including the Tôd Treasure, imported finds from the excavations at cEzbet Rushdi, and the development of ports and coastal settlement along the Levantine seaboard, all seem to reflect a wider pattern of interaction that suggests the Mit Rahina inscription is not the sole expression of the increasing importance of the sea in Egyptian foreign relations.
A detailed analysis of the volume, i.e., tonnage, to determine the possible dimensions of these ships will be included in a separate study.
158 Ezra S. Marcus The Tôd Treasure A number of scholars have already considered the historical context that the Mit Rahina text offers the famous Tôd Treasure (LILYQUIST 1993, 35–36; PIERRAT 1994, 23–24). While the correspondence between the contents of the treasure and the text is not one-to-one, the similarity in the types of materials, the reference to endowments to Montu at Tôd (M9–10) and the fact that both are associated with Amenemhet II is certainly a strong circumstantial argument. In addition, consideration of some additional aspects may also serve to shed further light on the possible relationship between the treasure and text. The four copper chests containing an assemblage of imported raw materials and finished goods, which has come to be known as the Tôd Treasure, were found under the floor of a Twelfth Dynasty temple that was originally dedicated to Montu by Senusret I (BISSON DE LA ROQUE 1937; 1950; BISSON DE LA ROQUE, CONTENAU and CHAPOUTHIER 1953). Already during this king’s reign endowments of foreign products were brought, including silver, bronze and lapis lazuli, alongside potentially local copper and gold (REDFORD 1987, 42; BARBOTIN and CLÈRE 1991, 9), which POSENER (1971, 543–544) saw as the background of the Tôd Treasure. However, despite many claims to the contrary, the appearance of Amenemhet II’s names on two of these chests, reanalysis of the stratigraphic context, the character of the silver vessel assemblage, and a review of the foreign comparanda, all support a date contemporary with the royal nomens and are consistent with the textual parallel from Mit Rahina (LILYQUIST 1993, 35–36; PIERRAT 1994; WARREN and HANKEY 1989, 131–134; MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 103–104).60 The treasure comprises finished, partially finished, and fragmentary objects including: four copper boxes and nails, and two shafts of copper; ten ingots, a cup, and two fleurettes of gold; numerous rings (an ingot form?), bracelets, a mirror, zoomorphic figures, pendants (one stamp
60
61
Previously, an extensive debate regarding its date had permeated the literature, with some placing the final deposition as late as Tuthmosis III (KEMP and MERRILLEES 1980, 290–296). This calculation assumes that the relative mass of the remaining silver vessels is nearly the same as those that
seal), an electrum-fastened holster, and over 150 shallow bowls or cups, some crushed, all of silver; cylinder and stamp seals, a scarab, pendants, figurines, plaques, beads, chunks and part of bowl of lapis lazuli; carnelian beads, and fragments of quartz, amethyst, and obsidian. In terms of quantity, the treasure includes nearly 7 kg of gold, at least 9 kg of silver, and the copper boxes, which total 128 kg. These estimates are based on the formal publication of the treasure (BISSON DE LA ROQUE 1950; BISSON DE LA ROQUE, CONTENAU, et al. 1953) without any consideration for the state of preservation and the possible loss of mass over time. Note that the weights of only ninety-six cups are provided, and thus the silver total may be at least 13 kg to double the amount tallied here.61 A comparison between the goods brought back from #nty-S and the artifacts found in the treasure reveal some interesting correlations. Although two of the chests were inscribed by an Egyptian hand, their weight is well within the quantity of copper brought back to Egypt and could have derived from the #nty-S expedition. PIERRAT (1994, 23) is correct in wondering what is meant by the two Hst-vases of Asiatic copper mentioned in the endowment to Montu (M12), which she presumes to have been divided between the temples at Armant and Tôd. The same might be said of the copper mAmA vessel (M24) offered as tribute from RTnw. Both could represent part of the raw material used in the fashioning of the chests. Similarly, nearly 23 kg of silver are recorded in the text as compared to between 13–18 kg as extrapolated for the treasure, which is a close correlation, particularly if the unweighed silver beads are added and some degree of material loss is assumed. In addition, some of the silver redistributed by the state administration is in the form of 20 Hnw vessels (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 16, 46, M22), a vessel type that BOURRIAU and QUIRKE (1998, 69, 74, 80–81) suggest was used at Lahun by the Egyptians to refer to a drinking bowl. The numerous shallow silver bowls in the Tôd Treasure certainly fit this description. The text also refers to an Asiatic seal (M19),
were weighed. Reference is made in the catalogue to “meters” of beads of all different types (BISSON DE LA ROQUE 1950, No. 70706–70708, 70710, 70712–70713), which do not appear to have been weighed, or discussed in any detail. No details of the quantity of lapis lazuli are provided.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 159
which might have been one of the stamp or cylinder seals found in the treasure (PORADA 1982). A silver mirror was found (BISSON DE LA ROQUE 1950, No. 70576; BISSON DE LA ROQUE, CONTENAU, et al. 1953) although the mirror listed in the text is described as being made of bronze, gold and ivory (M21). REDFORD (1992, 79) identifies lapis lazuli among the minerals brought from #nty-S, but this term, xsbD (FAULKNER 1986, 197), does not seems to appear in the text. Perhaps he is referring to one of the unidentified minerals, such as xswD (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 13, M18). Finally, concerning the sea stars (starfish?) among the natural products brought back from Sinai (M14), the starfish form appears a number of times in the Middle Kingdom, including on a bead from the Tôd treasure and as a pendant in a gold necklace from the tomb of Khnumet, the daughter of Amenemhet II (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 11, n. 6; LILYQUIST 1993, 36–37, fig. 8b). Beyond these examples, the lacunae in the text preclude any other possible correlations. The sources of the materials and objects in the Tôd treasure reflect a number of regions in the eastern Mediterranean and Near East and, as such, reveal as complex a picture of exchange as does, perhaps, the Mit Rahina inscription itself. Silver is the most prominent imported component of the treasure and is recorded as being brought from #nty-S, but does not occur in the Lebanon or the Syrian coast (MOOREY 1994, 234–235). However, both material and stylistic analyses of the Tôd treasure’s silver suggest that the raw material and bowls may have been derived from both the Aegean and Anatolia (MAXWELL-HYSLOP 1995; PIERRAT 1994, 24–25; WALBERG 1984; WARREN and HANKEY 1989, 131–134; MENU 1994; ARUZ 1995, 33–35; MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 103–104). The granulation used in the treasure’s silver bands also points to a northern, probably, Anatolian origin (LILYQUIST 1993, 35–37). In addition, LAFFINEUR’s (1988, 23–24) metrological analysis demonstrated that the silver ingot and chain weights were relatively consistent with, but not exclusively, a Syro-Mesopotamian system.62 All of this evidence
62
63
LAFFINEUR (1988, 23–24) eschewed the high (i.e., correct) date for the treasure and therefore found this system too ancient to be accepted. A detailed metrological comparison of the Tôd treasure and the Mit Rahina text will be the subject of a separate study. Note, that if, indeed, the devastated city Iwii is correct-
correlates well with the abundance of silver recorded in Syro-Mesopotamian texts from 24th century Ebla through 18th century Mari (ARCHI 1993; GUICHARD 1993, 198; PIERRAT 1994, 25; MAXWELL-HYSLOP 1995, 248–249). Texts from the latter city, in particular, reveal the custom of giving lavish metal vessels as gifts, and the practice of royalty traveling with enormous drinking(?) sets of vessels. Other components of the Tôd Treasure include material artifacts with an even more distant source, such as the lapis lazuli from Afghanistan that probably traversed Iran, Mesopotamia and Syria, all three of which were the origins for the treasure’s various cylinder and stamp seals (PORADA 1982). Unless Redford’s aforementioned identification is correct, the absence of lapis lazuli in the text might derive from one of the lacuna or possibly its presence in the treasure derives from the earlier endowment by Senusret I. The quartz and amethyst could have derived from local sources and the obsidian from Ethiopia or Eritrea (ASTON, HARRELL and SHAW 2000, 46–47, 50–53), although the latter could have derived from the goods/booty brought back from the attacks against IAsii and Iwii (M18). Thus, quantitatively and, presumably, in terms of value, most, but not all, of the foreign component of the Tôd Treasure could have derived from the expedition dispatched by Amenemhet II to #nty-S.63 Naturally, as has been surmised by many others before, the imported components of the treasure would have been transshipped to one or more Lebanese or Syrian ports before they were shipped to Egypt. If the purported connection between the Mit Rahina inscription and the Tôd treasure is valid, two final issues must be considered: the purpose of the treasure and the date of its internment. Nearly all variety of possible theories have been posited in the past, describing this deposit in terms of booty or tribute (CHAPOUTHIER 1953, 32), a commercial consignment from a North Syrian port (HELCK 1962, 73), trade/booty that was intended for an endowment, but became an emer-
ly identified with Ura in Cilicia, silver might have been expected to have been brought back in that expedition. However, other than an incorrect identification, the lack of any reference to silver could be a result of the text’s lacunae or the complex nature of trade during this period.
