NL.
~r
It
?~
ICI
..A.
--S
--4
Biblical Archaeolo
ontheAncientWorldfromMesopotamia totheMediterranean Perspecti...
8 downloads
788 Views
32MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
NL.
~r
It
?~
ICI
..A.
--S
--4
Biblical Archaeolo
ontheAncientWorldfromMesopotamia totheMediterranean Perspectives A Publication oftheAmerican Schoolsof Oriental Research
186 ,
..
!:i
203
1994 December
Beetles in Stone: The EgyptianScarab WilliamA. Ward A commonbeetleplayedanuncommonroleinancientEgyptianculture. Extraordinarily frequentas anartisticmotif,thedungbeetle'snameand imageportrayedtheideaof birth,of life,andespeciallythesecondbirth intoeternalexistence.Whatwasso captivating aboutthedungbeetle?As a powerfulamulet,a seal,orpieceof jewelry,thescarabalsoboasteda tremendouspopularitybeyondEgypt.Suchpopularitypresentsarchaeolbutcomplexpossibilities fortakingthemeasureof ogy withintriguing, these"beetlesin stone."
The Fortressesat 'En ;IaHeva RudolphCohen arebeginningto uneartha singularlyimpressiveseriesof Excavations superimposedfortressbuildingsnearoneof themostabundantspringsin theArabahValleyof Israel.FiveoccupationlevelsstretchfromtheByzanPeriods tineandEarlyIslamicPeriodsthroughtheRomanandNabataean at all theway to theeighthcenturyof theIronAge.Locatedstrategically theintersection of routes,EnIHaseva beganitslifeas a royaloutpostso significantthatit mayevenhavelefta memoryof itsname.
page 186
215
What's in a Name: The Anonymity of Ancient Umm el-Jimal Bertde Vries of Camels"is onlyonereadingof themodemnameof thisstark "Mother Itsancientname?Noneof thetantaandintriguingbasalt-built settlement. in the sources checksout.Theancientsitewill literary lizingpossibilities lives haveto remainanonymous,withonlytheresiduesof itsinhabitants' to their witnessing identity.
220
The WomanQuestion and FemaleAscetics Among Essenes
r.I
page 203
Volume 57 Number 4
LindaBennettElder of a celiWerenottheEssenesatQumrancelibatemales?Thepresumption batemalepopulationon theshoresof theDeadSeacontinuesto rulescholButwhatabouttheskeletonsof femalesin thecemeterarlyimaginations. ies?Andwhataboutthetextualreferences to liturgiesinvolvingwomen? Do notallthesignspointto thepresenceof femaleasceticsatQumran?
CP
236
News, Notes, and Reviews TheWallsofJerusalem. Withitscontinuousurbanoccupation, extending offersa crucialcase-study backto the20thcenturyBCE, thecityofJerusalem inurbandevelopmentandspatialsymbolism.A new,detailedanalysisof comitssuccessivewallsandgatesby G.J.WightmanrevealsJerusalem's in the mortar and and often written stone. bloodyhistory city's plex On the cover: Numerousschematic representationsof Egyptiandesign scarabs animate the backgroundfor three examples of the modificationof the scarab outside of Egypt:the highly ornamental Phoenicianscarab (top) and two Europeanexamples-Etruscan and Greekscarabswith obvious motifs from the classical repertoire.
FromtheEditor last two years have seen BA achieve the transition to full electronic production. Every image and every piece of text of volume 57-from the jots and tittles to the jugs and tells-made its way to the printer on disk. Electronic production has offered the possibility of innovative layouts and enhanced visual presentations of research findings. BiblicalArchaeologisthas become a more effective vehicle of communication. This issue's table of contents manifests the diversity that has become the magazine's hallmark. Articles roam from the scarabs of Egypt to a spring-fed strategic site in the Arabah Valley to the shores of the Dead Sea to the fringe of the Arabian Desert. Despite their geographical, topical, and chronological variety, the articles are linked by their preoccupation with the classic questions of archaeology of the historic periods, namely: typology and toponymy. The first essay, Ward's presentation on Egyptian scarabs, eventuates in a consideration of their typological history. This multifarious history of scarab style, in turn, provides helpful links between Egyptian historical periods and archaeological phases of Bronze Age Palestine. Attention to numerically significant groups of scarabs underlies the typology's usefulness as a chronological guide. Toponomy links Cohen's and de Vries' pursuits at distant locations along ancient Palestine's major north-south line of communication. Cohen is convinced that the ancient name of his site is preserved in Roman/Byzantine as well as biblical literary sources. For de Vries, the ancient name of Umm elJimal remains unknown and probably unknowable. The royal and imperial interests that sponsored the series of fortresses at cEn Haeeva apparently did not come into play at Umm el-Jimal's location just a few kilometers off the via ilova. For their part, ancient record keepers and map makers stuck to the main roads and primary stations. Perhaps epigraphic finds will resolve the toponomic issues for the sites. Barring that, their inhabitants will be known only through the archaeologically recovered and reconstructed detritus of their lives, only through stratigraphy, typology, and sherd counts. The counts have always been there, as Elder recognizes in her treatment of women ascetics at Qumran. The sheer number of females and children buried in Qumran's cemeteries unbalances the long-tenured view that its residents were exclusively celibate males. Elder calls attention as well to texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls that offer entry into women's participation in the life of the Qumran community. The fact that these data have not been widely heeded makes us conscious of how deeply what archaeologists believe to be worthy of recording impinges upon interpretation. Consciousness about what one credits with reality, i.e., epistemology, must accompany the fundamental pursuits of collecting, counting, and classifying. The post-modern era recognizes the continuous shaping and re-shaping of the world of interpretation. Archaeological "collecting," "counting," and "classification" do not suffice in this world, but they do supply the foundation for constructing a past that aims at coherence and correspondence to the recoverable data. This larger world of multiple interpretations and perspectives for reading the data finds representation in the easy structuring and re-structuring of text and graphics made possible by BA'scomputer production. Eventually these electronic particles find a fixed form as the ink of the pages of the journal. Hopefully, the images of jots and jugs offer insight in our encounter with the past and present.
The
`A1P4{
Htarw
Biblical
Archaeologist
on theAncientWorldfrom Perspectives to theMediterranean Mesopotamia
Editor David C. Hopkins Art Director Robert D. Mench, Top Design
BookReviewEditor JamesC. Moyer
Editorial Assistant Mary PetrinaBoyd Editorial Committee
JefferyA. Blakely
Elizabeth Bloch-Smith
Betsy M. Bryan J.P.Dessel
Douglas A. Knight Mary Joan Leith
Gloria London Jodi Magness Gerald L. Mattingly
Ernest S. Frerichs Ronald S. Hendel Richard S. Hess
Kenneth G. Hoglund
Gaetano Palumbo Paul Zimansky
Subscriptions Annual subscription rates are $35 for individuals and $45 for institutions.There is a special annual rate of $28 for those over 65, physically challenged, or unemployed. Biblical is also availableas partof the benefits Archaeologist of some ASOR membership categories. Postage for Canadian and other internationaladdresses is an additional $5. Payments should be sent to ASOR Membership/ Subscriber Services, P.O. Box 15399,Atlanta, GA 30333-0399 (ph: 404-7272345; Bitnet: SCHOLARS@EMORYUI).VISA/ Mastercard orders can be phoned in. Back issues Backissues can be obtained by calling SP Customer Services at 800-437-6692or writing SP Customer Services, P.O. Box 6996, Alpharetta, GA 30239-6996. Postmaster Send address changes to Biblical ASOR Membership/SubscriberSerArchaeologist, vices, P.O.Box 15399,Atlanta, GA 30333-0399. Second-class postage paid at Atlanta, GA and additional offices. Copyright @ 1994 by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Correspondence All editorial correspondence should be addressed to BiblicalArchaeologist, 4500 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20016-5690(ph: 202-885-8699;fax:202-885-8605). Books for review should be sent to Dr.James C. Moyer, Department of Religious Studies, Southwest Missouri State University, 901 South National, Box 167,Springfield,MO 65804-0095. Advertising Correspondence should be addressed to Sarah Foster,Scholars Press, PO. Box 15399, Atlanta, GA 30333-0399(ph:404-727-2325; fax:404-727-2348).Ads for the sale of antiquities will not be accepted. BiblicalArchaeologist (ISSN0006-0895)is published quarterly(March,June, September,December) by Scholars Press, 819 Houston Mill Road NE, Atlanta,GA 30329, for the American Schools of Oriental Research(ASOR),3301 North Charles Street,Baltimore,MD 21218. Printedby Cadmus JournalServices, BaltimoreMD. OF 0?
lL
Beetles Stone:
ile a biologist may appreciate the beauty of the beetle's physical structure and the wonder and precision of its life cycle, to most of us the beetle is simply a pest, certainly not a creature to be endowed with awe and respect. The Egyptian attitude toward the beetle was quite the opposite of the attitudes of most people today.1The beetle is an extraordinarily common motif in Egyptian art, it was honored in religious thought, and the name of the beetle and its picture portrayed the idea "to come into existence" in the Egyptian language and script. The Egyptians honored the beetle because it represented something that was deeply meaningful within the framework of their beliefs about the universe. It spoke about the powers they believed controlled that universe, and reflected thoughts about the Egyptians themselves and their eternal existence.
in
The
Egyptian Scarab By William A. Ward
The male beetle makes a ball of dung to be buriedjust under the surfaceand used later as a food supply.To rollthis food supply to where it will be buried,the beetle balances on its rearlegs, using the front and middle pairto push the ball. Photograph by S. 1.Bishara.FromWard1978:1071.
-" -
• --
Scarab Origins, Manufacture, and Use Origins Around 2500 BCE, a class of small stone amulets began to appear in design found primarilywith women Egypt, and childrenburied in cemeteries of the ordinary people of Egypt. The earliest examples are shaped like a tiny pyramid and have geometric and animal designs engraved on the bottom surface. As time went by, the shape of these objectschanged into circularbases with a pierced knob on the back, the form which caused early archaeologiststo call these objects"buttonseals."Shortlyafter this, design amulets began evolving into objectsthat retained the circularor oval base, but were now carved with backs in the form of animal or human heads, or whole animal or human figures.2 One of these animals was the beetle. Within a very short time, the beetle be-
,
. •',,a . ,•,•
:,.-
.
.
.r.
N,
.
)
~5?
?' ??
