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

Herausgeber/Editor MANFRED BIETAK

ÄGYPTEN UND LEVANTE EGYPT AND THE LEVANT

XVI/2006

XVI 2006

Redaktion: ERNST CZERNY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inhaltsverzeichnis/Contents

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

9

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

11

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

15

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

37

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

63

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

79

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

83

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

121

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

161

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

173

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

187

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

195

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

203

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

231

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

245

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

257

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

275

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

293

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

309

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

317

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

325

Abkürzungen - Abbreviations Ä&L (E&L)

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

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

10

Abkürzungen/Abbreviations

JARCE JEA JNES JSOT JSSEA Karnak KVHAA LÄ Levant

Maarav

MARI MÄS MDAIK MDOG Memnonia MIFAO MIO Mizraim

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

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

RDAC

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

11

Vorwort

Introduction

Von Manfred Bietak

By Manfred Bietak

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

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

1

3

2

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

4

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

12

Vorwort/Introduction

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

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

Vorwort/Introduction

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

13

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

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

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

1

2

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

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

3

4

5

6

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

16

Alexander Ahrens

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

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

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

2. MATERIAL, TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY

a) MSH02G-i0834

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

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

7

8

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

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

A Journey’s End

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

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

17

18

Alexander Ahrens

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

9

10

11

12

13

14

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

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

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

A Journey’s End

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

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

2

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

3

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

4

19

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

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

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

15

16

17

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

18 19

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

20

Alexander Ahrens

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

20

21

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

2

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

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

22

23

24

25 26

27

28

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

A Journey’s End

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

21

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

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

29

30

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

31

32

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

22

Alexander Ahrens

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

34

35 36

37

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

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

38

39

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

A Journey’s End

23

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

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

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

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

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

24

Alexander Ahrens

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

49

50

51 52

53

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

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

54 55

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

A Journey’s End

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

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

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

25

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

64

65

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

26

Alexander Ahrens

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

66

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

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

67

68

69

70

71

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

A Journey’s End

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

72

73

74

75

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

27

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

76

77

78

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

28

Alexander Ahrens

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

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

79

80

81

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

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

82

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

A Journey’s End

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

83

84

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

29

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

85

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

30

Alexander Ahrens

Bibliography ADLER, W.

BEN-TOR, D.

1994

2005

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

AHRENS, A. 2003

2005

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

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

BEVAN, A. 2003

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

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

BECKERATH, J.

1997

Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten, MÄS 46, Mainz.

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

1999

Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen, MÄS 49, Mainz.

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

1907

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

1940

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

ALTENMÜLLER, H. and MOUSSA, A.M.

1942

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

1991

BEYLAGE, P. 2002 VON

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

BISSING, F.W. FREIHERR

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

ASTON, B.

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

1994

1994

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

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

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

BADRE, L. 1997

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

BIETAK, M. 1996

Avaris. Capital of the Hyksos, London.

1998

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

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

BEN-DOR, I.

BIETAK, M.(ed.)

1945

2000

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

2002

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

2003

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

Palestinian Alabaster Vases, QDAP 11, 93–112.

BEN-TOR, A. 2006

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

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

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

A Journey’s End

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

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

BISSON DE LA ROQUE, F. 1950

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

BLEIBERG, E. 1996

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

DE VOS, J. 2002

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

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

DODSON, A.M. 1988

The Official Gift in Ancient Egypt, Oklahoma.

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

BOTTÉRO, J.

DOUMET-SERHAL, CL.

1949

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

2006

1950

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

BRADBURY, L. 1985

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

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

DOXEY, D.M. 1998

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

DUNAND, M. 1939

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

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

EDEL, E.

2004

1983

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

BUDKA, J. 2001

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

CARTER, H. 1916

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

CAUBET, A. 1991

2006

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

COCHAVI-RAINEY, Z. 1999

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

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

Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations, Baltimore.

CURRELLY, C.T. 1904

2006

1893

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

Eine ägyptische Statuette, ZDMG 37, 440–442.

FAY, B. 1996

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

FELDMAN, M.H. 2006

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

FEUCHT, E. 1995

Das Kind im Alten Ägypten, Frankfurt.

FISCHER, H.G. 1976

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

1996

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

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

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

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

Abydos, Volume III. London.

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

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

ERMAN, A.

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

CAUBET, A. and YON, M.