160 Ezra S. Marcus gency cache never to be recovered (PORADA 1982, 292), a “motley stock of jeweler’s materials” (KANTOR 1965, 20) and a cache of an aborted endowment ritual that was serendipitously forgotten (PIERRAT 1994, 22–23). However, the evidence from the Mit Rahina inscription underscores the need to distinguish between the origin of the objects, their acquisition and transport and their final interment at the Temple of Montu, as PIERRAT (1994, 22–26) has done to a large extent. If the relationship between the text and the treasure is valid, the text offers contemporary insight into the mechanism of such endowments. The king, following the success of various foreign endeavors (M16–M18), would distribute a portion of the products to the palace (M21–M23), to his commanders, soldiers and officials (M25–M26) and to the gods, as might be inferred from the fragmentary entries that follow (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 20–25, M27-M41; OBSOMER 1995, 601–604; QUIRKE 2003a). Following Altenmüller and Moussa’s political reconstruction of a series of power legitimating acts, it is quite possible that the nature of the deposit was designed to both enhance and legitimize Amenemhet II in one of the temples dedicated by his father. Thus, the gold and silver serve to demonstrate wealth and the eclectic character of the assemblage is meant to show the king’s prowess or control over distant regions, much as was claimed of his father: “The foreign countries are tributary, the mountains become accessible, any place delivered its mystery. His numerous emissaries are in every land, the couriers do what he has willed” (ROWE 1939, 189–190; POSENER 1971, 540).64 Lastly, following the internal chronology of the Mit Rahina text, donations to the warrior god Montu’s temples are made immediately after the expedition sets off (M9–M10) and are perhaps meant to seek that god’s blessing for its success. The deposit of the Tôd Treasure, which could have been recorded in some subsequent unpreserved column of text, was intended to express royal gratitude (VANDIER 1937, 182). If so, as no such specific
entry records a donation to Montu at least prior to the new year (M28), perhaps the terminus post quem claimed by PIERRAT (1994, 23) for this deposit should be refined to Year 4 of Amenemhet II’s reign.
64
66
65
The assemblage, which includes material from Afghanistan to the Aegean, literally covers the known world. The subsequent local strata, which continue into the Hyksos period, and the preceding Stratum f, which is described as a settlement enclosure wall that precedes Stratum e (BIETAK and DORNER 1998, 12–15), are not considered here.
Tell el-Dabca (cEzbet Rushdi) Throughout much of the second millennium BCE, the region of Tell el-Dabca served as the interface between Egypt and the eastern Mediterranean worlds (BIETAK 1996). Indeed, already the founder of the 12th Dynasty, Amenemhet I, inaugurated or enhanced the settlement in this region, which appears to have been named “Door (or Mouth) of the two ways” (BIETAK 1991, 28; 1996, 5; SZAFRAØSKI1998; CZERNY 1999). This toponym probably derived from the split in the Nile near the site, but as this region is the meeting point of the principal land and sea routes (BIETAK 1996, 3), it might reflect, in a figurative sense, its role as a maritime and terrestrial gateway (MARCUS 2006). Therefore, it should not be surprising that the early 12th Dynasty site of cEzbet Rushdi in the Dabca region has produced the earliest MBA Levantine and Middle Minoan (MM) pottery in Egypt. Excavations at cEzbet Rushdi revealed three settlement strata relevant to the present discussion: a local stratum of unclear domestic character (Substrata e/4–e/1 = general Stratum L), followed by an ephemeral Stratum d, upon which a temple (Substrata c/2–c/1 = general Stratum K) was established by Senusret III in Year 5 of his reign, according to a stela previously found in the area (BIETAK and DORNER 1998, 12–22).65 In the absence of any earlier stratified inscriptional evidence, Stratum c provides a general terminus ante quem for Substrata e/4–e/1, which are certainly dated by local Egyptian ceramics to the first half of the 12th Dynasty; this date may possibly be restricted to the very last years of Senusret I, but more probably covers the reign of Amenemhet II (CZERNY 1998; 2002; BAGH 2000, 142–143; BIETAK 2002, 39).66 The activities of the latter ruler in this
My appreciation to E. Czerny, for discussing with me the difficulty in further refining this dating, and the limitations that result from our current understanding of the MK pottery sequence. Hopefully, further study of the cEzbet Rushdi pottery and MK ceramic research will resolve this issue.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 161
region are underscored by a block with his name found at Tell el-Dabca (SZAFRAØSKI 2006, 379–380). Levantine imports were found alongside local ceramics in all of the substrata associated with Amenemhet II’s reign, i.e., e/4–e/1, while Middle Minoan imports are reported, thus far, from Substratum e/3 (CZERNY 1998, 46, fig. 21; 2002, 133; BAGH 1998; 2000, 142–143, fig. 87:e–g; 2002b, 93–96, n. 13). The Levantine imports, while not as abundant in comparison to the later phases at cEzbet Rushdi and the sequence that resumes at Tell el-Dabca Area F/1 (BIETAK 2002, fig. 2), are apparently the earliest well-stratified examples known from Egypt.67 However, in contrast to the later assemblages of Tell el-Dabca, they are comprised solely of storage jars and jugs/juglets, including quite a few (N=14) of the MB IIa Levantine Painted Ware (CZERNY 1998; 2002, 133; BAGH 1998, 47; 2000, 144–146, appendix, fig. 2; 2002b, 96).68 The limited corpus and the fragmentary nature of the sherds published thus far precludes any really definitive typological analysis, but BAGH’s (2002b, 96–101) preliminary comparative analysis offers a number of important observations. Thus far, the cEzbet Rushdi/Tell el-Dabca sequence of Levantine Painted Ware suggests a dichotomy between the early red monochrome bands, band zones and wavy lines, typically with a burnished surface, and the later complex bichrome decorations. Whether this distinction will hold upon further analysis of the cEzbet Rushdi material (and, hopefully, further excavation) and whether it will be independently confirmed in the Levantine sequence will be one of the challenges for further
research.69 Two, she finds the closest parallels to the LPW vessels and decorations from cEzbet Rushdi at Byblos, the Beirut Kharji tombs, and from Ory’s excavation at Aphek-Antipatris, as well as with other slightly later imports to Egypt found at Lisht and Kôm el-Hisn (BAGH 2002b, 96–100).70 BAGH (2000, 29–41; 2002b, 89–93) argues convincingly that there are demonstrably consistent associations of decoration and form and some distinct combinations of particular decorative motifs. However, it is quite possible that the fragmentary decorated sherds from cEzbet Rushdi belie their true decorative and typological range and, therefore, the geographical scope of the parallels to these finds. Comparison should also be drawn with other monochrome painted examples that possess line or band components, many of which she herself has methodically documented (BAGH 2000). Quite a few sites have produced vessels with comparable decorations including some with the same surface treatment documented at cEzbet Rushdi, e.g., a band-painted and burnished juglet from Barqai (GOPHNA and SUSSMAN 1969, 1, 3, 9, fig. 4:1, pl. 11:5); various vessels from Megiddo (e.g., LOUD 1948, pls. 7:19, 8:8, 11:20, 22, 17:13, 20:6; BAGH 2000, figs. 23–28), including two monochrome painted jugs with burnishing (GUY and ENGBERG 1938, 29:2, 3); a jug from Tel Megadim (WOLFF 1998; BAGH 2000, 38, fig. 114:a; 2003, fig. 5:e); Tel Ifshar (PALEY and PORATH 1997, fig. 13:5), Kabri (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY and SCHEFTELOWITZ 2002, figs. 5.22:4–7, 12–14, 5.58:4), one of which has a cream slip (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY, et al. 2002, 114, fig. 5.22:6); the alHourriyé cave in the mountains of northern
67
69
68
Possible earlier or contemporary examples include a single MB Canaanite sherd of a bowl, which was found in a chronologically problematic context in the pyramid of Amenemhet I at Lisht, and the two Levantine Painted juglets from Lisht North Tomb 756, which accompanied Egyptian pottery from the time spanning the reigns of Amenemhet II to Senusret III (ARNOLD, ARNOLD and ALLEN 1995, 16–18). The precise synchronization between the sequence of Levantine imports from cEzbet Rushdi with that of the Levant has not been presented. For a preliminary spatial and quantitative analysis, see BAGH (2000, 143–147, appendix 2). Note the appearance of a well-burnished red-slipped juglet and carinated bowl from substrata ed and e/3 (BAGH 2000, pl. VI: top and middle). This type of surface treatment is usually associated with somewhat later phases of the MB IIa.
70
Levantine Painted Ware appears to have quite a long lifespan at Tell el-Dabca (Stratum L–H) and in fact may continue to exist a half century later than Egyptian synchronized examples at Tel Ifshar (MARCUS 2003, 98). The latter site is currently under study for publication by the author and the excavators. There may be regional variations as well as chronological distinctions to be accounted for in the 100 year sequence of development that is implicit in the finds from cEzbet Rushdi (ca. Amenemhet II) and Tell el-Dabca Stratum H (ca. Amenemhet III). Two monochrome band and wavy line jugs/juglets from Kahun should also be added (PETRIE 1974, 9–10, pl. I:16, 19; BAGH 2000, 160, fig. 117:KA001–002), as well as perhaps a dipper juglet from el-Haraga T.297 (KEMP and MERRILLEES 1980, 34, fig.16).