It L L
?Yj
.'
came almost the only back used on this class of object.It is this final stage of artisticdevelopment that is called the "scarab.3"Fromabout 2200 BCE to late in Egyptian history,scarabsremained one of the most common objectsmanufacturedin Egypt. Hundreds of thousands are known in museums around the world. They are found in every excavation in Egypt and across the ancient world from Syria to Spain. By the end of its long history,the scarabhad become a universal objectin the Mediterranean countries and was manufacturedin many places outside Egypt. What was createdas a small amulet for women and children of the poorer classes of Egypt became an internationalobject for all classes of people everywhere in the ancient world. Life Cycle of the Dung Beetle But the immediate question is: why the beetle?Or more specifically,why one species of this insect, the dung beetle? Nothing can be less inspiring to us than an army of beetles crawling around a dung-heap. But the Egyptians saw something vitally significantin that very situation.They saw a vision of rebirth into paradise, the resurrectionof the soul; they saw the daily rebirthof their most powerful symbol, the sun, as it appears each morning over the eastern horizon. They saw, of course, what they thought was the beginning and the end of the birthcycle of the dung beetle. Time after time, they witnessed the mature beetle rollinga ball of dung, burying this ball under the earth,and some fifteen to eighteen weeks later,a new beetle emerging from the ground. But the Egyptiansmisunderstood the life cycle of the dung beetle. The dung beetle actually makes two balls of dung, one round and one pearshaped.4The round ball is simply a food supply tucked away somewhere in the sand for storage in a kind of kitchen pantry.The pear-shapedball is the one in which the egg is actually laid. But this pear-shapedmaternalball was made underground. Casual observers never see it;they see only the round ball made on the surface.This led to the
44
Pi
'L?
II C
44 16iIQ
"
~ ~
-?
'st
lb
~i~
The female beetle makes an oval ball underground.The egg is placed in a pouch on this ball which becomes the food supply for the larvaonce the egg is hatched. Casualobservers never notice the female's activityand can easily attributethe birth-cycleto the male alone. Photographby S. I. Bishara.FromWard1978: 101.
12
3
4
7
Design-amulets and earlyscarabs.Scarabsare one form of an earlytype of object, the design-amulet, the earliest(1) having a pyramidshaped back. These soon developed into examples with shanks (2) and knobs (3) as well as animaland human figures (4-5). The beetle form, or scarab,was one of the latter,from the first small ones (6) to the largermore elaborate style (7). The objects shown here date ca. 2300 to 2100 BCE.Drawingsafter Brunton(1927; 1948).
57:4 (1994) BiblicalArchlaeologist
187
,/
-y
\r
I
---2Z
The god Khepri seated in his barkas the personificationof the morning sun; after a vignette to Chapter17 of the Book of the Dead written duringthe New Kingdom.Khepriis identified by the symbol of a beetle on his head. The dung beetle (ScarabaeusSacer L),the model for the scarabamulet, was associatedwith Kheprialreadyin the PyramidTextsof the Old Kingdom. He is frequentlymentioned in the Bookof the Dead as being a self-engendered deity who each night creates the morning sun that emerges the next morning.The name Kheprimeans "Hewho comes into existence (by himself);"that of the dung beetle/scarabwas kheprer,"that 30. which continuouslycomes into existence (by itself)."DrawingfromE.Navillel971:pl.
misconceptionthatit is thelargeround ballin whichtheegg is placedand from whichthenew beetleis born.Inreality, themalebeetleworkson thesurfaceto createthe familyfoodsupply,whilethe femaleis undergroundpreparingthe nursery. Inmakingtheroundfeeding-ball, thedungbeetleuses its powerfulforelegsanda spade-likeprojectionin front calledtheclypeus.Thesearethetools withwhichit worksby scoopingand moldingtherawmaterialuntilit forms a ballof dungaboutfourto five times itsown size.Thisis thetaskof themale beetlewho laboriouslycollectstheraw material;thenpushing,patting,shapspherethat ing,buildsup a near-perfect is easilyrolledto whereit will be buried in thesand. Meanwhile,thefemalelaborsundergroundmakingthepear-shapedmaternalballin whichtheegg is to be laid. Workingalone,sheburrowsfourto eightinchesintotheground,digs out a chamberaboutfourinchessquare, bringstherawmaterialintothischamber,andcreatesthepear-shapedball.At theball'snarrowend,she carefullyconstructsan oval hollowin whichtheegg is laid.Thelittlechamberand thetunnelby whichit is reachedis thenclosed 188
57:4 (1994) BiblicalArchaeologist
Important Egyptian officials were granted the use of a royalsignet ring with which they could seal documents in the king's name. Here,an unnamed treasuryofficialof preKingTutankhamon(ca. 1336-1327 BCE) sents such a seal to the Viceroyof Nubia, Amenhotep, who is identified in this scene by his nickname-Huy.Inthe book of Genesis, Joseph is said to have receivedsuch a seal when he became the EgyptianMinisterof Agriculture.Fromthe tomb of Amenhotep, no. 40 in the Theban necropolis.Drawing
up.Whenthelarvabreaksoutof theegg, it feedson thematernalball.Whenready tochangeintothepupalstage,itburrows from Newberry,1906: pl. II. deeperintotheearth.Hereit carvesout anotherchamberin whichit changes supremesymbolof birth,of life,and intoa pupa,feedingon plantroots.After especiallythesecondbirthintoeternal existence.Thelittlestonescarabhad two to threeweeks,it emergeson the surfaceas a youngbeetle. becomea powerfulamuletto helpassureeternallifein paradise,a meaning whichwas maintainedthroughoutits Symbolic Associations and other Uses longhistory.Thescarabsignifiedthe Observationsof thedungbeetlemade regenerativepowersof Atumthecrethis are what made the ator,and Re,theproviderof life.As by Egyptians insectso importantto them(Ward1978: such,it was a potenttalismanindeed. Butscarabsalsohadotheruses.We 43-46;de Meulenaere1972;Giveon 1974).Herewas a creaturethatemerged now knowthattheearlydesignamulets out of theearth,an immediatesymbolof weresometimesused as seals,forexof thedead.Becausethey ample,on theclaystoppersof pottery theresurrection misunderstoodtheactualbirth-cycle, jars(Giddyand Grimal1979:38-39; the as the of beetle 1980:267-68).By around 2000 BCE, theyapparentlythought a scarab became a coma who of of sex, male, planted impression being single his seed in theroundballout of which mon methodforsealingmanykindsof camehisoffspring.Theyveryearlyasso- objects.Theirdesignswereimpressed ciatedthismistakenviewwiththedivine intotheclaystoppersof potteryvessels, or themud sealingson storagechestsor powertheycalledKhepri,who was a formof thesun-godRe,themorning rolled-uppapyrusdocuments.Scarabs eachday.5 usedas sealsfoundextensiveuse in govsun rebornby self-generation at all levels.7 ernmentadministration Thebeetlewas alsoassociatedwith Withthe adventof theTwelfthDynasty, Atum,to whom thecreationof theunithereappeareda new classof scarabsenversewas ascribed,and who was also self-engendered.6 gravedwiththenamesandtitlesof kings and governmentofficialsfromprime Thedungbeetlethusbecamethe
ministersdown to humble caretakersof storehouses. Some officialsof the centralgovernment were granted the privilege of using a scarab-sealengraved with the king's name. Since they acted in the king's name, they could thus use the king's name to sign documents. This does not mean that all scarabs engraved with names and titles were used as seals. The scarabbecame an even more potent amulet for achieving the afterlifewhen it was engraved with a personal name. This identified the specific individual on an objectwhich was intended to help the person gain immortality.This practicewas carriedeven furtherwith royal names. A king's personal name in itself had important magical propertiessince the king, while not a god during his lifetime as popularly believed,8did hold an office which had been createdat the beginning of time and which was endowed with divine power. Scarabsnaming especially venerated kings were made in bulk, often for centuries after their lifetimes. Such scarabswere obtained through visits to royal funerarytemples as a souvenir of the prayers offered there by an individual on behalf of the royal soul. One group of scarabsnaming Sesostris I was made five centuries afterhis death (Ward1971:134-36).Many Egyptian rulers were so honored long after their lifetimes. Scarabsnaming Thutmosis IIIof the Eighteenth Dynasty, for example, were still being made a thousand years afterhe died (Jaeger1982).A similar practicehas continued down to the presentday in Nubia. A scarabfound by a local inhabitantoften becomes a family heirloom, a kind of a magical good-luck piece, passed down from generation to generation.9 The scarabwas also used as a piece of jewelry.Stone scarabsin gold or silver ring-mounts are quite common, and scarabswere often used as elements in pectorals,bracelets,and necklaces (Aldred 1971;Wilkinson 1971;Andrews 1990).While scarabswere thus used for decorative purposes, in Egypt they no doubt maintained theirbasic amuletic character.The horse shoe in America and blue bead in Near Easterncountries are used in the same manner today.
I Of
While the scarab was most commonly used as a talisman to achieve eternal life, it had other uses as well, for example, sealing papyrusdocuments or as in this case, a Middle Kingdom wooden wig box found at Lisht.
''
Commoners as well as kings inscribedtheir names and titles on scarabsthat were sometimes used as seals. Tothe left is a scarab naming "TheSteward Khnumhotep"of the Middle Kingdomand, to its right,one naming KingAmenhotep IIIand Queen Tiyof the Eighteenth Dynasty.Note the V-shapedmarkingscalled the humeralcallosityon the wing cases of the Eighteenth Dynastyscarab,a typographicalfeature that was not used before that time. It does not The appear, of course, on the Middle Kingdomscarab. Photographs courtesyof DaphnaBen-Tor, Dr. IsraelMuseum,Jerusalem.
BiblicalArchaeologist 57:4 (1994)
189
glb~~4 Scarab of the Phoenician tradition, ca. 800-700 BCE. Phoeniciancraftsmen,always influenced by Egyptianart, produced a new type of scarabcombining Egyptianmotifs with those of other traditions.The resultwas often a complicated design and a highly
decorated representationof the beetle itself. Inthis example, the decoration on the back is far more elaborate than on Egyptian scarabs and the design on the base is a mixture of many traditions.The centralfigure wears an Egyptianheaddress and a Canaan-
O~
ee
O
e
WOE)
4)e
Scarabs engraved with royal names were most often amulets, not seals, and were continuouslyre-issuedlong aftera king had died. Inthis group,an incorrectspellingof the name of SesostrisI (ca. 1943-1898 BCE)runsdown
190
Biblical
Archa'olo•'ist
57:4 (1994)
the center of the design and two examples add the name of Amenhotep II(ca. 1427-1401 at the top. Thesescarabswere therefore BCE) made five centuriesafterthe reignof the king they honor. Drawingsafter Ward1971:fig.29.
ite cloak,the winged sun-disc is taken from Assyrianart, and the four-winged scarab is a Canaaniteadaptation of a common Egyptian motif, probablyinfluenced by Hurrian prototypes. Photos and drawing from Ward 1967:pi. 12:1and p. 69.