31

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

FRANKE, D. 1982

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

32

Alexander Ahrens

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

HARVEY, S.P. 1994

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

1998

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

2003

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

FUGMANN, E. 1958

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

GITTON, M. 1975

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

1976

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

Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren Reiches, PdÄ 3. Leiden.

1960

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

1971

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

1976

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

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

1989

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

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

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

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

GOMAÁ, F. 1984

1986

GRAEFE, E. 1981

HELCK, W. 1958

GIVEON, R. 1978

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

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

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

HIRSCH, E. 2004

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

GRAJETZKI, W.

HOFFMEIER, J.K.

2000

1989

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

2004

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

2001

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

GRIFFITHS, D. and OWNBY, M. 2006

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

GUKSCH, H. 1994

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

HABACHI, L. 1937

1994

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

1994

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

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

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

HARRELL, J.A. 1990

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

JÁNOSI, P.

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

HACHMANN, R. (ed.) 1983

JACOBSSON, I.

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

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

Calcit-Alabaster oder Travertin? Zu Sinn und

A Journey’s End

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

Steine und Steinbrüche im Alten Ägypten. Berlin, Heidelberg.

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

KLENGEL, H. 1969

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

1992

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

2000

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

KLUG, A. 2002

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

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

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

MATTHIAE, P. (ed.) 1995

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

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

LE SAOUT, F.

DU MESNIL DU BUISSON, R.

1987

1926

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

LEPSIUS, C.R. 1852

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

33

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

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

LILYQUIST, C.

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

1994

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

1928

1995

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

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

1930

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

1996

2003

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

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

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

1990

LIVERANI, M. 1990

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

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

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

MACE, A.C.

1992

1902

DE MORGAN, J.

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

AL-MAQDISSI, M.

1903

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

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

2000

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

2000

2003

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

NOVÁK, M.

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

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

Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge.

2004

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

2006

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

34

Alexander Ahrens

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

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

2001

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

2002

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

2003

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

2005

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

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

PORADA, E. 1982

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

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

PORTER, R. and MOSS, B. 1934

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

1952

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

PUMPENMEIER, F. 1998

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

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

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

QUACK, J.F. 1992

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

1996

kftAw und iAcy, E&L 6, 75–81.

PANAGIOTOPOULOS, D.

QUIRKE, S.

2000

1986

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

1990

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

2004

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

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

PERDU, O. 1977

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

PETRIE, W.M.F. 1906

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

RANKE, H. 1935

REDFORD, D.B. 1979

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

1993

Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton.

2003

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

PFÄLZNER, P. 2003

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

PHILLIPS, J.S. 1992

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

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

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

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

Das „Archiv des Idanda”. Bericht über die

A Journey’s End

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

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

ROCCATI, A. 2002

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

ROMER, J. 1976

SEYFRIED, K.J. 1981

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

2002

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

2001

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

1991

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

SPARKS, R.T. 1996

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

2001

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

2003

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

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

SABBAHY, L.K. 2003

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

SCANDONE MATTHIAE, G. 1984

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

1989

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

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

1996

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

1997

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

1999

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

1986

2000

SCHAEFFER, C.F.-A. 1939

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

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

1971

RYHOLT, K. 1997

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

SHORTLAND, A.J. (ed.)

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

2001

1963

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

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

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

TEISSIER, B. 1996

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

SCHNEIDER, TH.

ULLMANN, M.

2002

2002

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

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

SETHE, K.

VANDERSLEYEN, C.

1906

1971

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

35

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

36

Alexander Ahrens

VERBOVSEK, A.

WEIN, E.J. and OPIFICIUS, R.

2004

1963

2006

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

7000 Jahre Byblos, Nürnberg.

WEINSTEIN, J.M. 1975

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

1981

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

VITTMANN, G.

WIMMER, S.

1974

2005

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

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

WARD, W.A.

WOOLLEY, C.L.

1969

1953

A Forgotten Kingdom, London.

1955

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

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

1971

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

1979

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

1991

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

1983

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

1986

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

2000

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

1982

WEIGALL, M.A. 1911

Minoan Stone Vases, Cambridge.

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

ZACCAGNINI, C.

Miscellanous Notes, ASAE 11, 170–176.

WARREN, P. 1969

YON, M.

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

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

1

2 3

4 5

6 7

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

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

8

9

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

38

Bettina Bader

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

II-d

f.–s.f.