162 Ezra S. Marcus Lebanon (BEAYNO, MATTAR and ABDUL-NOUR 2002, pls. 4:7, 6:7; BEAYNO and MATTAR 2004, 440–441, pl. 3:17–26, fig. 23);71 and Ugarit (BAGH 2000, figs. 65:e–h, 67:14, 71:passim).72 Even if, at present, the precise chronological horizon of these parallels is unclear, they offer some indication of potential regions in the northern (or southern) Levant in which the cEzbet Rushdi ceramics may have originated. Further elucidation of the nature of these parallels/contacts and the origin of these wares will have to await systematic provenience analysis. In the interim, some light may be shed on this last issue by the preliminary petrographic analysis of finds from cEzbet Rushdi and Kabri. COHENWEINBERGER and GOREN’s analysis (2004, 80–81, 92, table 1) of seven jars (six body sherds and possibly one rim of a handleless jar)73 and three LPW jugs/juglets have confirmed the foreign origin of the sherds from cEzbet Rushdi and localized their production zones as follows: two jars from Substrata e/2-e/1 and Stratum e were produced in the Northwestern Negev or southern Shephelah (Petrographic Group K), one jar from Substratum e/3 originated in the Mt. Carmel region (Petrographic Group F), one jar (Substrata e-d) came from the Akkar Plain (Petrographic Group E), and two jars from Substrata e/2 and c are either from northwestern Syria in the Ugarit or Amuq zone, or Cyprus (Petrographic Group A2).74 One jar attributed to Stratum e and all three LPW jug/juglets, from Substrata e/3–e/2, e/1-d and c are from an indeterminate northern Levantine coastal region somewhere between Akko and the Akkar Plain (Petrographic Group B3). However, three of the monochrome band painted LPW juglets from Kabri (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY, et al. 2002, fig. 5.22:5–7), which is situated
71
72
73
74
This cave has also produced a monochrome painted cup (BEAYNO, MATTAR, et al. 2002, 150, fig. 15, pl. 4:11; BEAYNO and MATTAR 2004, 442, fig. 24, pl. 4:32) similar to examples from Byblos that BAGH associates with the decorations from the early Levantine Painted Ware (2000, 103–106, fig. 54: a-h; 2002b, 97). Unfortunately, many of these examples are lacking detailed description of color and surface treatment. This sample is from the only jar not listed as a body sherd by COHEN-WEINBERGER and GOREN (2004, table 1) and its basket number 7948/2, without the “/2”, is identical to that of a rim published by BAGH (2002b, fig. 3:1). In light of the discussion above, COHEN-WEINBERGER
in the southernmost part of that region, were found to derive from the very northern coast of Lebanon, based on the appearance of basaltic minerals among the inclusions (GOREN and COHEN-WEINBERGER 2002, 440–441). Thus, although the sample set is quite limited in size (N=6), petrography offers some support for the typological argument that the LPW jugs/juglets at cEzbet Rushdi derive from the northern Levant. The imported storage jars, however, derive from a greater variety of regions. While minimalists might offer a facile and passé argument that the Levantine storage jars were transported overland, the Middle Minoan imports to cEzbet Rushdi offer unequivocal evidence for maritime contact. However, in complete contrast to the previously documented pattern of imports to Egypt and the Levant during the Middle Bronze Age, when Minoan pottery was prized for its aesthetic value (KEMP and MERRILLEES 1980; CADOGAN 1983; WARREN and HANKEY 1989; WARREN 1995; 2000, 25; MACGILLIVRAY 1995; FITTON, HUGHES and QUIRKE 1998, 131–133; MERRILLEES 2003), the imports from cEzbet Rushdi are comprised solely of fragments of Minoan oval mouthed amphorae (BIETAK and MARINATOS 2000, 40). This transport containe, whose adaptation for foreign trade was anticipated by FITTON et al. (1998, 131), is unknown in the subsequent Egyptian and Levantine archaeological record, perhaps because the fabric of body sherds has long gone unnoticed and unidentified.75 Ten fragments were found including three handles (one attached to a rim), a rim and five body sherds, the earliest examples of which appear in Substratum e/3 (CZERNY 1998, 46, fig. 21; BAGH 2000, fig. 87:eg, pl. VI:bottom).76 The oval mouthed amphora is well known from MM I to MM III contexts in
75
76
and GOREN (2004, 71–73, 80) are probably correct to exclude Cyprus as the source of these vessels, but according to them this petrographic group also occurs in Cilicia. In this instance, where body sherds have been analyzed and typological indicators absent, perhaps no region should be excluded a priori. In fact, it was Peter Warren’s visit to the Tell el-Dabca excavations that led to the identification of these examples and their relative dating (E. Czerny, personal communication). The current count, photographs, and illustrations of the Middle Minoan sherds from cEzbet Rushdi were kindly supplied by E. Czerny.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 163
Crete (BETANCOURT 1985, 76, 100, 105, figs. 65, 77, pls. 12B–C, 13F; WALBERG 1983, 6, 27).77 Two of the published handles are characterized by dark paint on a light background (CZERNY 1998, 46, fig. 21; BAGH 2000, fig. 87 f–g) and one body sherd has the remains of a dark background (BAGH 2000, fig. 87 e). The first two might belong to the “dark-on-light” style most common in Middle Minoan I, but persisting throughout the Middle Bronze Age (BETANCOURT 1985, 85–87, 95).78 The contents of these imported amphorae was presumably organic and, based on general Bronze Age parallels, might have been some sort of liquid, such as wine or oil, an ointment or resin, dry goods such as an exotic food or spices, or a large quantity of inorganic loose items (MERRILLEES and WINTER 1972, 106–107, 112–115; KNAPP 1991, 41–44; FITTON, HUGHES, et al. 1998, 133–134).79 Specifically regarding the Middle Kingdom, WARREN (1995, 7) argues that lichens for funerary purposes may have been an import from Crete. Later MBA textual evidence, variously, from Egypt and Mari, refer to Minoan textiles, footwear, and medicinals (MERRILLEES and WINTER 1972, 112–113; STRANGE 1980, 93; MALAMAT 1998, 38), all of which would have fared much better in a sealed dry container safe from sea spray and bilge water.80 To date, the earliest and still sole material evidence for an Aegean organic import to the East is the largely overlooked lathyrus clymenum or “Spanish vetchling” from somewhat later MB IIa Tel Nami (KISLEV, ARTZY and MARCUS 1993), which could be the long sought after Keftiw bean (MERRILLEES and WINTER 1972, 112–115; WARREN 1995, 7). In addition to their being an extraordinary ceramic type, the MM ceramics found at cEzbet Rushdi are by far the earliest well-stratified MM imports in Egypt. Stylistically, the small MM Ib floral vase from early 12th Dynasty Qubbet el-
Hawa (KEMP and MERRILLEES 1980, 215–219, 255; WARREN 1995, 3; MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 103), has been touted as the earliest MM import to Egypt (MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 106), but beyond placing its context in the “first part” of the 12th Dynasty, KEMP and MERRILLEES warn that “one cannot put too fine a limit” on its time range (1980, 255; WALBERG 1983, 143; FITTON, HUGHES, et al. 1998, 132). Similarly, the two apparently locallyproduced imitations of MM Ib crinkle rim bowls/cups from T.326 at el-Haraga, which while placed more towards the beginning of this cemetery’s sequence, still has a chronological range from Senusret II to the onset of the Hyksos Period (KEMP and MERRILLEES 1980, 36–39, 56–57, fig. 17; WARREN 1995, 134; MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 103, 106). The MM Ib-MM IIa examples from Lisht also have a broad date from the early 12th to late 13th Dynasties (KEMP and MERRILLEES 1980, 1–6, fig. 1; WALBERG 1983, 141; MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 104). Finally, the parallels drawn between MM Ib–MM IIa ceramics and the silverware from the Tôd Treasure are all relatively coeval with the cEzbet Rushdi material; other MM imports belong to the remainder of the Middle Kingdom (KEMP and MERRILLEES 1980, passim; WALBERG 1983, 141–143; MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 103–105). Given the equivocal nature of much of the other evidence, the MM finds from cEzbet Rushdi, when they are properly studied, should lend further credence to the early date of much of these other imports. Thus, the extraordinary Minoan imports, which mark the renewal of Egyptian contact with the Aegean, and the typological and petrographical evidence from cEzbet Rushdi both demonstrate that imports were arriving from the eastern Mediterranean already in Substratum e/3 and continued throughout Stratum e (those from the Levant increased following the period under dis-
77
78
Parallels: MM IIA Knossos (MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 28, 37, 46, 48, 130, 157, pls. 48:166, 116:740–741, 145:A-C, 150:1010); MM IIA-MM III Kommos (BETANCOURT 1990, 75–76, 79–80, 98, 119, fig. 16:178, 24:474, 36:756). WALBERG (1987, 16, 134–135, tables I-II), who notes that this vessel type has no Early Minoan predecessors, catalogues numerous examples (Form 16, types 69-73) from Phaistos and Knossos, occurring from Early to PostKamares, i.e., MM Ib-MM III I). However, her discussion is largely based on complete examples and there is no specific discussion of this rim type.