Manufacture Scarabswere made of almost any kind of stone, often of glazed composition, or, more rarelyof gold, silver,or bronze. The most common materialused is universally known as steatite, though it is really a kind of talc (Lucas 1962:15556; Richards1992:5-8). In its natural state, this soft stone is easily carved and engraved, which accounts for its very common use in the manufactureof scarabsand other small objects.Once the scarabwas fashioned, it was plunged into a hot liquidglaze.This accomplished two things: the glaze coating gave a smooth shiny surface to the object,and the intense heat of the glaze altered the chemical composition of the stone through dehydration so that it became very hard. This hardened form is properly called steatite.The glaze is actually an early form of glass that could be colored by the addition of coloring agents. Scarabswere most often given a deep blue or green glaze, imitating the color of the live insect. The second most common materialis glazed composition, often termed faience, frit,or paste; again, this is a form of glass using the same ingredients but in different proportions (Lucas 1962:160;Ward1993:95; Clerc,et al. 1976:24-28). Scarabs, Scarabs, Everywhere One of the intriguing things about scarabswas their popularity outside
Canaanite artists adapted the Egyptian scarabto local beliefs and engravingtechniques as earlyas the Middle BronzeAge. One such adaptation is the use of symbolism in the
5
7
8
9
"Omega-group" as on nos. 1-4, representingthe Canaanitegoddess Astarte. Exampleslike nos. 5-6 are included in this group as they are engraved in raisedreliefand show the same crude scarab style. A second group, the "nakedgoddess" of nos. 7-9, portraysAstarte herselfin a typicallyCanaanite, but not Egyptian,
include Egyptian hieroglyphs and symbols. Two of these are Keel'sjaspergroup and the well-known robed Canaanite figure.The jaspergroup (Keel 1989b)is characterizedby stick-figures and carelessengraving,and all examples are manufactured from hard stones. While the standing figures find ready comparisons with Asiatic cylinder seals, the jaspergroup scarabs make consistent use of Egyptian symbolism as well. The other design-the standing or enthroned male figure with Canaanite costume (Schroer1985)-is obviously not Egyptian but again includes Egyptian symbols as part of the design.
K4W
stance. Drawings after Keel 1989a and Schroer 1989.
Egypt. This raises the question of what the scarabsignified in foreign places and how much this peculiarly Egyptian class of objectmight be adapted to foreign ideas and beliefs. Such adaptations are already evident in Middle Bronze Age Canaan as shown by Othmar Keel and his colleagues in Freiburg.Two of these adaptations are the Omega-group and the nude goddess motif. The Omega-group (Keel 1989a)takes its name from the prominent symbol in the design resembling the Greek letter.Both this symbol and the symbol that usually accompanies it are said to representa Canaanitefertilitygoddess, possibly Astarte.The symbols find their prototypes in the cylinder seal traditionsof Mesopotamiaand Syria.The designs are
engraved in raised relief,which is not an Egyptian practiceon scarabs,and seems to derive from copying cylinder seal impressions. We have here, then, a local engraving technique with a mixed design repertoire of both Asiatic and Egyptianorigin. The nude goddess shown frontally (Schroer1989:93-121)is clearly a west Asiatic motif with prototypes on cylinder seals and the common Astarte plaques. Showing human or divine figures frontallyruns contraryto the Egyptian practiceo0so that, in this case, both the subjectmatterand the method of representationare Canaaniterather than Egyptian. The sources of other motifs are not as clear as these since they almost always
5
/
8
Other Canaanite adaptations of the Egyptian scarab include a series done in a local engravingtechnique, the "Jaspergroup," nos. 1-4. Nos. 3-4, however, while carved in this Canaanitestyle are local copies of purelyEgyptiandesigns. Nos. 5-8 represent the "toga-wearer"group, a royalfigure in Canaanitecostume, based on prototypes in Canaaniteand Syrianart. Drawings after Keel 1989b and Tufnell1984
57:4 (1994) BiblicalArchaeologist
191
The lattertwo scarabgroups present a problem encountered with many scarabsand other objects found outside Egypt:what is the purpose of the use of Egyptian symbolism in a clearly foreign context?In other words, these Egyptian symbols have a particular significancewithin an Egyptiancontext. Was that significance the same in a foreign context, or was the meaning altered to suit the beliefs of that foreign context?Or are we here dealing with nothing more than symbols which are used merely as decoration in an attempt to copy admired Egyptian originals? Keel and his colleagues support the idea that Egyptian symbolism was altered to suit Canaanitebeliefs. Their arguments are not convincing, and these scarabsmay be merely bad copies with no local religious significance. The same problem of interpretation is found in other foreign scarabtraditions. In the early firstmillennium BCE, we begin to find large collections of
del
2
8
9
Phoenician (nos. 1-7) and Egyptian (nos. 8-10) scarabs portrayinga scene from the Isis-Osirismyth. Thisand many other scenes from the myth are known from hundredsof Phoenicianscarabsfound throughout the
192
57:4 (1994) BiblicalArchaeologist
Egyptian artistic influence, includingthe scarab, is found on jewelrymade locally aroundthe Mediterranean.Thisgold bracelet from Sardinia, dating ca. 700-600 BCE, iS embossed with Egyptianpalmettes, lotus flowers, and the "flyingscarab"motif. The latter provesthe non-Egyptianorigin of the
piece as it portraysthe scarabwith four wings, a common foreign adaptation of the two-winged flying scarabtypicalof Egyptian art. The four-winged variantprobablyoriginated in Syriaunder the influence of Hurrian art which used such four-winged figures
scarabsof the so-called Phoenician style in MediterraneanEurope,for example at Ibiza,Spain and Tharros,Italy (Fernandez and Padr6 1982;Acquaro, Moscati,and Umberti 1975).Hundreds were found at Carthageon the North Africancoast (Vercoutter1945).This Phoenicianscarabtraditionis dominat-
ed by hard stones, chiefly jasperand carnelian,and shows a strong Egyptian influence in the repertoireof motifs (cf. Culican 1968:50-56).11A large portion of such scarabswere manufactured locally and, by indirectevidence, we can point to Carthage,Phoenicia, Rhodes, Greece, Sardinia,and Italyas having workshops where these scarabs were produced on the spot. The Phoenician scarabstyle was borrowed by Greek gem engravers in the sixth century BCE, who perhaps learned the art of cutting hard stones from Phoenician craftsmen. By the end of the fifth century,the scarab form became much less used as this archaicGreekstyle gradually changed into classical Greek gems (Boardman1968;Boardmanand Vollenweider 1978).The Greek scarabstyle was soon brought to Etruriaby Greek immigrants where a new and distinctly Etruscantraditionappears from the sixth to third centuries. This is characterizedby its widespread use of a deep red carnelian,decoration on the edge of the plinth and wing cases, and local engraving techniques (Boardman1975; Zazoff 1968).Both the Greek and Etruscan traditionsearly introduced a design repertoireof their own, and the Egyptianizing motifs gradually disappeared. Concurrentwith these Phoenician, Greek, and Etruscanhard-stone styles, countless other scarabsof steatite and glazed composition were being manufacturedat, among other places, Carthage, Perachorain south-easternGreece,
3
10
Mediterraneanworld. The scarabevidence indicatesthat the popularityof Isisin foreign cultures may have arisen somewhat earlier than now supposed. Drawingsafter Ward 1970b.
extensively.
and Lindos on Rhodes (Vercoutter1945; James 1962;Blinkenberg1931).The sum total is quite remarkable;scarabsare found in quantity throughout the Mediterraneanfrom the early firstmillennium BCE into Hellenistic times.
Scarab popularity It is franklydifficult to account for this. The facts of which we can be certainare these. Egyptian scarabswere very popular abroadamong local populations. At least as early as 800 BCE, scarabsin the Phoenicianstyle were manufactured abroad.While these foreign scarabsretained much of the design repertoireof the Egyptian tradition,foreign techniques, motifs, and designs were introduced which altered the characterof the Egyptian originals. Justwhy the Egyptianscarabbecame so popular abroad is hard to say. Certainly,the meaning of the scarabas an amulet to help attaina cheerful afterlife did not really apply in other societies. The afterlifeas conceived by most religions of western Asia was a ratherdismal existence in a cave beneath the earth where everyone went afterdeath, irrespectiveof how they had lived in this life. The Greeks looked forward to their own gloomy Hades. It does not seem logical that such societies would care much for the amuletic characterof the Egyptianscarab.Still,in the firstmillennium BCE, ideas about the next life were changing.The Asiaticreligionsand the new cults thatsprang up everywhere now taught that divine reward and punishment were reserved for eternity and good or evil actions in this life would determine whether that eternity was spent in bliss or misery. In this context, the scarabmay have held more significance. There is scarabevidence that the EgyptianOsiris myth, which was intimately associated with resurrection,became popular beyond Egypt. One cannot say how early this myth became attractiveoutside Egypt,but by the early first millennium BCE, episodes from this myth are portrayedon scarabsmade abroad.Practicallyall the majorepisodes in the Osiris myth are found on scarabsmade in Mediterraneancoun-
I,
When the scarab was adopted by cultures in the west, there were appropriatechanges, especiallyin the design repertoire.The green jasper scarab(top) was engraved in the Greco-Phoenicianstyle with a purelyGreek motif, Heraklesholding a club and a bow and arrows.The sardonyxscarab (bottom) is of Etruscanorigin, the motif again from the classicalrepertoire.Here,Heraklesstands on the left, holding up the heavens with one
tries,illustratingthe popularity of this myth in foreign places. Indeed, thereare more scarabsportrayinga largervariety of scenes from the Osiris myth found abroadthan thereare from Egypt itself,12 conforming to the general spread in the first millennium of Isis as a universal mother-goddess. This was an attribute which was not part of her original character in Egypt, though it did eventually emerge therebecause of her immense popularity. With the possible exception of such scenes which can be relatedto the spread of Egyptian religious beliefs, it seems probable that the most extensive use of scarabsin foreign places was simply for jewelry and decorative design. Scarabs mounted as finger-rings,ear-rings,and pendants are found in all the traditions noted here-Phoenician, Greek,and Etruscan.As decorative motifs, the scarabwas used on the ivories and metal
hand and grasping a club in the other. He is accompanied by Atlas pluckingapples from a tree around which twines a serpent with three heads. The Egyptianscarab in the west was thus transformedinto a Greco-Roman object, an ancestor of the engraved gem traditionof the ClassicalPeriod.Photographs by Pia Ward.Courtesyof the Departmentof Classical Art, TheMuseum of FineArts, Boston.
bowls for which the Phoenicians are so well known, and on other objectssuch as the braceletfrom Tharros(see photo on page 192). It seems likely that, in these contexts, scarabs were seen more as exotica than as symbols of thought and belief.
The Troublewith Scarabs Multiplicity and Variabilty '"Thetrouble with scarabs"is an apt title for the remainder of this article.The trouble with scarabsis that there are so many and, with the exception of those made of glazed composition in molds, no two are alike. The pure bulk of scarabs is well known to anyone interested in archaeology.The enormous number of scarabs made in Egypt is due to their basic characteras amulets, including those engraved with royal names. The religious beliefs of ancient
BiblicalArchaeologist 57:4 (1994)
193
Egypt demanded an extraordinary range of amulets of all kinds-the scarabwas merely one of an almost endless variety (see, e.g., Petrie 1914; Miiller-Winkler1987).Because of its initial association with the gods Atum and Re, and then with all deities, and kings, and the thousand other forces that brought protectionfrom evil, the scarabbecame one of the most popular amulets, equaled only by the sacred eye of Horus. Theirsheer bulk, then, is due to a popular demand for yet another amulet that offered protection from evil. It is perhaps not as well known that no two scarabsare the same, with the exception of those made in molds. For example, in the Middle Bronze IIIAge, the so-called Hyksos period (ca. 16501550 BCE),the numerous varieties of heads, backs, sides, and designs used at that time permit over one hundred thousand typological combinations. Adding the category of scarabsizeand only those most commonly usedthe possible combinations become about one million. The endless variety of scarabsis thus due to these two primary factors:they were desired as amulets to obtain the good will of the supramundane world, and the engravers who made them had available a very wide range of typological features from which to choose. Scarabs and Dating. Now the fundamental question we have all asked for a long time is this: If there are so many scarabs,and if they are found in archaeological contexts everywhere in the ancient world, would they not be useful in dating archaeologicallevels at this or that site? Could scarabs,like pottery or coins, become another tool by which culturalsequences and archaeological periods can be defined? This problem was firstaddressed by Flinders Petriein 1889and has been studied ever since by scholars who have devoted much time and energy to find acceptableanswers (surveyed in Wardand Dever 1994). Methodology. The method employed in this task was always firstto createa stylistichistoryof scarabsbased on those inscribedwith royal names. This yield194
BiblicalArchaeologist 57:4 (1994)
Clypeus Antenna
Tibia
Pronotum
Humeral Callosity Suture
Elytra
The Egyptian Dung beetle Scarabaeus SacerL.Thebeetle'sstrongforelegsandshovel-like clypeusenablesit to formballsof dungfourtimesitssize.Thehumeralcallosityis one of the typological features that helps to distinguish scarabstyle. AfterWard1978,Frontispiece.
ed a chronologicalskeleton and set up a rough sequence of typological changes which could then be applied to the vast numbers of scarabsinscribed with other designs, which are by farthe most numerous. Having done this, one then compared scarabsfrom new excavations with the established typological sequence and assigned a date to this or that archaeologicallevel, to this or that tomb. It ought to have worked, but it didn't. The basic idea is all right-link a stylistic history of scarabsto the chronology of Egyptian kings-but it is really not as simple as it sounds. Difficultiesabound. First,the primary emphasis has been on the endless multitude of designs engraved on the base of scarabs.The study of scarab history has thus been primarilya history of the designs, not the scarabas a whole.
It is like studying coins only from the obverse side, or Attic vases only from the paintings, or Canaanite pottery only from the rims. One cannot ignore the reverse side of coins, or the shapes and fabricof Attic vases, or the necks and sides and bases of Canaanite pottery. One must considerthe whole object.This is axiomatic in archaeology and has always been recognized as the proper way to study and organize any class of object.But scarabshave too often been treatedas if they consist only of the designs engraved on their base; the scarab itself was relatively unimportant. Even when scarabbacks and sides were considered, they took second place to the designs. A second difficulty is that there are severalclasses of scarabs:those engraved with designs, those with royal names,
thosewith privatenames,andscarabs of anyof thesegroupsmadein hard stones.Whilein any givenperiod,these classessharesometypologicalfeatures, eachhasits own peculiaritiesof styleso thatwe mustdealwithseverallinesof stylisticdevelopmentthatarethesame at somepoints,butquitedifferentat others. Third,it hasbecomeincreasingly evidentthatmanyroyalnamescarabs weremadelongafterthelifetimesof thekingstheycommemorate, sometimescenturieslater.A stylistichistory of royalnamescarabsmusttherefore definewhichonesarecontemporary andwhichweremadelater.Otherwise, one getsa veryincorrectview of the typologicalhistoryof royalname scarabswhichthenskews thehistoryof thedesignscarabtradition.13 Finally,even contemporary royal namescarabsarenotalwaysa reliable guide.A paradeexampleis thelarge groupof scarabsnamingtheso-called Sebekhotepkingsof theThirteenthDynasty.No one questionsthatmostare products;theybelongto contemporary thesecondhalfof theseventeenthcenForthatreason,thisscarab turyBCE. group,numberingwell overa hundred (Tufnell1984:pls.54-56),is stillconsidereda key pointin thechronologyof scarabstyle.Inreality,however,this scarabgrouphas itsown particular uniquetypology.Itstandsaloneand in no way reflectswhattherestof scarab productionlookedlikein theThirteenth Dynasty.Thisgroupreallyrepresents was notlike whatscarabmanufacture in thelaterseventeenthcenturyBCE (Ward1987:512). Thfnell's Contribution These are a few of the difficulties.There are many more, but these are enough to illustratethat there must have been something wrong with the traditional approachto scarabhistory.In spite of the enormous effort put into their study for more than a century,the use of scarabsas a chronological tool has remained very limited. Olga Tufnellfelt this in the 1950'sas she put together her volumes on Lachish(Tufnell1958).There were hundreds of scarabsfrom that site,
butthereferenceworksof the timedid notsupplytheanswersshe wanted fromall thismaterial.Itwas theLachish publicationthatset heron a courseof studythatwas to continueuntilshe died in 1985.In 1%2,whenTufnellwas in Beirutworkingon the MontetJar treasure,I joinedherprojectand we
hUfl chaactrisic
.63
~*l~~~ eatres
ypoogial
*~~~1~ '4RW.
I
begana happycollaborationthatlasted over20 years. Tufnelldecidedthata differentapproachwas needed.All the accepted conclusionsaboutscarabhistoryhad to be discarded.Mostof thedatingcriteria whichhadbecomearchaeological law had to be ignored.Theemphasison
S
*1
65" a
i-m
S0
te
1..*g,1
IIA
III
o
bgmmg ggjj.
IV
V
VI
1,1
1,2
Side a
X
X
Side bl
X
X
-
Head Al
X
X
X
X
Design 1
X
X
X
X
Side b2
-
X
-
Head A3
-
X
X
X
X
X
Side c3Design 2
-
1,3
II
X
X
X
Side e5
X
-
-
-
-
-
Side e6
X
X
X
-
X
X
Head B2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Side d5
X
X
X
X
Design 3B1
-
X
Design 3C
-
X
X
-
X
X
-
-
X
X
-
X
X
-
X
X
-
X
X
Side e9
Design 7B
-
Side d6 Design 6 Design 10
--
-
Head D9 Head B3
-
X
X
X
Side ella Design 11A
X
-
-
X
--
X
X Design 11D Eachchronologicalperiodhas its own uniquegroupof characteristic features.Theseare usually not the majortypologicalcategories,but the sub-typesof these categories.Some features arecharacteristic overseveral;the latonlyin one chronologicalphase,othersarecharacteristic ter areof littleuse in dating.Thetypologicalsequenceshown hereis exactlylikethat of any potteryseriation.Thefeaturesmost commonlyused in Period1,1(earlyFirstIntermediatePeriod) are verydifferentfromthose in PeriodV (FifteenthDynasty).Thestages in between show the normalprogressionof changeone also findswith pottery,old featuresdroppingout, new ones being added, and a few used frequentlyoverlong stretchesof time. InPeriodVI(earlierEighteenth Dynasty),for as yet unexplainedreasons,severalearlytypologicalfeaturesthat had gone out of use suddenlyreappear.
BiblicalArchaeologist 57:4 (1994)
195
80
70 60
50 Legend 40-
1
I A1 LN
30 .7q.
0 1,1
1,2
1,3
II
How the system works. The scarab illustratedhere is from a large group found in a tomb of the mid-18th Dynasty,ca. 1450 BCE, though its typological profileshows it was made almost five centuriesearlier.Applyingthe typology discussed in this essay, this scarab has the simplest lunate head with no markings(Al), a lined naturalisticback (LN),a high profilewith the legs cut h jour (c3), and an animalfigure as the only design (1D), in this case a beetle. The graph plots the percent of use of each of these features through nine chronologicalphases from the earliestscarabs (PeriodI,1)to the mid18th Dynasty(PeriodVI). Thedate of manufactureis most likelyto be that chronological phase in which all four features were characteristic,hence when
royal name scarabswas faulty,so this, too, had to go. Since the bulk of scarabsare design scarabs,they would be a betterstarting point. Once a typological history had been gained from design scarabsfound in datable archaeologicalcontexts, then the royal name scarabscould be brought into the equation, but not before.Tufnell insisted that the whole scarabneeded to be considered, not just the design on the base. Every head, every side, every detail had to be examined. And the core sample must be based on large groups of excavated examples. These were to be found at stratifiedCanaanitesites, not in Egypt where large groups of scarabsand impressions are generally found in contexts covering long periods of time. Only aftera stylistic history of design scarabshad been established should one turn to scarabswith royal names, and then only after the troublesome scarabsnaming Twelfth Dynasty
196
57:4 (1994) BiblicalArchaeologist
IIA
III
IV
V
VI
there was the highest probabilitythat they would appear on the same scarab. Inthis case, the date is Period1,3,the later 11th Dynasty. Note that HeadAl, BackLN,and side c3 were also common in the 18th Dynastywhen severaltypological features long out of use suddenly reappearedon scarabs of that time. However,this date is ruledout by severalfactors:the high profilewas a dominate feature only in the earliest periods of scarab manufacture;the small size (length 10 mm) and design 1D were characteristiconly then; there are excellent parallelsfrom FirstIntermediatePeriodburials(Ward 1978, pl. 6: 153-155). Scarabdrawing from Tufnell,1984:114, fig. 24:32.