79
80
These sherds have yet to be examined systematically by specialists in Minoan pottery. In photographs, the fabrics seem to include both examples with grey buff and pink buff, suggesting that Knossos and the north coast, as well as Phaistos and the Mesara may be respresented (MACGILLIVRAY 1995, 82). Note that WARREN (2000, 25) suggests that the Minoan bridge-spouted jars, which are well represented in Egypt (and the Levant), could have held a solid ointment. See above p. 149, for references to the transport of organics in suitable containers.
164 Ezra S. Marcus cussion). The contacts reflected in these finds can be associated with the end of Senusret I’s coregency with Amenemhet II, if not solely in the junior monarch’s reign. In other words, during the time represented by the Mit Rahina inscription and the Tôd Treasure, cEzbet Rushdi was apparently functioning as a Deltaic port for the transshipment of goods from the Aegean and the Levant. It is not beyond reason that the ships returning from #nty-S and the bearer of the Tôd Treasure’s contents made use of this port. Moreover, the typological and petrographic results may contribute towards narrowing down some of the possible ports-of-call and coastal cities that may have been in existence at that time. Ports-of-call along the Levantine seaboard Although the precise identification of the cities that are subsumed under the regional term #nty-S or referred to as IAsii and Iwii are unknown, the presumed route taken by the ships sailing to and from somewhere in the northeastern Mediterranean would have brought them in proximity to a number of potential MB IIa ports-of-call and settlements in the coastal plain. The former were established inter alia, owing to amenable geographical conditions that may have enabled them to act as havens for ships, but may have merely been fair weather points of transshipment between land and sea, and which could have interfaced with more inland entities. During the Bronze Age, harbors were based on numerous types of marine-landforms, such as offshore islands, promontories, lagoons, bays, and navigable rivers (RABAN 1985; 1995b; BLUE 1995). Unfortunately, due to geomorphological changes since antiquity, Bronze Age anchorages are not easily discerned in the land and seascape (MARRINER and MORHANGE 2007, fig. 8), even at such celebrated port cities such as Byblos (FROST 2004). While, for the purposes of this discussion, the complexities
81
The correlation between the coastal southern Levant and part of the northern Levant with inland Syria is a much more complex question (NIGRO 2000; 2002, 299) and, as it is not relevant to the issues at hand, will not be discussed here. NIGRO’s criticism (2000, n. 1) of the use of painted and specialized wares for chronological synchronization is well taken. Ideally more robust synchronization would result from the comparison of complete ceramic repertoires. However, such synchronizations do have their validity particularly with widely
of coastal palaeogeography will not be considered (MARRINER and MORHANGE 2007), the maritime relations or orientation of a particular site should not be precluded simply because it is currently located on a haven-less open shore, e.g., Ashkelon, or some distance from the shore up a now lessthan-navigable river, e.g., Ugarit or Tel Kabri. Given that cEzbet Rushdi Stratum e is broadly contemporary with the period of the Mit Rahina inscription, comparison between its ceramic finds and those from the results of excavations and surveys along the Levantine littoral zone may aid in determining which ports and coastal plain settlements may have been in existence when these voyages took place. In the absence of more detailed typological data from cEzbet Rushdi, the synchronization of these results with Egyptian chronology must rely solely on the Levantine Painted Ware and the petrographic analysis of these and other pottery. However, while the finds from cEzbet Rushdi suggest that the earliest Levantine Painted Ware is limited to certain monochrome motifs, in considering the antiquity of various MB IIa sites, reference will also be made to the bichrome Levantine Painted Ware, even though its synchronization with Egypt may postdate cEzbet Rushdi Stratum e (and c) and find its best parallels, thus far, in Tell el-Dabca Stratum H (BAGH 2000; 2002b). This consideration is justified and imperative as the suggested LPW developmental sequence is still unsubstantiated outside of Egypt, and since first being discerned in the basal MB IIa levels at Tel Aphek (BECK 1985; KOCHAVI and YADIN 2002), this bichrome pottery has remained an essential fossile directeur for the beginning of much of the MB IIa littoral culture (PALEY and PORATH 1997; BAGH 2000; 2002b; 2004; KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY, et al. 2002).81 Those sites where the incipient MB IIa phase is characterized by the bichrome Levantine Painted Ware may date to a period slightly later than that under dis-
distributed types and their inspirations, which offer potential comparison over much greater distances. Nowhere is this utility underscored than with the incipient MB IIa stratum (14=Phase N) at Tell Arqa, a coastal plain site whose ceramic assemblage shows very striking differences with neighboring, especially coastal, regions, but which includes at least one example of Levantine Painted Ware (THALMANN 2002, 366, 377; 2006, 141, pl. 85:20).
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 165
cussion. Unfortunately, the synchronization of this incipient phase with Egypt has been largely precluded by the relative paucity of Egyptian exports in the MB IIa Levant, particular in the southern half of this region. However, numerous radiocarbon determinations from Tel Ifshar seem to place this phase no earlier, but probably slightly later, than 1930 BCE (MARCUS 2003). This date range certainly coincides with the period under discussion and is consistent with other synchronisms from Egypt (BIETAK 2002, 38–42), but cannot offer any greater refinement at present.82 Therefore, in order to identify the possible ports and settlements with which Egypt may have had contact, the petrographic analysis of the Levantine ceramics of cEzbet Rushdi Stratum e will be used as a guide for narrowing down possible regions and sites involved. In this discussion, it is assumed that transport was by sea and that the variety of disparate regions represented by the imported ceramics to cEzbet Rushdi did not derive from a single entrepôt, although this latter assumption may require modification when the remainder of these imports and comparanda from the Levant has been studied and analyzed by petrography. In the meantime, the northern Levant, i.e., #nty-S, is represented, petrographically, by Group B3, a general indeterminate region, ranging from the port of Akko to the Akkar plain (3 LPW jugs/juglets and 1 jars); Group E, the Akkar plain (1 jar); and Group A2 the Syrian-Cilician coast/Amuq region (1 jar). The southern Levant is represented by Group F, the Carmel coast (1 jar) and Group K, the northern Negev/southern Shephelah (1 jar). Potentially, these zones of production may be further narrowed down to specific sites based on current available archaeological data from MB IIa sites in these regions. Southern Coastal Plain This region, which is represented by petrographic Group K (COHEN-WEINBERGER and GOREN
82
83
A much more limited suite of radiocarbon determinations from Tel Kabri and Tel Aphek are consistent with the results from Tel Ifshar, but due to the small number of samples, not nearly as conclusive. These will be published in a more detailed manner elsewhere. These include a handleless jar with horizontal lines (PETRIE 1933, pl. XXXIII:32A11); a dipper juglet with
2004, 79–80, fig. 1), is characterized both by the lack of solid geomorphological evidence for anchorages and the limited exposure and evidence for early MB IIa remains. The two potential MB IIa ports along this coastline are Tell el-Ajjul, with a theoretical anchorage at the mouth of Nahal Besor/Wadi Gaza (TUFNELL 1962, 1; OREN 1997, 255) and Ashkelon, which has defied considerable attempts to identify the physical geographical conditions that might have offered a haven for seafarers (STAGER 1993, 103). The extant MB IIa remains of the former site are from tombs of the later phases of the period, but a few LPW vessels were found.83 Although COHEN (2000, 189; 2002a, 107; 2002b, 124) claims otherwise, the excavator notes that earliest MB IIa phase is not yet attested at Ashkelon (STAGER 2002, 357). However, even in such a long term excavation, it is possible that these early levels have still not been located. Finally, rather than, or in addition to, the modern fisherman’s port, the BA anchorage of Jaffa may have been based on the wetlands that existed east of the tell prior to modern times (RABAN 1985, 27). In the early 20th century, the remains of large walls and stone anchors are reported to have been found in these swamps (HANAUER 1903a; 1903b; BARTON 1903; SHEPSTONE 1937, 265). Unfortunately, MB IIa Jaffa is known only from some tombs (KAPLAN and RITTERKAPLAN 1993, 659). Further inland, a few sites with possible early MB IIa remains have been found. East of the largely MB IIb anchorage of Yavne Yam, a jug with an LPW pendant motif was found in a surface survey (GOPHNA and BECK 1981, fig. 10:25, pl. 14:8, 35). At the cemetery of Dhaharat el-Humraiya two painted jugs were found in an MB IIa tomb (T.62). They are decorated in red slip, and painted with diagonally-crossed black lines and red paint on their necks and handles (ORY 1948, 88, fig. 36, 37, pl. XXXII:1). As mentioned above, this tomb may contain an example of Middle Cypriot
strokes on its rim, a pendant motif around its neck, and triangles framed with horizontal lines on its body (PETRIE 1931, pl. XLVII:AY; TUBB 1983, 53, n. 9, fig. 1:); and a globular juglet, with strokes on its rim and handle, a pendant motif, and a spiral framed with horizontal lines on its body (PETRIE 1934, pl. LIV:J60N7).