kings had been sifted thoroughly to determine which were contemporary.14
Scarab Style The history of scarabstyle is very much like that of pottery.When a new pottery form is introduced, it appears first in small numbers. As its popularity increases,examples become more and more numerous until it begins to go out of style. Examples then become fewer and ultimately disappear.An archaeological phase is distinguished by a group of pottery forms and details such as rims, handles, and bases which have reached their apex of usage, though all may appear earlierand later than the phase in which they dominate. This is also true of scarabs,though on a rather more complicated level. I am the first to admit that the typological system developed by Tufnell and myself over the years is far from simple. It is not easy to use and is some-
times cumbersome, but that is the nature of the material,not the system. It is impossible to produce an easy-to-read dating chartwhich has all the facts illustrated on one quick-referencediagram. We defined some thirtymajorcategories of style--heads, backs, sides, and designs--broken down into over two hundred and fifty sub-types (Ward 1978:20-33;Tufnell 1984:27-38).While the majorcategories do show a general chronological sequence, it is the subtypes which are often more important because they come and go more quickly and are thus more reliableindicatorsof chronological sequence. As with a pottery sequence, each phase in the history of scarabstyle is distinguished by a group of typological features which were most commonly used during that phase. To show how important the details are, often minute ones, let me note first the detail with the funny name the humeral callosity.This is a natural
60
50 Legend 40
HAlA
SA3
_
30
20
10
0 1,1
1,2
1,3
II
Even the smallest details may be importantin dating scarabs.The graph plots the percent of use of three similarlunate head types from the beginning of scarab historyto the mid-18th Dynasty.The typological differences between them are slight:Al is plain,A3 has tiny single lines markingthe eyes, A5 has double lines. The chronological differences, however,are significant.Priorto the New Kingdom, Al and A3 were verycommon up to the earlyyears of the 12th Dynasty(PeriodII),A5 was more likelyto be used in the 12th to 15th
markingon the live beetle, represented on scarabsby the little V-shape marks on the wing-case. The humeral callosity firstappears,but extremely rarely,on scarabsat the very end of the Hyksos period, just before the advent of the EighteenthDynasty.Fromthen on, these markingsbecome standardon scarabs with lined backs, that is, where the wing-cases are outlined by engraved lines. This detail is thereforean excellent broad indicatorof date: scarabswith the humeral callosity belong to the Eighteenth Dynasty or later.That is of great help for,among other things, isolating the many later reissues of scarabsnamingTwelfthDynastykin Scarabsnaming SesostrisI, for example, were still being manufacturedin the EighteenthDynasty and even later.Many can be judged as late only by the appearanceof the little V's on the wing-case. While the humeral callosity is an easily recognized feature,even the tini-
IIA
III
IV
V
VI
Dynasties(PeriodsII-V).Allthree appear rathersuddenly as characteristic heads in the 18th Dynasty(PeriodVI).While none of these head types providesa specific date, they do limitthe possibilities;for example, head A3 points to either the FirstIntermediatePeriodor the 18th Dynasty.Othertypological features used with A3 heads will determine which date is the correctone: a side type c, cut a jour, points to the earlierdate; the figure of a deity as the design indicates the 18th Dynasty.
est details of scarabtypology can be chronologicallysignificant,This means that every aspect of scarabshas to be investigated-heads, backs, sides, designs, and even the less significant features such as size and material.Typing individual scarabstakes time and can be frustrating,but the proper analysis of their various components does allow most scarabsto be dated. Unfortunately, thereare many scarabswith typological featuresthat were all used over long periods of time. This emphasizes an important point about using scarabsfor dating. Individual scarabsare usually not helpful. But groups of scarabsare a differentmatter. Again, pottery is a good analogy. A single pottery vessel is not a good dating criterionunless it is known to have a very restrictedperiod of use. In general, a single pot is not sufficientto date a burialor house level. Buta group of pottery vessels of varying sizes and shapes
can point to a specific archaeological period. The largerthe group, the easier it is to assign a date.
CanaaniteTombScarabs.Groupsof scarabsactthe sameway.A good example is a fairlylargegroupof scarabs foundin Canaanitetombdepositsof the later Middle Bronze I and transitional I/II periods (Wardand Dever 1994).This group has some sixty differenttypological features.Some are useless as dating evidence since they appear rarelyon scarabs as a whole. But there are sufficient featuresused frequentlyenough in this group to establish a typological profile. We have here, then, a set of typological featureswhich can be used to give a broad definition of what scarabs of the later MB I and I/II transitionperiods should look like, i.e., in scarabPeriod IIA,Twelfth Dynasty. These Period IIA scarabsform a bridge between the preceding stages of scarabhistory (PeriBiblicalArchaeologist 57:4 (1994)
197
SI
.'.
Periods'OS
Dynstes
*~~ ~ .
~
0
-
. ..
0
.
.
00
1-@
.
0
00
)I.
200
*150
000
1950
EndOld Kingdom 2185 FI.P Dyn.IX/X (north)
Dyn.XI (south)
Early Bronze IV 1,1-3
2033 Dyn.XI
1963
Materialfrom Egyptiansites. FirstIntermediatePeriod,into earlyyearsof 12th Dynasty. 2000
II
MontetJarscarabsfrom Byblos.Typologically relatedto last phase of PeriodI. Early12th Dynasty. Middle Bronze
Dyn.
I
XII
IIA
1775
1786 Dyn. '46-:"
ScarabsfromJerichoand Megiddo.MBII.Later12th, early 13th Dynasty.
III
XIII IV 1650 Dyn.XV (north) Dyn.XVII (south) 1550 Dyn.XVIII
Scarabsfrom Canaanitesites of MBI and VIItransition. 12th Dynasty.
Middle Bronze II 1650
V
VI
ScarabsfromJericho,Megiddo,and CAjjOl. MBII. 13th Dynasty.
Middle Bronze III
ScarabsfromJericho,Megiddo,Fara,and CAjjQI. MBIll. 15th Dynasty.
Late BronzeI
Scarabsfrom Lahun,Gurob,and Sedment. LBI. Earlier18th Dynasty.
datedscarabgroupsfrombothEgyptandCanaanhavebeentestedagainstthe basicdesignscarabseries A dozenarchaeologically the resultsgainedfromthe mainseries.Theablistedabove.Alldateto the typologicalphaseto whichtheyshouldbelong,verifying latestassessment(1989),areapproximate. Canaanite solutedatesfor Egypt,basedon Kitchen's phasesafterWardand archaeological Dever(1994).ChangesinabsoluteEgyptianchronologywillcausesimilarchangesin Canaanite archaeological chronology.
198
57:4 (1994) BiblicalArchaeologist
ods I-II)and the one that follows (Period III).As with a pottery sequence, the scarabsequence shows a gradualchange in the characteristicscarabfeaturesallowing us to define several succeeding phases in scarabmanufacture. So a clear and progressive stylistic chronology can be established. How does this fit into a relative chronology between Egyptian historicalperiods and the archaeologicalphases of Canaan?This is shown in the chronological chart.Period I, which breaksdown into threedistinct phases of scarabmanufacture,is dated by archaeological context from the early FirstIntermediate Period to about the early years of the TwelfthDynasty.The Montet Jargroup, ScarabPeriod II,is so closely associated with Period I that it must follow immediately thereafter.These two periods are contemporaryto the late EarlyBronze and early Middle BronzeI ages. Periods IIAand IIIare closely related to royal name scarabsof the laterTwelfth Dynasty which fixes them somewhere in that period. Since Period IIA falls archaeologically in the CanaaniteMiddle Bronze I and the I/II transition,Period IIIfalls in the earlierMiddle BronzeII Age. ScarabPeriod IV,which progresses neatly from IIIis thus roughly the ThirteenthDynasty,or the laterMiddle BronzeIIAge. Period V is archaeologically associated with the Egyptian Fifteenth Dynasty and the CanaaniteMiddle Bronze IIIAge. Absolute Chronology. If a relativechronology is fairlysimple to establish,an absolute chronology is not. I must note here the chaos into which Egyptian absolute chronology has been thrown in recentyears.15In 1950,RichardA. Parker concluded, after a detailed study of the astronomicaland other evidence, that the Twelfth Dynasty ruled for 206 These dates years,from 1991to 1786BCE. became a kind of comfortablefriend to students of comparative history and archaeology who depend a great deal on the chronology of Egypt. Parker's astronomicallyfixed absolute dates for the TwelfthDynasty went unquestioned for over threedecades. A sense of order prevailed both in Egyptian history and
in setting out the general limits of Canaanite archaeologicalphases. In the past decade, a series of studies have appeared which challenge Parker's conclusions and lower the dates for the Twelfth Dynasty by over half a century.This researchis based primarilyon exhaustive studies of the astronomical evidence, some of which had never been published previously.The new dates proposed for the Twelfth Dynasty are 1937-1759 BCE. It is doubtful, however, that this lowering of Twelfth Dynasty chronology is going to stand up since it is builton certainassumptionsthateither are not true or cannot be substantiated.16 This is not to say that Parker'soriginal dates for the Twelfth Dynasty are carved in stone. Some adjustments have had to be made in the matter of coregencies and the lengths of individual reigns. It seems most likely that the TwelfthDynasty ruled for 178 years, from 1963-1786 BCE(Kitchen1989),and these are the dates I am now using. It must be emphasized, however, that even these absolute dates are approximate though they do represent,I think, the best we can do at present.17 In terms of an absolute chronology for Canaanitearchaeologicalphases, the scarabevidence indicatesthe dates given on the charts.Middle Bronze I began some time before the Twelfth Dynasty, ca. 2000 BCE, Middle Bronze IIbegan toward the end of that dynasty, ca. 1800/ Middle Bronze IIIbegan ca. 1750 BCE, 1650 BCE,the so-called Hyksos Age. To sum up very briefly,there are nine well-defined phases in the history of scarabmanufacturefrom theirinitialappearanceat the end of the Old Kingdom into the earlierEighteenth Dynasty. These phases representa continuous development in scarabtypology, each phase with its own characteristictypological profile.This typological history is based on excavated collections and has been defined by a detailed study of all typological featuresof scarabs,the firstattempt to do so. These nine stages in scarabhistory can be roughly equated with Egyptian dynasties and Canaanite archaeologicalperiods and are helpful in providing absolute dates for the latter. As a final note, I should emphasize
that the completely new look at scarab history that Tufnelland I worked on for so many years was bound to contain some errors.No matter how well planned a projectmay be, mistakes are inevitable when such a vast amount of materialmust be considered. A thorough revision of the project(Wardand Dever 1994) has hopefully removed the majordefects and given greaterclarity to both the typological system developed by Tufnelland how it applies both to Egyptian and Canaanitehistory.
Notes 1Mostnotablythe dung beetle(Scarabaeus SacerL.).A generalmisconceptionis that ScarabaeusSacerL.was the only beetlehonoredby the Egyptiansas thisspeciesis theone
mostcommonlyrepresented. Inreality, there wereothers,forexample,thelong,thinbeetle knowntotheEgyptians as theankh-beetle, foundasanamuletalreadyinGerzeantimes (Ward1978:43-44). Furthermore, scarabs do not always representScarabaeus SacerL.,but
manyotherspeciesaswell(Bishara 1978:8891).Whilethepresentessayisconcerned primarilywiththedungbeetleas thescarabpar excellence, theEgyptians didnotmakethe biologicaldistinctionsof modernscienceand
seemtohavepassedon toa wholeclassof insecttherespecttheygavetoScarabaeus. It wasthelatter'slifecycle,however,thatinfluencedthemthemost. 2Whendesignamuletsfirstbeganturningup inburials, theywereconsidered foreignimportsastheywerea newtypeof objectin Egyptian archaeology. Earlystudiessuggested
diverseforeignorigins,especiallythe Aegean and Anatolia(e.g.,Newberry1906:59-61;Petrie 1925:1-3;Frankfort1939:296-98).It is now quite certainthatin both formand design thisclassof
objectis purelyEgyptian (Ward1970a). formany 3Theclassicgeneralstudiesofscarabs yearswerethoseof Newberry(1906)andPetrie (1917),thoughboth arenow out-dated.More
recentworksof goodqualityarethoseofde Meulenaere (1972),HornungandStaehelin Boochs(1982), (1976:13-193), andBen-Tor (1989). onthesubjectisquite Thespecialized literature extensive; cf.Martin(1985)fora bibliography listingalmostseven hundreditems,exclusive of scoresof discussionsin individualexcavationreports.
4Onthelifecydeof thedungbeetle,seeBishara (1978),anEgyptian biologistwhohasmadea life-longstudyof thebeetlesnativetoEgypt. 5Forexample,fromChapter15of theEgyptian Bookof theDead:"GreetingsHorakhty(= the
sun),Khepritheself-engendered. Howexcellentwhenyouappearinthehorizonand thetwolandswithyourrays." brighten BiblicalArchaeologist 57:4 (1994)
199
6
Forexample,in a shorthymn to the sun from Spell587of the EgyptianPyramidTexts,Atum is identifiedas Khepri,bothbeing formsof the sun:"GreetingsAtum!GreetingsKheprithe selfengendered.... Mayyou (i.e.,Atum)come intoexistencein thisyour nameof Khepri." 7Note especiallythe hundredsof administrativesealingsfromthetown of Lahun("Kahun") and the Egyptianfortressat Uronartiin Nubia, now convenientlycollectedand studiedby On Egyptiansealsand sealings Tufnell(196%1). in general,see Boochs(1982). 8Kingscould and oftendid becomegods after theirdeath.Theextentto whicha kingachieved divineattributesin his lifetimehas long been debated;thedifficultiesinvolvedareconveniently summarizedin Silverman1991.On occasion, a veneratedcommonermightalso be elevated to divinity(Otto1943).Itmustbe emphasized, however,thatEnglishtermssuch as "god"and "divine"implymodem theologicalconcepts thatdo not necessarilyreflectthoseof antiquity. Thewhole debateon thesupposed "godkings"of Egypthas beencoloredby ignoring thisratherimportantpoint. 9Cf.Ward1976on a scarabin the possessionof a Nubianfamilyforseven generations.Bya strangecoincidence,theson who will inherit thisobjectbearsthesame nameas the Egyptian officialwho once owned it,yet the childwas namedbeforethe parentsknew what was writtenon the scarab. 1'Therareexceptionsto thisarethe god Bes, usuallyshown frontallyto emphasizehis physicalappearance,and the headof Hathor,iconographicallyassociatedwith thesistrum(a percussioninstrument)which was normally portrayedfrontally. " Whileit is generallyfeltthatthis tradition belongsto the IronAge, its originsmustcertainlybe earlier.Scarabsin this stylearevery numerousand canbe seen throughoutthe literatureand in unpublishedmuseumand privatecollections.All thisis currentlybeing assembledforthe CorpusGlypticaPhoenicia
inBrussels. Project
12A very summarylistin Ward1970b:348-49. Inreality,the numberwith Osiridescenesis veryextensive,and examplescanbe foundin any collectionof scarabsexcavatedin most placesaroundthe Mediterranean. '3Themajorattemptto do createsucha typologivcalhistoryis thatof Jaeger(1982)who deals primarilywith thescarabsof Thutmosism, but includesotherrulersof the New Kingdom. Jaeger'smethodologywas subsequentlyfollowed by Weise(1990)who is concernedwith portrayalsof kingson scarabs.WhileJaeger studiedonly the designson scarabplinths,it is of interestthatwhen the othertypologicalcategoriesareconsidered,thosescarabsof Thutmosis IIIthathe judgedto be contemporaryfall
200
57:4 (1994) BiblicalArchaeologist
into placewherethey should in the royalname seriesof the EighteenthDynasty(Ward1984). 14Inpre-NewKingdomtimes,it is only with thisdynastythatlaterre-issuesmustbe seriously considered.Veryfew were producedfor ThirteenthDynastyrulers,none forthoseof the Hyksosand theirvassalsand probablynone fortheSeventeenthDynasty.The matterof contemporarymanufactureversusre-issuesfor TwelfthDynastyroyalnamescarabshas beena problemfromthestartand is stilldebatedin currentliterature(e.g.,Tufnell1984versus O'Connor1985). on thissubjectgrows annually;I 15Literature haveelsewheresummarizedthedebateas it stood in 1990(Ward1992).Otherstudieshave appearedsincethen,notablyLuft'sanalysisof chronologicaldatain the lllahunpapyri(Luft 1992). 16Thekey problemin the longdebateis whether or not therewas a singlepointin Egyptat which officialastronomicalobservationswere made. Thischieflyconcernsthe helicalrisingof the starSiriuswhich heraldedtheadventof a new lunaryear.TheargumentcentersaroundMemphisand Elephantineas havinga kindof nationalobservatorywheresuch sightingswere madeand thencommunicatedto the restof the country.However,a heliacalrisingor any other astronomicalevent was observedon different days all along the Nile Valley;seven days earlier at Elephantinethanat Memphis,forexample. Due to the obviousimpossibilityof communicatingan astronomicalsightingto the whole countryon the sameday,it is evident thatsuch importanteventsas thebeginningof a new lunaryearoccurredon differentdays in differentregionsof Egyptand thateachregion followedits own locallunarcalendar.Sincethe purposeof the lunarcalendarwas to organize the complicatedsystemof religiousfestivals and rituals,it did not matterthata given festival at Memphishad alreadytakenplacea week earlierat Elephantine.Whatmatteredwas that the festivaltook placeon the designatedday of the lunarcalendarat any placein the country. All this,of course,concernsonly the lunar calendar.The Egyptiancivilcalendarwith its regular365-dayyearwas the one used for administrativepurposesat all levels from recordingmilitarycampaignsto datingpersonal lettersand laundrylists.Thetwo calendars servedtwo differentpurposes:one to organize religiousfestivalsand ceremonies,the otherto organizedaily life.Sincethe lunarcalendarwas shorterthanthe civilcalendar,the two were almostalwaysout of synchronism.Thismay be a problemformodernscholarshipbut was not forthe ancientEgyptians.TheIslamicand Jewishdual calendricalsystemsstillused today areperfectmoderncounterparts. '7The key date fortheTwelfthDynastyis the reignof Sesostris I; the Illahunarchivesrecord a heliacalrisingof Siriusin his seventhregnal year.Thecurrentestimatesforthisreignare
1862-1843BCE(Kitchen1989:153)and 1872-1854 BCE(Luft1992:228), both incorporatingthe now acknowledgedshorterreignof SesostrisIII, nineteenratherthanthirty-six+years.Itis to Parker'screditthathis date of 1878-1843BCE (Parker1950:69)is aboutthe same exceptthat he allowed fora thirty-sixyear reign.Itis ironic thatwith Luft'svery detailedexaminationof the evidence,muchof it unknownto Parker, the debatehas swung fullcircleand thatmost of it has provenunnecessary.
Bibliography Acquaro,E.,Moscati,S. and Umberti,M. L. Collezionedi 1975 AnecdotaTharrhica. studi fenici5. Rome:Consiglio Nazionaledelle Ricerche. Aldred,C. 1971 Jewelsof thePharaohs.EgyptianJewelry of the Dynastic Period. London:
Thamesand Hudson.
Andrews,C. 1990. AncientEgyptianJewelry.London: The BritishMuseum. Ben-Tor,D. 1989 TheScarab.A Reflectionof Ancient Egypt.Jerusalem:The IsraelMuseum. Bishara,S. I. 1978 Biologyand Identificationof Scarab Beetles.AppendixA in Pre-12th Dynasty ScarabAmulets.Editedby WilliamWard.Studieson ScarabSeals Arisand Phillips. I. Warminster: Boardman,J. 1968 ArchaicGreekGems.Schoolsand Artists in theSixthand EarlyFifth CenturiesB.C.Evanston:Northwestern UniversityPress. 1975 Intagliosand Rings.Greek,Etruscan and Eastern.London:Thamesand Hudson. Boardman,J.and Vollenweider,M.-L. 1978 Catalogueof the EngravedGemsand FingerRings in theAshmoleanMuseum I. Greekand Etruscan.Oxford: ClarendonPress. Boochs,W 1982 Siegelund Siegelnim AltenAgypten. KolnerForschungenzu Kunstund Altertum4. SanktAugustin:Hans Richarz. Clerc,G., et al. 1976 Fouillesde KitionII. Objetscgyptiens et dgyptisants.Nicosia:Departmentof Antiquities. Fernandez,J.H. and Padr6,J. del MuseoArqueolkgico de 1982 Escarabeos Ibiza.Tragajosdel Museo Arquel6gico 7. Madrid:Ministryof Culture. Frankfort,H. 1939 CylinderSeals.A DocumentaryEssay on tireArt and Religionof thieAncient
NearEast.New York:Macmillan and Co. Giddy,L.and Grimal,N.-C. 1979 Balat:rapportpreliminairedes fouillesa 'AinAseel, 1978-1979.Biulletinde I'InstitutFrarCiais d'Archdoliogie Orientale79:31-39. 1980 Balat:rapportpreliminairedes fouilles'a'AynAsil, 1979-1980.Bulletinde I'InstitutFranCais d'Archdologie Orientale80:257-69. Giveon,R. 1984 Skarabaus.Cols.968-81 in Lexikon derAgiyptologie. Editedby W.Helck and W.Westendorf.Vol.5. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz. Hornung,E.and Staehelin,E. 1976 Skarabden undandereSiegelamuilette Mainz:von aus BaslerSammilungen. Zabern. Jaeger,B. 1982 Essaide classificationet datationdes OrbisBiblicus scarabcesMeinkhiperre. et Orientalis,Ser.Arch.2. Fribourg: EditionsUniversitaires. James,T G. H. 1962 The Egyptian-TypeObjects.Pp.461516 in Perachora.TheSanctuariesof HeraAkraiaand Limnenia II. Editedby T.J.Dunbabin.Oxford:Clarendon Press. Keel,O. 1989a Die Q-Gruppe.EinmittelbronzezeitlicherStempelsiegel-Typmit erhabenemReliefaus AnatolienNordsyrienund Palistina.Pp.39-87 in Studicen zu deniStempelsiegeln aus II. Editedby O. Keel. Paldstina/Israel OrbisBiblicuset Orientalis88. Freiburg:Universittitsverlag. 1989b Die Jaspis-Skarabiien-Gruppe. Eine vorderasiatischeSkarabienwerkstatt v.Chr.Pp.213-42 des 17.Jahrhunderts in Studie'nzu deniSteimpelsiegeln awus II. Editedby O. Keel. Paldstina/Israel OrbisBiblicuset Orientalis88. Freiburg:Universititsverlag. Kitchen,K.A. 1989 SupplementaryNotes on 'TheBasics of EgyptianChronology.'Pp. 152-59 in High,Middleor Low?Acts of an Internathial Colloquium,onAbsolute ChronologyHeldat tireUniversityof 20th-22ndAugust 1987. Gotlhenburg Part3. Editedby P.Astrim. Studiesin MediterraneanArchaeologyand Literature,Pocket-book80.Gothenburg:Astrims Firlag. Luft,U. 1992 Die chlronologisclhe Fixierungdes iigyptischenMittlerenReichesrnachi demTemnpelarchiv votnlllahun.Vienna: Akademieder Osterreichischen Wissenschaften.