166 Ezra S. Marcus pottery, although it remains unclear as to what stage of the early MB IIa period these LPW vessels belong. Sharon Coastal Plain Although no petrographically demonstrable exports from the Sharon Coastal Plain were identified at cEzbet Rushdi, the two main river systems, the Yarkon and Alexander rivers have two archaeologically important MB IIa sites: Tel Aphek and Tel Ifshar. As previously noted, the key published site of Tel Aphek has provided some of the best parallels for the cEzbet Rushdi Levantine Painted Ware. Unfortunately, while the Yarkon river was still navigable in early modern times up to the later MB IIa site of Tel Jerishe (GEVA 1982; HERZOG 1993), apart from an encampment site at Sde Dov (KAPLAN and RITTER-KAPLAN 1993, 1454, photo), north of the modern river mouth, there does not appear to be any early MB IIa site that might have served as a port. Among the extensive repertoire of Levantine Painted Ware in settlement phases B-C at Tel Ifshar are monochrome painted motifs that are paralleled at cEzbet Rushdi (see above). This ceramic class is found in association with MK Egyptian pottery, which continues into Phase C and possibly Phase E. Contacts with Lebanon are attested by the presence of cedar (PORATH and PALEY 1993, 34) and onion-shaped jugs (PALEY and PORATH 1997, fig. 13.6:6) that are paralleled at Byblos (SAGHIEH 1983, 95, pl. XLI:3639; DUNAND 1937, pl. CLX:3639a-b) and the Kharji tombs (SAIDAH 1993–1994). The fragmentary Egyptian pottery from Phase B and C has yet to be studied typologically, but a complete Marl A vessel is dated no earlier than the reign of Senusret II. As note above, radiocarbon determinations from Phase B suggest that the MB IIa settlement at this site began no earlier than 1930 BCE, although a slightly later date is more probable, statistically. No MB IIa levels were found at Tel Michmoret at the mouth of the Alexander river, which was probably navigable in antiquity. Similarly, no evidence for any anchorage was found at the mouth of the Hadera river. However, more than 10 km up this river is the MB IIa site of
84
LPW vessels are reported at a cemetery excavated at the southern margin of Mt. Carmel, overlooking the Nahal Taninim basin that forms the border between the
Tel Zeror, which produced some remains that are reported to be coeval with the earliest phase at Tel BECK and GOPHNA Aphek (KOCHAVI, 1979, 155–160). One LPW vessel is represented by a body sherd of a jar decorated with concentric circles (KOCHAVI, BECK, et al. 1979, 160, fig. 18:22).84 Carmel Coast In contrast to the Sharon Coastal Plain, there are three MB IIa sites on or close to the modern shoreline of the Carmel Coast that could have been the point of export for the single jar of petrographic Group F: Tel Dor, Tel Nami, and Tel Megadim. Although Tel Dor has been the subject of excavation since 1980 during which, other than stray sherds, no MBA strata were found even in areas where bedrock was reached (STERN 1995, 271); Middle Bronze Age remains were detected on exposed scarp of the so-called “Love Bay” on the northern side of the tell. There, RABAN (1995a, 287, 302–303, 306, 309, n. 38) found MB IIa remains, but none that appear so far to represent the earliest phases of the period. Given these very preliminary findings, and the site’s many coves and protected bodies of water, the underwater surveys of which have produced MB IIa ceramics, anchors and a MC import (WACHSMANN and RAVEH 1984, 239; WACHSMANN 1995, 5; SIBELLA 1995, 13, fig. 1), it seems likely that the remains of a MBA port city may still be discovered at this site. Tel Nami, which is located approximately 5 km north of Tel Dor is one of a cluster of sites that are arrayed around what were probably coastal wetlands with access to the sea (ARTZY 1993; MARCUS 1991). The earliest phase of habitation includes bichrome LPW jugs, jars and juglets (ARTZY 1995, 20, fig. 2.4). In addition, a fragment of cedar was found in an early MB IIa well (LEVYADUN, ARTZY, MARCUS, et al. 1996). Radiocarbon determinations both from settlement and tombs show results similar to that of Tel Ifshar, i.e., the beginning of settlement not much earlier that the last quarter of the 20th century BCE (BRONK RAMSEY, HIGHAM, OWEN, et al. 2002, 80–81). Unpublished salvage excavations at Tel Megadim (WOLFF 1998) have produced examples
Sharon and Carmel Coastal Plains (PEILSTÖCKER and SKLAR-PARNES 2005).
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 167
of Levantine Painted Ware in tombs (BAGH 2000, fig. 1.IIIa). Although the site does not have an obvious anchorage, perhaps the bay at nearby Atlit was already in use in the Middle Bronze Age, as has been suggested for the Early Bronze Age (SHARVIT, GALILI, et al. 2002, 164). Finally, despite its relative distance from the sea, it would be remiss to ignore the important hinterland center of Megiddo, where early MB IIa remains found both on the tell and in the adjoining cemetery (DUNAYEVSKY and KEMPINSKI 1973; KEMPINSKI 1989). As mentioned briefly above, these remains include both monochrome and bichrome Levantine Painted Ware (BAGH 2000, 71–78). The coast of Northern Israel & Southern Lebanon The finds from the excavations of Tel Akko (DOTHAN 1993), the southernmost port in this region, are currently under study by research teams at the University of Haifa.85 In excavation areas where significant MB IIa remains were uncovered, no ceramics typical of the earliest phase of this period, including the Levantine Painted Ware, have been found so far in situ (Area AB: Ron BEERI, personal communication;86 Area F: this author). The only exceptions are some fragmentary sherds of possible bichrome Levantine Painted Ware from later fills and the complete profile of a bichrome jug that was exposed during modern construction west of the MB IIa gate in Area F (DOTHAN and RABAN 1980). However, the possibility that excavations did not reach and sufficiently expose the early MB IIa levels should not be precluded. A recent study of the Akko Plain (PEILSTÖCKER 2005) identified no additional examples of Levantine Painted Ware or other early MB IIa remains between Tel Akko and the modern Israeli-Lebanese border. Thus, the aforementioned examples from Tel Kabri remain the only known examples from this region of early Levantine Painted Ware with monochrome motifs similar to that of cEzbet Rushdi. However, a monochrome juglet was found at the Nahariya temple,
85
Relevant excavation areas include: Area AB, which is being studied by R. BEERI as part of his doctoral dissertation, supervised by Professor M. ARTZY; Area H, which is being studied by Dr. A. BRODY in collaboration with Professor M. ARTZY; and Area F, which is being studied by the author and up until 2003 with the late Professor
albeit with concentric circles and necklace decoration, but was reported to be from a later MB IIa phase (DOTHAN 1981, 76, fig. 2). Bichrome Levantine Painted Ware is known from both Tel Kabri (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY, et al. 2002, 114–116, figs. 5.14, 5.58:3) and the Nahariya temple (DOTHAN 1956, 19, fig. 8; 1981, fig. 1; BEN-DOR 1950, 235, fig. 16:325, 47, pl. VIII).87 Regarding possible anchorages, the largely unknown river mouth port of Tel Nahariya on the southern bank of the Gacaton river, which derives its source at Tel Kabri, has not yet produced early MB IIa remains (PEILSTÖCKER 2005). One explanation is that earlier remains may yet be found there, or that the river mouth functioned as a maritime interface without the existence of a settlement, or that the river may have entered the sea at a location closer to the Nahariya temple complex some 800 m to the north (RABAN 1986, 219; YOGEV 1993). The next two major ports to the north, Akhziv and the palaeo-island of Tyre, have yet to reveal any early MB IIa remains (OREN 1975; BIKAI 1978, 6, 72–73). The former has only been the object of limited excavation, primarily of the rampart fortifications (PRAUSNITZ 1975), while the latter was probed solely in a 150 m2 sondage, which represents merely 1% of the ancient island (BIKAI 1978, 1). Either relevant remains may be discovered elsewhere, such as near the reconstructed northern harbor, or MBA Tyre should be sought to the lee of the island, along the prograded ancient shoreline, perhaps at one of the nearby tells (MARRINER and MORHANGE 2005, 184, fig. 2–3; 2007, fig. 17; MARRINER, MORHANGE, BOUDAGHER-FADEL, et al. 2005; MARRINER, MORHANGE, DOUMET-SERHAL, et al. 2006, 1–2, fig. 1; MARRINER 2007, 330–336, figs. A16, A24, 1.17, 2.1). To date, the most extensive MB IIa remains discovered in this section of coastline are from the port of Sidon, where five phases of 60 graves, spanning the Middle Bronze Age, have been exposed (DOUMET-SERHAL 2001, 162–171; 2002, 188–189; 2003a, 179–182; 2003c, 9–14;
86 87
A. Raban. The latter two studies are funded by the White-Levy program for archaeological publication. For intial results, see BEERI (2003). These remains are currently being studied by S. Zuckerman of the Hebrew University.
168 Ezra S. Marcus 2004b, 112–118; 2004c, 90–103, 148–149; 2004d, 48, 51–53).88 So far, only some fragmentary sherds decorated with monochrome black or red horizontal lines or bands have been found among the pottery of a floor underneath the largest substantial MB wall found thus far (DOUMET-SERHAL 2003a, 191, 195). However, significant amounts of bichrome Levantine Painted Ware are present in tombs of Phases 1-2 (BAGH 2004). Synchronizing this sequence with Egypt is currently based on two complete Egyptian vessels: one small Marl C jar in burial 13 of Phase 1, which first appears in the time of Senusret I, but continues throughout the 12th Dynasty, and Phase 2, Burial 24 utilizes a Marl C storage jar for an infant burial (BADER 2003). This example, too, has a broad chronological range from the mid12th through 13th Dynasties.89 However, an Upper Egyptian vessel found above a warrior grave and provisionally assigned to Phase 2 can be placed more narrowly within a timeframe covering the reigns of Senusret I and Senusret III, and has good parallels at cEzbet Rushdi during the reign of Amenemhet II (FORSTNER-MÜLLER and KOPETZKY 2006). Phase 1 also produced scarabs typical of the first half of the 12th Dynasty (TAYLOR 2004, 157; MLINAR 2004, 63). An additional find of note is an MM IIA-early MM IIb cup found perhaps as a ritual deposit in Phase 2 (MACGILLIVRAY 2003; 2004). A single radiocarbon determination on an animal bone from underneath this deposit (DOUMET-SERHAL 2004a) produced a 2 sigma range of 2030-1770 BCE, although the highest probability (81%) within that range is between 2030 and 1860 BCE, which is consistent with first half of MM IIA beginning around the end of Senusret I’s reign (MACGILLIVRAY 1998, fig. 3.3). It also might suggest a provisional terminus ante quem of 1860 for Phase 2. Finally, research on the palaeogeography of Sidon has a revealed a number of possible Bronze Age anchorages (MARRINER and MORHANGE 2005, 186–188, figs. 4, 6; MARRINER,
MORHANGE, et al. 2006, 1–2, figs. 2, 5; MARRINER, MORHANGE, et al. 2006; MARRINER 2007, 337–379). Another potential port might eventually be revealed at Tell el-Burak, a small coastal site between Tyre and Sidon (FINKBEINER and SADER 2001; KAMLAH and SADER 2003). Recent excavations revealed a massive mudbrick building, possibly a fortress, dating to the Middle Bronze Age II (KAMLAH and SADER 2003, 159–166). While the excavators are understandably hesitant to refine their date at this stage of research, some of the published pottery (KAMLAH and SADER 2003, pl. 3) could possibly date to the early stages of the Middle Bronze Age. Coastal geomorphological studies of the shoreline are planned for the identification of possible harbor installations (KAMLAH and SADER 2003, 166) and an underwater survey of a nearby reef may indicate its use as an offshore anchorage (MAINBERGER 2001).
88
90
89
In addition to the finds from Sidon itself, early MB IIa remains, including Levantine Painted Ware vessels, have been found in various tombs located in its hinterland (GUIGES 1937, figs. 3a, 3c, 6, 7a, 22, 23b, 28f; 1938, figs. 46, 57e, 58e, 59; BAGH 2000, appendix). Egyptian imports increase significantly (N=51) in Phase 4 (FORSTNER-MÜLLER, KOPETZKY and DOUMET-SERHAL 2006).
Northern Lebanon The extensive salvage excavations that preceded the reconstruction of Beirut’s Central District have revealed significant MBA remains from the ancient tell (BADRE 1997; 1998). The preliminary publication includes the profile of a handleless jar decorated with sets of 4–6 horizontal bands (BADRE 1997, 22, fig. 9.4). This member of the Levantine Painted family, and other examples, suggest the presence of MB IIa levels, but how early in this sub-period is still unclear. At the very least, the locating of the BA tell of Beirut offers a settlement context for the tombs and other relevant finds previously discovered, such as the Kharji and Sin el Fil tombs, both of which contain examples of both monochrome and bichrome Levantine Painted Ware (SAIDAH 1993–1994, pls. 5, 6, 9:2, 10, 11:1–2, 12:1, 16:2–32; CHÉHAB 1939, figs. 7a–b, 8a–c).90 The reconstruction of Beirut’s ancient harbor, suggests a nearby anchorage situated between the Nahr Beirut, two rocky promontories and an island (MARRINER 2007, 380–422).
The absence of proper documentation and the fact that the finds are missing and cannot be re-examined is a hindrance to a full assessment of what they represent for the MB IIa chronology of Beirut. However, BAGH (2000, 89–93) suggests that there may be reason to separate the two MB IIa assemblages, i.e. chambers, T.1 and T.2, in which case an early monochrome painted phase would be isolated.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 169
Only 20 km north of Beirut is the port of Byblos, which served Egypt during the Old and Middle Kingdom as its principal commercial partner in the Levant. Although stratigraphic ambiguities and discarded material may for ever prevent a full understanding of the nature of that relationship, there are some architectural complexes dated by foundation deposits or caches (TUFNELL and WARD 1966; NEGBI and MOSKOWITZ 1966; PORADA 1966) and tombs (TUFNELL 1969; BARAMKI 1973), all of which provide some chronologically secure contexts for comparing the remaining equivocal data. The beginning of the Middle Bronze Age take its terminus post quem from the upper phases of the stratified Early Bronze Age-Intermediate Bronze Age sequence, as reconstructed by SAGHIEH (1983).91 The Levantine Painted Ware at Byblos has been discussed in detail by BAGH (2000, 94–112; 2002b), where she notes the preference for monochrome red band and wavy line decorations, the latter of which she derives from motifs common in the preceding Early Bronze Age IV. Byblos provides her with the best parallels for the LPW sherds from cEzbet Rushdi, but note the discussion above. Regarding the synchronization with Egypt, the Montet Jar scarabs provide the earliest 12th Dynasty imports (BEN-TOR, D. 1998). Although their stratigraphic assignment is equivocal, royal names are attested at Byblos beginning with Senusret I, whose cartouche was found on a limestone fragment (WARD, W. A. 1971, 68, n. 272); Amenemhet II’s name appears on a bone cylinder (JIDEJIAN 1971, 25). Finally, despite its ancient prominence as a port, Byblos appears to have had a number of seemingly poorly protected shoreline and offshore anchorages (FROST 2002; FROST 2004; COLLINA-GIRARD, FROST, et al. 2002; STEFANIUK, MORHANGE, SAGHIEH-BEYDOUN, et al. 2005). The Akkar Plain (petrographic Group E), which extends from northern Lebanon into modern Syria, has been the subject of regional surveys and extensive excavations at such key sites as Tell Arqa and Tell Kazel (BARTL 1998–1999; THALMANN 2000; 2002; 2006). Although a number of sites
91
Among the MB IIa contexts she considers are the Obelisk Temple and its jar deposits (SAGHIEH 1983, 18–20, 24, fig. 7–7b, pl. XLI:15979); the Champ des Offrandes temple and Enceinte Sacrée MBA jar deposits (SAGHIEH 1983, 31, 35, 38–9, figs. 9, 11, 12b, pl. XLI:10585); the Temple Syrien (or Batiment II) and its jar
apparently possess MB ramparts and quite a few rural sites are dated to the Middle Bronze Age (THALMANN 2006, 211–212, fig. 85), only the MB sequence of Tell Arqa has been excavated and studied in detail (THALMANN 2006). Only one imported example of Levantine Painted Ware was found in Stratum 14 (=Phase N) (THALMANN 2002, 373–374, fig. 8; 2006, 141, pl. 85:20). However, more substantial early MB IIa remains, including monochrome and bichrome Levantine Painted Ware are known from the tombs at the coastal site of Amrith (DUNAND, SALIBY and KHIRICHIAN 1954, pls. III:2, 4; TUBB 1983, fig. 1:3–4; BAGH 2000, appendix). In the absence of any coastal geomorphological studies it is impossible to assess the possibility of any anchorages among the MB coastal sites in this region (THALMANN 2006, pl. 2). Syrian Coast In this petrographic group’s (A2) region (COHENWEINBERGER and GOREN 2004, 71–73, fig. 1), Ugarit is undoubtedly the principal BA port of the Syrian coast, based on its geographical location, its anchorages, such as Minet el Beida, archaeological finds and textual references. However, much of the MBA city is known only from tombs and various objects found in later contexts (YON 2006, 16–17, fig. 5). Among the latter are a bead with the name of Senusret I, a sphinx in the Temple of Baal and a statue of Khnumet, daughter of Amenemhet II and wife of Senusret II (YON 2006, 16–17). Nevertheless, re-examination of the finds from the Schaeffer excavations stored at the Louvre enabled BAGH (2000, 118–123) to catalogued 39 LPW vessels or fragments thereof, many of which were not always clearly assigned by the excavator. Band line decorations appear in both monochrome and bichrome although sometimes two shades of red can be discerned creating a “bichrome impression” (BAGH 2000, 119). Although the southern limit of petrographic group A2 is the port of Latakiya (COHEN-WEINBERGER and GOREN 2004, 71–73, fig. 1), the Jableh
deposits, including the Montet Jar (SAGHIEH 1983, 50–1, 57–8, fig. 13). These are assigned to her Period H, along with other stray MB IIa finds, such as LPW dipper juglets and an isolated jar deposit (SAGHIEH 1983, 5, figs. 1:12472, 4:10882, pl. XLI:18903).