Lucas,A. 1962 AncientEgyptianMaterialsand Induistries.4th ed. Editedby J.R. Harris. London:Arnold. Martin,G. T. 1985 Scarabs,Cylinde'rs and OtherEgyptian Seals.A Checklistof Publications. Arisand Phillips. Warminster: H. de. Meulenaere, 1972 Scarabae'us saccr.Brussels:Hoechst BelgiumS.A. Miller-Winkler,C. 1987 DieiigyptischenObje'kt-amrulette. Mit PublikationderSanmnlung dtes BiblischenInstitfuts der Universitdt Schwceiz, Fre'iburg Saninlung eIhe'mals FouadS. Matouk.OrbisBiblicuset Orientalis,Ser.Arch.5. Freiburg: Universittitsverlag. Newberry,P E. 1906 Scarabs.An Introductionto the Study of EgyptianSealsand SignetRings. London:Constable. O'Connor,D. 1985 TheChronologyof Scarabsof the MiddleKingdomand the Second IntermediatePeriod.Journalof the Societyfor the Studyof EgyptianAntiquities15:1-41. Otto, E. 1943 Gehaltund Bedeutungdes igyptischen Heroenglaubens.Zeitschriftfiir AgyptischeSpracheundAltertumskunde78:28-40. Parker,R.A. 1950 TheCalendarsof AncientEgypt.Studies in AncientOrientalCivilization26. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. PetrieW.M.EF 1889 HistoricalScarabs:A Seriesof Drawings froimthePrincipleCollections London: ArrangedChronologically. Nutt. 1914 Amulets.London:Constable. 1917 Scarabsand Cylinderswith Namnes. Illustratedby the EgyptianCollection in UniversityCollege,London.London:BritishSchoolof Archaeologyin Egypt. 1925 Buttonsand Design ScarabsIllustrated by tireEgyptianCollectionin UniCollege,London.London: vzersity BritishSchoolof Archaeologyin Egypt. Richards,E 1992 ScarabSealsfroma Middleto,Late BronzeAge Tombat Pellain Jordan. OrbisBiblicuset Orientalis117. Freiburg:Universititsverlag. Schroer,S. 1985 Der Mannim Wulstsaummantel.Ein Motivder Mittelbrornze-Zeit IIB.Pp.
a:
r It
.i
:
??:
?-,lf~
Professor William A. Ward devoted nearlya quarter.-century(1963-1986)of his professionallife to the American Universityof Beirutin Lebanonwhere he taughtand held numerous administrative positions including that of Associate Dean. Currently Visiting Professorat Brown University,Dr.Wardreceivedhis Ph.D.in SemiticLanguagesat Brandeis University.Authorof numerousbooks on aspects of Egyptology and scores of scholarly articles,his latestwork will appearas ScarabTypologyand ArchaeologicalContext: An Essay on Middle BronzeAge Chronology(withW.G. Dever;,Studieson ScarabSeals3. San Antonio: VanSiclen Press, 1994).Prof.Wardserved as editor of BerytusArchaeologicalStudies from 1%9 to 1985and continues as co-editor.
51-115in Studienzu den Stempelsiegelnlaus Paliistina/Israel I. Edited
by O. Keel.OrbisBiblicuset Orientalis 67. Freiburg:Universitcitsverlag. 1989 Die GCttinden Stempelsiegelnaus Palistin/Israel.Pp. 89-207 in Studien zu den StempelsiegelnautsPaldstina/ IsraelII. Editedby O. Keel.Orbis Biblicuset Orientalis88. Freiburg: Universitlitsverlag. Silverman,D. P. 1991 Kingshipand Divinity.Pp. 58-87 in Religionin AncientEgypt.Editedby B. E.Shafer.Ithaca:CornellUniversity Press. Tufnell,O. 1958 LachishIV.TheBronzeAge. London: OxfordUniversityPress.1965Seal
BiblicalArchaeologist 57:4 (1994)
201
ImpressionsfromKah n Townand UronoartiFort.A Comparison. nal of EgyptianArchaeology ,Jour61:67-101.
1984 ScarabSealsand theirContributionto Historyin the EarlySecondMillennium B.C.Studieson ScarabSealsH. Aris and Phillips. Warminster: Vercoutter, J. 1945 Lesobjetsigyptienset Jgyptisantsdui fundrairecarthaginois.Paris: nmobilier Geuthner. Ward,W A. 1%7 ThreePhoenicianSealsof the Early FirstMillenniumB.C.Journalof EgyptianArchaeology53:69-74. 1970a TheOriginof EgyptianDesignamulets("Button-seals"). Journal(of Archaeology,56:65-80. 1970b A PhoenicianScarabwith a Rare Eg.ylptian Design:A WingedIsisand Mummi9:343-54. formOsiris.OriensAntiquuis 1971 Egyptand the EastMediterranean World2200-1900 B.C.Beirut:American Universityof Beirut. 1976 A New Chancellorof the Fifteenth Dynasty.OrientaliaLovaniensiaPeriodica6/7:589-94. 1978 Pre-12thDynastyScarabAmulets. Studieson ScarabSealsI.Warminster. Arisand Phillips. 1984 Reviewof Jaeger1982.Bibliotheca Orientalis41:93-100. 1987 ScarabTypologyand Archaeological Context.AmericanJournalof Archaeology91:507-32. 1992 The PresentStatusof Egyptian Chronology.Bulletinof theAmerican Schoolsof OrientalResearch 288"53-66.
1993 TheScarabs,Scaraboidand AmuletPlaquefromTyrianCineraryUrns. Studies(for Beryftus Archaeological 1991)39:89-99. Ward,W.A. and Dever,W.G. and Archaeological 1994 ScarabTyipology Context.An Essayon MiddleBronze Age Chronology.Studieson Scarab SealsIII.SanAntonio:VanSiclen Press. Weise,A. 1990 Zum Bilddes Kinigs auf igyiptischenl OrbisBiblicuset Siegelamrnuletten. Orientalis96. Freiburg: Universititsverlag. Wilkinson,A. 1971 AncientEgyptianJewelry.London: Methuen. Zazoff,P. Mainzam 1968 Etruskisclhe Skarabdlien. Rhein:von Zabern.
202
57:4 (1994) BiblicalArchaeolohnist
NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLO Editor
ROGERW.MOELLER
RegionalAdvisoryEditors
JAMESE. AYRES VAUGHNBRYANT, Jr. JOHNL.COTTER RICHARD D. DAUGHERTY MICHAEL A. GLASSOW C. GOODYEAR ALBERT S. GREENWOOD ROBERTA JAMESB. GRIFFIN MARTHALAITA
J. JEFFERSONREID RODERICK SPRAGUE CARLYLE S. SMITH RODERICK SPRAGUE R.MICHAEL STEWART DAVIDH.THOMAS JAMES A. TUCK CLAUDE N. WARREN WALDOR. WEDEL
State and Provincial ArchaeologicalSocieties JOHN PFEIFFER
Resource Management and ContractArchaeology EDWARDS. RUTSCH
General Historical Archaeology
ROBERTL SCHUYLER
IndustrialArchaeology ROBERTM. VOGEL
Book Reviews JAY CUSTER
AIMS& SCOPE North American Archaeologist is concerned with all aspects of American Archaeology.Geographicallyit covers the continent north of high cultures in Mesoamerica-the United States and part of northern Mexico. Topically it spans the entire range of cultural evolution in America from Paleo-Indian studies to Industrial Archaeology. Theoretical and methodologicalarticles, provided their data base is North America, are also accepted and research based on cultural resource management as well as work by state and local societies is solicited along with the more traditional academic-museum projects. The editor particularly encourages papers that cut across regional or topical boundaries but more specialized items are also welcomed. Information: Subscription Price per volume - 4 issues yearly Institutional Rate: $118.00 Individual Rate: $36.00 Postage & handling: $4.50 U.S. & Canada; $9.35 elsewhere. ISSN 0197-6931
NA8(94
offf0aIfwnka lywMPL anAUIim aaMw
Baywood Publishing Company, Inc. 26 AustinAvenue,P.O.337, Amityville,NY 11701 Phone(516) 691-1270 Fax(516) 691-1770 Orders only-call
toll-free (800) 638-7819
i
.~
11
.
4.
3t"
-.. '4'
' ..
c ....cr --,1.. .•
>
.•..•
?
~ '..
: .
it,
,\; ,Jc.
5-
"_s
.
.•.. *
fl-f: .-
"
The
I
f
Fortresses atEn
IHaeva
By RudolphCohen
L
at En argescaleexcavations
IIasevahaveprovidedone of the mostimportantrecentdiscoveries in theArabah.Excavators haveexposeda successionof fortresses-from theByzantineandearlyIslamicperiod to theIon Age-occupying thiscrucial crossroadsof ancientcommerce.In bothRomanand IronAge periods,the UIaevafortresswas amongthemost immensein theregion.Excavationis finallyclarifyingthe truenatureof the site,whichhasbeenknownandvisited forovera century.
A Historyof Early Researchat the Site As earlyas thenineteenthcentury,researcherstouring the area of CEn
Iaseva,one of themostabundant springsof theArabah,notedremains besidethespring(CEinHusuv;mapref. 17340242).A. Musilvisitedthe areain 1902andprepareda sketchof the squarefortress,whichmeasured120x 120feet,andhadprojectingcornertowers figs.144-145).He an additionalmulti-roomedstrucsaw(1907"207-208, tureadjacentto thefortressin thesouth, as well as the remainsof a bathhousein the east.Musilidentifiedthe fortress with thecaravanserai (aninnserving caravans)whichHastamentionedin theNotitiaDignitatum (Seeck1876:73). In 1930,thefort-and itsoriginal groundplan-were damaged.E Frank visitedthesitein 1932.A. Alt (1934:254) (1935:6)identifiedthe largestructureat
'En HIaeva as the Roman fortressEise-
ba on accountof the similaritybetween the ArabicandGreeknames.Thename Eisebais mentionedonlyin the BeershevaEdict(Alt1935:31). N. Glueck (1934-1935:17-20,115) concludedthat the ruinwas a Nabataeancaravanserai Aerialview of lageva. Thesouthernwall of the Romanfortressrunsacrossthe upper leftportionof thisnorth-oriented view.The two easterntowersof the latestIronAge fortstandat the right.Partof the wallof the earlierIronAgefortressis visibleat the photo'sright-handmargin.Thephotograph encompassesthe bottomhalfof the top planpresentedon page 204. (Allphotographs courtesyof theauthorandthe IsraelAntiquities
Authority.)
BMialArchaeologist 57:4(1994)
203
daean Kingdom (Cohen 1988/89b; 1991) providing one of the most important and surprising discoveries made in the Arabah in recentyears. The work at cEnHaseva has distinguished five occupation levels (from the latest to the earliest): (1) Byzantine and Early IslamicPeriod fifth-seventh centuriesCE) (2) Roman Period (second-fourth centuries CE) (3) NabataeanPeriod(firstcenturycE) (4) IronAge (seventh-sixth centuries BCE) (5) Iron Age (eighth century BCE)
,,1
*
I
~
F
r
E~
The southern wall of the Romanfortress, Stratum2, stretches ca. 46m towards one of the fort's four projectingtowers. Against its inside face, buildersconstructed an ashlar wall, probablyto support a set of stairs.
also used laterby the Romans. He, like Alt, identified the site with Eiseba,included in a list of Negev towns and the yearly taxes levied on each by the Byzantine authorities.In 1950,during a study trip, B. Mazar found a small number of IronAge sherds as well as decorated Nabataean and RomanByzantine sherds (Aharoni 1963:31). Relying on these finds, Y.Aharoni proposed identifying cEn Hayeva with both biblicalTamarand Roman Tamara (Aharoni 1963;contraAlt 1935;Gichon 1976:80-81 and esp. fn. 4). B. Rothenberg (1967:123-125,162-165) found only Roman-period remains during his survey in 1960.
r
The Roman Fortress (Strata 2a-2b)
excavations at the site have been directed by the author and Y.Yisrael,on behalf of the IAA, with funding provided through the Negev TourismDevelopment Administration. The excavations employ 50-60 workers from Yeruham. The excavators have uncovered two underlying fortressesdating to the Ju-
The most obvious and substantialremains at cEn Haseva are those of the Roman fortress.The building of the Roman fortressat Haeeva occupied two clearly distinct stages. Stratum2a offered a typical square fortress(castellum ca. 46 x 46 m) with four projectingtow-
N
buildings
The Excavations In 1972,on behalf of the Department of Antiquities and Museums, salvage excavations at cEn Haseva concentrated on the southwestern cornerof the Roman fortresswith square towers. Subsequently,excavatorsturned their attention to the southwestern square tower and a dump area containing numerous Nabataean sherds (Cohen 1972).These excavations were renewed in 1987 and continued intermittentlyuntil 1991 (Cohen 1988/89b; 1991)under the auspices of the IsraelAntiquities Authority (IAA). Beginning in 1993,large scale 204
Biblical 57:4(1994) Archaeologist
020
ers (tetrapurgia). Workerscleared the southwestern and northwestern towers (each 7.0 x 8.5 m) and part of the southem and northernwalls (2.4 m wide). The northeasterntower was destroyed completely in recent times. The walls of the northwesterntower were 1.25 m wide; its entrance (1 m wide) was in the southeasterncomer. A 1 m wide ashlar wall was built against the inner face of the southern fortresswall and presumably served to support steps leading to the upper story.Excavationshave also revealed two floors. The laterone (Stratum 2a), dated to the third-fourth centuriesCEand was partiallypaved with fieldstones, while the earlier,beatenearth floor (Stratum2b), dated to the second-third centuries CE. Inside the fortress,several rooms (2.5 x 3.0 m) lay along the southern wall, suggesting that there was a row of rooms along each inner wall, as is typical in LateRoman forts. In IronAge fortresses,where these rooms are also evident, they are called 'casematerooms'. Approximately 50 m southeast of the
Roman fortressthe remains of a bathhouse are currentlyunder excavation. Since the excavation here is still in the early stages, no information is available regardingits plan. It is interestingto
note that a bathhouse existed near the Yotvatafort of the same period (Meshel 1989:234-236). The Roman fortress(Stratum2b) at cEnHaSeva is the largest of its kind
PAa .. .. r _
(Top.) Oven (tabun) near the entrance to the southern tower, Stratrum2.
(Below.) View of the room along the Romanwall with steps leading to the upper story,Stratum2.
-if
Airr ?rdjl
00W1
Biblical 57:4(1994) Archaeologist
205
IrINA i.
''~
uI"
"I
I
f.
.,
.~
i ,
*14.
,Y
C
.
/•I •'
iQ
.JJ •I •Sraum
*'.~.,...Oil
(fttf~(Stratum
known in the Arabah. The Emperor Trajanprobably founded it afterthe annexation of the Nabataean Kingdom to the Roman Empire (106 CE),thus establishing ProvinciaArabia. At the end of the third or the beginning of the fourth centuries CE,during the reign of Diocletian, the fort flourished once again. The projectingtowers were added at that time (Stratum2a). This Late Roman fortresswas part of the Diocletian frontiersystem (Berchem 1952;Bowersock 1971;1983:138-147; Gichon 1967;1980;Graf 1987;Avi-Yonah 1966:118-121;Roll 1989:252-260)that depended principally on towers, forts, and fortresseserected along strategic roads. The inhabitantsof the southeastem frontierof the Roman Empire,between the Euphratesand the Red Sea, were Arab tribes called Saracens(Graf 1978;Parker1985;Gichon 1986;Mayerson 1986)who conducted razzia,with the basic aim of taking booty from the merchantsand travelerswho crossed the desert areas and whose destination was important commercial and trade
206
in the Romanfortress,
Biblical 57:4(1994) Archaeologist
cities, including Jerusalemand Gaza. The tracksouth from Jerusalem would have first reached Elusa, continued on to Tamara positioned south of the Dead (.Haeeva), Sea (LacusAsphaltides),and led from thereto Transjordan, Rababatora,and Philadelphia. Archaeologicalinvestigation indicates that cEn stood at an impor.Haeeva tant junction with roads leading west, northeast,and south. The western route ascended via MacalehCAqrabimroad, past the forts and towers of Rogem Safir, Horvat Safirand Mesad Safir(Cohen 1983b),until it reached Mamshit. The road to the northeast stretched toward the area of the Dead Sea and Mesad Boqeq, where M. Gihon (1971) uncovered a smaller (ca. 17 x17 m) but similar fortress.On the modem highway between the Dead Sea and Dimona, Gichon also excavated a fortress(ca. 38 x 38 m) at Qasr el Juheiniye and, following Alt's proposal (Alt 1935:34),identified it as ancient Tamar(Gichon 1976). From here, it seems there was a Roman road to Zoar,south of the Dead Sea.
lampsofthe
Roman period found
2.
Travelingsouth from cEn Ha5eva the road followed the Arabah Valley to Yotvata where Z. Meshel excavated a fortress similar in plan and size (ca.40 x 40 m). The fort at Yotvatacontained a very important discovery among others: a Latin Imperialinscription.Dating to the time of Diocletian, the inscription was found outside and opposite the eastern facade of the Roman fort, in front of its gate (Roll 1989). cEnHa5eva seems to have been, therefore,an important military and administrative center in the Roman period significant enough to have left an impression in ancient sources. But do we know its ancient name? As opposed to Gichon's identificationof the fortressat Qasr el Juheiniye with Tamara, the authorbelieves that the Tamara described in the ancient sources is in fact cEnHaeeva, as Aharoni proposed long ago (Aharoni 1963).cEn Haeeva does find mention in Eusebius (late third, early fourth century CE.)Eusebius describes Tamara(cEn Hayeva) as a day's march from Mamshit and states
that "today it is a militaryguard post" (Onomasticon[ed. Klostermann]8:8). The fortressat 'En Hayeva-Tamara,was mentioned in the TabulaPeutingeriana (Miller1916:773;Aharoni 1963:33-37) as a stronghold along the road leading south from Jerusalem.Tamara/'En lHasevais mentioned in several other ancient sources:Ptolemaios, Geographiae V 15, the NotitiaDignitatumn (Seeck 1876: Mosaic in Madaba and The 74), Map(AviYonah1954:42-43,P1.4). The Romanfortfell into disuse during the second half of the fourth century CE,
perhaps as the result of the earthquake of 363 CEwhich destroyed Petraand several other sites (Russell 1980;Hammond 1980).Over its remainsStratum 1 offered scanty and unidentifiable remnants, including pottery of the sixthseventh centuries CE.
square ground plan and size to those uncovered by the author at Mo'a and Sha'arRamon, sites along the PetraGaza Road (Cohen 1982;1987).Decorated pottery and coins of Nabataean kings were collected on its floors. It is possible then to surmise that during both the Nabataean and Roman periods there existed a route connecting Ha~eva (Tamara) with Mo'a and continuing from there southward along the Arabah to Mesad Be'er Menuha (Cohen 1983c), Yotvata,H. Dafit (Cohen 1984),and, finally,to Aila (Elath).
The Nabataean Caravanserai (Stratum 3) The foundations of the Stratum2b Roman fortresswere probablybuilt over the remains of a Nabataeancaravanserai (Stratum3), possibly similar in its
Li ~?~
Roman period elongatedjarandjug.
?) C'
I
~))?L;?~'\ SI~ -?
?
4+
)C I ?,"rs~6F~yC~' '? .r
L
~ r 1
r
t
r
n '' r
~irs ?~- ~2?,
?, .. .d~ -*
.r.
.,:.•
;1-
r
X
~Qs. '":k ~
--I
''
i
i
.
"
-?-
|~
?
• ',
c4, ? ?~? ?gi~
'i
tl~c~ P4~,,"
:Y'~.l' 1 ?'???
-?
"oOur. .''~P~U~?
Biblical 57:4(1994) Archaeologist
207
aa'
r.
V.
.?
*%?
,'~
'
-C
4q
-'