170 Ezra S. Marcus (Gabla) coastal plain of Syria south of Latakiya, which is considered the southern extent of the kingdom of Ugarit in the Late Bronze Age (YON 2006, 9, fig. 6), should also be considered. Excavations at two potential ports, Tall Sukas (THRANE 1978) and Tall Daruk (OLDENBURG and ROHWEDER 1981) both produced early MB remains. Tall Sukas is situated on a promontory between two natural bays (LUND 1986, fig. 2), but no details of their viability as anchorages are available. Although the MB finds have yet to be fully published, the earliest MB IIa stratum (layer 18) is dated by a burial (LUND 1986, 16). This so-called collective grave contained numerous examples of monochrome and bichrome Levantine Painted Ware that were found in Level 3 of the tomb (THRANE 1978, figs. 72:79, 80:80–83, 85:85, 88, 91, 92:92–94).92 Tall Daruk, which is located at a possible river mouth anchorage of the Nahr Sinn (OLDENBURG and ROHWEDER 1981, 6, fig. 52), produced sherds of monochrome, but, principally, bichrome Levantine Painted Ware in a number of MB levels (OLDENBURG and ROHWEDER 1981, figs. 29:79, 80, 30:84, 86, 87, 89, 91, 38: 79, 80).93 In addition, recent excavation at Tell Tweini, which is 1.7 km up the once navigable Rumailiah river, has produced possible early MB IIa remains (BRETSCHNEIDER, AL-MAQDASSI, et al. 2004, 217–218). However, until this region is defined petrographically (COHEN-WEINBERGER and GOREN 2004, fig. 1), the relationship between these important finds and those imported to Egypt will remain unclear.
cient body of material evidence for assessing the maritime “events” described in the text and interpreting them within a broader context. For example, the Tôd Treasure may be seen as a reflection of the types of endowments or tribute that may have derived from royal, or royally sanctioned, commercial expeditions. Conversely, the finds from cEzbet Rushdi provide an insight into the contemporary Deltaic ports or interfaces through which such expeditions may have passed. The material “drop off” found there offers an archaeological and petrographical imprint of other Levantine regions that may have been visited and those that directly or indirectly provided goods. Despite the text’s reference solely to the Lebanon, it may be envisioned that these voyages were a form of cabotage wherein ships leaving the Delta may have made land fall somewhere along the southern coast of Israel (Tell el-Ajjul or Ashkelon?) and the Carmel coast (Tels Dor, Nami or Megadim) before they reached their final destination in Lebanon and Syria. The possibility of relations with all of these regions has implications far beyond the immediate events under discussion. THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS OF THE MIT RAHINA INSCRIPTION AND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS FROM
AMENEMHET II’S REIGN
Thus, despite the lack of any additional contemporary textual evidence for foreign relations with which the Mit Rahina inscription might be compared, the archaeological record provides a suffi-
If the maritime-oriented events detailed in the Mit Rahina text and the archaeological evidence from Egypt and the Levant – at least that which can be synchronized with the finds from cEzbet Rushdi Phase e – had spanned the entire Middle Kingdom, they would naturally have been considered simply individual manifestations of the long term relations between Egypt and the Levant. However, as this evidence may be associated with a fairly distinct period in the 12th Dynasty, namely the reign of Amenemhet II, they might better
92
93
Summary
In her analysis of this assemblage, BAGH (2000, 113–117) correctly assigns it to the MB IIa phase, but her correspondence with Aphek Phase 3 should only be considered with regards to the sealing of this phase. Many of the types that she considers early (BAGH 2000, 116) do not appear in Aphek Phase 3 and would be best placed in Aphek Phase 2, or, better, Phase 1 (BECK 1985; KOCHAVI and YADIN 2002). This assemblage appears much more likely to represent a mixture of five interments (THRANE 1978, 21–29) spanning a number of MB IIa phases.
A single radiocarbon determination of a charcoal sample of wood (Quercus sp.) from MB Layer 32 produced a date of 3660±110 (OLDENBURG and ROHWEDER 1981, 67; TAUBER 1973, 109). Recalibrated, this low precision measurement produces a broad range of 24501700 BCE (2 sigma) and 2200-1890 (1 sigma), which while consistent cannot be a conclusive arbiter for the calendrical date of these finds.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 171
be considered to be related parts of a political and economic process of broader significance. In particular, they may shed light on the juncture and circumstances at which contacts between Egypt and the Levant were restored in the Middle Kingdom, the character of Egyptian foreign trade during this period, and the possible impact of these developments on the transformation that the Levant was undergoing in the early Middle Bronze Age.
The reestablishment of unified rule in Egypt under the Middle Kingdom has long been considered a return to patterns already well-established in the Old Kingdom (HAYES 1971, 468; KEMP 1983, 71). When, precisely, foreign relations with the Levant and the eastern Mediterranean resumed has up until now been somewhat unclear. A review of the currently available evidence will demonstrate that Amenemhet II’s reign may very well represent a watershed in this regard. In the interval between the collapse of the Old Kingdom, when Egypt’s relations with Byblos cease and prior to the 12th Dynasty, the textual
record is somewhat vague regarding relations with the Levant and the origin of foreign materials.94 Moreover, since WARD’s study (1971), no detailed review of FIP imports to Egypt has been made. Cedar, some imported ceramics, bronze and silver all attest to sporadic contacts with the eastern Mediterranean.95 In the twenty-fourth year following the founding of the 12th Dynasty, Amenemhet I’s general, Nesumontu, engaged in attacks against peoples to the north and east (i.e., Asiatics), against their fortresses and against “sand dwellers” (BREASTED 1906, §470-§471; WARD 1961, 38; REDFORD 1992, 77). Beni Hasan tomb No. 14 of Khnumhotep I, who was a contemporary of Amenemhet I, includes a martial scene that depicts different groups of foreigners, among them bearded, weapon-brandishing Asiatics (NEWBERRY 1893a, 84–85, pl. XLVII). An inscription from this tomb also records a naval expedition to Upper Egypt involving twenty ships of cedar and attacks against Asiatic groups (NEWBERRY 1893a, 84, pl. XLIV; BREASTED 1906, §463–§465; WARD 1961, 38; REDFORD 1992, 74). In addition to the aforementioned inscription of Senusret I from the Temple of Montu, he himself is described as “one who severs
94
95
The resumption of Egyptian relations with the Levant in the Middle Kingdom
During the First Intermediate Period, there is a reference to an offering of sft oil and a door of aS wood (WARD 1971, 49–50). Under Mentuhotep II, texts and pictorial scenes continue the familiar “smiting of the Asiatic” formula, along with a military campaign to the Qedem (eastern) lands and a presumably sea-borne expedition to the “cedar slopes” to cut wood (WARD 1971, 58–62, fig. 8; REDFORD 1992, 69–70; HAYES 1949, 46, n. j). The tomb of Antef includes a rare depiction of the siege of a fortified Asiatic stronghold (ARNOLD and SETTGAST 1965, pl. 2), and a riverine engagement (SETTGAST 1969), but the location of this walled settlement and the engagement are unknown and the former could be a continuation of an OK artistic idiom (SCHULMAN 1982, 168–170, 179). REDFORD (1992, 70) notes the Eleventh Dynasty attack on the Asiatics of +Aty, a toponym that he associates with the Jordan Valley despite the reference to “sailing with the south wind”. The acquisition of coniferous timber may be reflected in a funerary stela that mentions a coffin made of fresh aS wood (WARD 1971, 62) and an expedition by Henu, who records the building of a “Byblosship” for a voyage to Punt (BREASTED 1906, §432–§433; SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH 1946, 48), although the precise construction material is unspecified.
Although there is no precluding a re-use of previously imported products at the beginning of the period, the later textual and archaeological evidence suggest that fresh goods were imported, albeit in limited quantities. Cedar was used for the construction of boxes and coffins, and a model was made of an unidentified conifer (LUCAS and HARRIS 1989, 430–432; WARD 1971, 62; DAVIES 1995, 146–147, n. 31, table 1, pl. 10:1). Some ceramic forms of southern Levantine or Syrian origin or inspiration are found in the Delta and Upper Egypt (SHAHEEN 1992; BIETAK 1996, 9). Copper, which was most likely imported via northern Sinai, but could have come from regions further to the north, was used for a range of objects, including a bowl, a statuette, epsilon axes, and plaques (WARD 1971, 51–54, fig. 7; HAYES 1953, fig. 92; 1971, 464; LUCAS and HARRIS 1989, 219; SHAHEEN 1990; GARENNE-MAROT 1984, 116–117). The statuette may be bronze (LUCAS and HARRIS 1989, 210) and, indeed, analyses of FIP tools and weapons indicate sporadic examples of tinbronzes (GARENNE-MAROT 1984, 117; DAVIES 1987, 24, passim; COWELL 1987, 98–99, table 2b). Some silver finds are also reported (LUCAS and HARRIS 1989, 246). Finally, WARD (1971, 54) reports a lapis lazuli bead, which is one of the materials acquired in a recorded expedition to the Sinai.
172 Ezra S. Marcus the neck of those who are among the Asiatic” (ROWE 1939, 188–191; POSENER 1971, 538, 540). His vizir Mentuhotep was “one who pacifies the sand dwellers,” a written allusion, perhaps, to the vanquished Asiatic depicted on a block from his regent’s funerary temple (POSENER 1971, 538). In the tomb of Amenemhat (No. 2), who was buried in the forty-third year of Senusret I, Asiatic soldiers also appear in a battle scene, which may or may not be part of scene depicting the siege of a fortified city (NEWBERRY 1893b, 24, 32–3, pls. XIV, XVI; SCHULMAN 1982, 176–178). In addition to the Mit Rahina inscription, a brief reference exists of Asiatic cattle brought during the reign of Amenemhet II or III (BLACKMAN 1915). Finally, regardless of whether the Tale of Sinuhe is a historical autobiography or a dreamlike fantasy-nightmare (PARKINSON 1997, 21–26), a few aspects of this characterization of the early 12th Dynasty are relevant to the present discussion. First, the mention of Egyptian emissaries in the Levant and that Egyptian was spoken (PARKINSON 1997, 29, 32; SIMPSON 2003b, 57, 59; QUIRKE 2004, 59–60) reflects the security they enjoyed and the degree of interaction that was maintained. The laconic reference to Byblos (PARKINSON 1997, 29; SIMPSON 2003b, 56; QUIRKE 2004, 60) is perhaps more revealing than it seems. The reasons for the fleeing Sinuhe’s avoidance of Byblos, Egypt’s traditional Levantine commercial counterpart and the most Egyptianized center abroad have ranged from that of a fugitive evading the Egyptian sphere of influence (ALBRIGHT 1928, 225) to a more literary allegory wherein his dearest intention – to find the best substitute Egypt – was denied him in exile, owing to circumstance and his own failings (GOEDICKE 1992, 30–35; PARKINSON 1997, 23). If, indeed, the Tale of Sinuhe was composed shortly after the reign of Senusret I (PARKINSON 1997, 21), the total absence of this toponym in the Mit Rahina inscription is conspicuous, particularly given the detailed description of the expeditions and the arriving tribute. Although Byblos might have been mentioned in a later unpreserved entry, clearly, when the extant portion of the text was recorded, i.e., during Year 3 of Amenemhet II, there were avenues available to the Egyptians for the procurement of Levantine products, including the much coveted cedar, that did not involve Byblos (contra WARD 1971, 67–68; BEN-TOR 1998, 14–15). Moreover, even the ships employed are not “Byblos-ships”,
although this type is known already from the third millennium BCE and in the early 12th Dynasty. The archaeological evidence, too, offers little unequivocal evidence for such early contacts. As noted above, the earliest 12th Dynasty royal nomen at Byblos, Senusret I, lacks a secure context. That leaves the Montet Jar scarabs as the earliest stratified 12th Dynasty finds attested at Byblos, which are paralleled by sealings from the site of Abu Ghâlib (BEN-TOR 1998, 14–15). These sealings are dated by pottery of the so-called “transitional style,” which precedes the classic MK pottery that develops in the middle or later years of the reign of Senusret I or even Amenemhet II, as established by parallels from the foundation deposits of the former’s pyramid at Lisht (BEN-TOR 1998, 14 following ARNOLD 1988, 143–146). In support of this claim, BENTOR (1998, 14) notes a comparable date for the Abu Ghâlib pottery based on Tell el-Dabca Area F/I, levels e/1–3 (BIETAK 1991, 31). However, she fails to note Bietak’s caveat regarding the terminus ad quem for Abu Ghâlib in the reign of Senusret II (BIETAK 1991, 31, n. 7). Although some doubt exists regarding the validity of the cylinder seal of Senusret II that provides this lower bracket, some ceramic forms may date as late as the end of the 12th Dynasty (BAGH 2002a, 39–41, 43–44). Thus, it is unclear how long the pottery and the scarab sealings continued in use. BEN-TOR herself (1998, 12) notes that, “The exact date of the beginning of mass production of Middle Kingdom scarabs cannot be determined at this point of scarab research ... The Montet Jar scarabs, displaying stylistic features and designs which precede the Middle Kingdom groups, should therefore be placed within the range of the early Middle Kingdom, somewhere during the late 11th–mid 12th Dynasty.” As there is no clear delineation of where “early” ends and “middle” begins (BEN-TOR 1998, n. 4), the date of production of the Montet scarabs and their arrival at Byblos cannot be further refined. Regarding the deposition of this assemblage, as with any archaeological context, it is axiomatic that the latest material must be considered the definitive dating criterion. While the jar itself is clearly an example of the early monochrome red Levantine Painted Ware (see BAGH 2000, 95–99 and discussion above), the latest date
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 173
comes from the jar’s cylinder seals, which are dated by PORADA’s (1966) to the 19th century BCE (middle Mespotamian chronology). Few scholars have taken note of this factor in their assessment of this assemblage (BIETAK 1991, 54, n. 34; LILYQUIST 1993, 38–41) and it should be considered valid until otherwise superseded.96 This archaeological and chronological reality, however, does not detract from the antiquity or the significance of the Montet Jar scarabs as the earliest evidence for contacts between Egypt and Byblos.97 The notion that relations with Byblos resumed immediately with the reunification of Egypt does not seem to be supported by the currently available evidence. Other than the Tale of Sinuhe, of which actual copies are known from Amenemhet III’s time onwards (PARKINSON 1997, 21), the earliest MK mention of Byblos appears to be in the Mirgissa Execration texts, a fortress which was in use during the reigns of Amenemhet II and Senusret II (KOENIG 1990, 102, 111). In addition, an unpublished text from the mastaba tomb of Khnumhotep III at Dahshur (Senusret III), son of the noted Khnumhotep II of Beni Hasan, which is being studied by J. ALLEN and recounts a conflict involving Byblos and Ullaza (WIMMER 2005, 131; RAINEY 2006, 281–282, 285). Thus, formal contacts between Egypt and Byblos may even postdate the events detailed in the Mit Rahina inscription. Perhaps, at this point in time, Egypt’s interests and activities in the Levant may have been geographically broader than previously supposed (EDER 1995, 183–184, 188–189, 194). Beyond the general reference to #nty-S, the localization of the toponyms of Iwii and IAsii in the northeastern
Mediterranean and Cilicia gains external support from SCHNEIDER’s reanalysis (2002) of the toponyms in Sinuhe B219–222. Among his identifications are a reference to the “king of Qatnah”, which uses a Semitic title; “the rulers of the south of Kauzza land”, which employs a Luwian title and may indicate an early reference to Kizzuwadna (Cilicia); and “the sovereigns of the two lands of the Fenekhu”, which employs a Hurrian term. His new reading of the statement that follows these terms, “Die Gewährsmänner der Titel sind Herrscher, die in Loyalität zu dir existieren”, suggests to him a parallel in, inter alia, the arrival of foreign tribute of the Mit Rahina inscription (SCHNEIDER 2002, 268–269, 271–272). These toponymic references in the northern Levant lend credence to Quack’s identification of Yamhad in the Mirigissa Execration Texts (QUACK 1992). Thus, Egypt’s military expedition to Iwii and IAsii and its “involvement” in the later conflict between Byblos and Ullaza may represent a projection of power on a geographical scale heretofore unimagined in the Middle Kingdom.98 If such is the case, perhaps the superlatives associated with early MK rulers should not be considered exaggerations.
96
98
97
Some of the metal vessels in the Montet Jar also suggest later dates, based on parallels with examples in stone at Ebla, but while these could be the latest material in the jar, they also could be earlier metal prototypes (BAGH 2000, 98–99). At the risk of generating discord in the chronological harmony of the House of Ben-Tor, should the new low Mespotamian chronology be accepted (BEN-TOR 2004), it would certainly have an effect of lowering the date of the cylinder seals by the very same amount of time (ca. 100 years). Thus, unless MK Egyptian chronology is also shifted downwards, a significant extension of the lifespan of the MONTET Jar scarabs would be required. Moreover, some explanation would be required as to how no mid-MK scarabs appear in the assemblage.
Aspects of Egyptian foreign trade While the projection of power by the Egyptian royal court into the eastern Mediterranean probably served domestic ideological and religious purposes that strengthened the authority and legitimacy of the Egyptian king, the concomitant procurement of foreign goods was an important material reification and reminder of the econom-
Typically, with the exception of sealed deposits at Byblos, many of the 12th Dynasty Egyptian objects and statues in the Levant found in later contexts are assumed to have arrived after the Middle Kingdom (see discussion in AHRENS 2006, 25–27). However, in light of the increasing evidence for (early) 12th Dynasty activities, perhaps it is not unreasonable to assume that some objects, such as the statue of Khnumet, daughter of Amenemhet II, from Ugarit (CAUBET and YON 2006, 88, fig. 2), that of his daughter Ita, at Qatnah (AHRENS 2006, 26–27), or even the examples from Central Anatolia (ALLEN 1929) and Cilicia (AHRENS 2006, n. 66), were originally exported during the 12th Dynasty.
174 Ezra S. Marcus
L
Cedar Trunks
23 10 5 2
Cedar Planks
L
W
23
0.40
10
0.40
D
Total volume (m3)
Total weight (kg)
Potential number of coffins
1.5 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.4
9471 24,023 4080 10,445 2040 5222 816 2089
5,255,088 13,453,026 2,284,821 5,849,142 1,142,411 2,924,571 456,904 1,169,828
43,050 109,195 18,545 47,477 9,273 23,736 3,709 9,495
Potential number of Dashur size ships 5255 13,453 2284 5849 1142 2924 456 1169
Potential number of Cheops size ships 138 (105) 354 (269) 60 (46) 154 (117) 30 (23) 77 (58) 12 (9) 31 (23)
Th 0.08
170
95,209
773
95
2 (1)
0.15
318
178,517
1445
178
4 (3)
0.08
74
41,395
336
41
1
0.15
139
77,616
632
77
2 (1)
5
0.55
0.08
37
20,697
168
20