W+H

H

ox

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

10

11

I-e-4

f.–m.

W1

W

ox

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

3

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

I-e-4

f.–m.

W1

W

ox

2–3

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

4

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

WFTG

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

II-d

f.–m.

W1–2

W

ox

3–4

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

12

13

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

Von Palmen und Vögeln

39

Abb. 1 Gefäße aus Stratum b/1

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

I-e-4

m.

W1

W geschl.

ox

2–3

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

I-e-4

f.–m.

W1

geschl.

ox

3

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

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

I-e-4

f.–m.

W1

gesp.

ox

2–3

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

40

Bettina Bader

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

Von Palmen und Vögeln

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

VIII15

m.–r.

W1–2

–

ox

3–4

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

I-e-4

f.–m.

W1

abg.

ox

2–3

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

41

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

II-f

m.–r.

Ha2

–

ox

3–4

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

II-c-3

m.

Ha2

–

ox

3

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

Abb. 3 Amphore aus Oasenton, Stratum c–d

14 15

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

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

16

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

42

Bettina Bader

Abb. 4 Gefäße aus Stratum c–d

Von Palmen und Vögeln

43

Abb. 5 Bichrome Krüge aus Stratum c–d

GPBI

VI

sf.

W2

W gef. ox

3

1B

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

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

44

Bettina Bader

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

VI

sf.

W2

W gef. ox

3

1B

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

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

VI

sf.

W2

–

ox

3

1B

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

Von Palmen und Vögeln

Abb. 6 Bichromer Krug aus Stratum c–d

45

46

Bettina Bader

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

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

I-b-2

f.–m.

W1

gesp.g.

ox

2

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

I-e-4

f.–m.

W1

abg.

ox

2–3

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

I-e-4

m.

W1

abg.g.

ox

1–2

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

I-b-2

f.–m.

W1

gesp.

ox

2–3

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

I-b-2

f.–m.

W2

W

ox

3

1R

Von Palmen und Vögeln

Abb. 7 Keramik aus Stratum e/2

47

Bettina Bader

48

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

I-b-2/I-e-4

f.–m.

W2

W

ox

3

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

m.

Ha2

M?

ox

2–3

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

17

18

19

20

TG

I-b-2

m.

W1

W+H

ox

3

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

1R

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

TG

Str. rel. e/1–e/2.

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

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

21

22

23

24

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

Von Palmen und Vögeln

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

25

26

27 28

29

30

31 32

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

49

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

33

34

35

36 37

38 39

40

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

50

Bettina Bader

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

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

3.2. Stratum rel. c–d

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

ad 2.2.a) 8980A. Amphore aus Oasenton

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

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

41

47

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

42 43

44

45 46

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

48

49

50

51

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

Von Palmen und Vögeln

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

52

53

54 55 56 57

58

59

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

51

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

60

61

62

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

52

Bettina Bader

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

62a 63

64

65

66

67 68

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

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

69 70

71

72

73 74 75

76 77

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

Von Palmen und Vögeln

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

53

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

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

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

78

84

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

79

80

81

82 83

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

85 86 87 88 89

90

91 92

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

54

Bettina Bader

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

93

94 95

96

97

98

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

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

99

100 101

102

103

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

Von Palmen und Vögeln

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

55

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

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

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

104

110

105

106 107 108 109

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

ad 2.3.g) 9119. Kochtopf aus Nilton E1

111

112

113

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

Bettina Bader

56

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

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

Bibliographie AMIRAN, R. 1969

1982

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

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

ASTON, D. 1991

114

1998

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

2003

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

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

ARTZY, M. 2001

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

The Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, Jerusalem.

ARNOLD, DO. 1981

1997

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

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

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

115

116

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

Von Palmen und Vögeln

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

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

BIETAK, M., FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I.

1999

2005

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

ASTRÖM, P. 1972

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

1972

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

2001a

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

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

BOURRIAU, J. 1981

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

BOURRIAU, J., NORDSTRÖM, H.-Å. 1993

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

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

BRUNTON, G., ENGELBACH, R.

BADER, B.

1927

2001

2004

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

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

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

57

Gurob, BSAE 41, London.

EPSTEIN, C. 1966

Palestinian Bichrome Ware, Leiden.

FISCHER, P. 2003

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

P. FISCHER, M. SADEQ, 2002

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

FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I.

in Vorbereitung Auaris und Memphis in der Zweiten Zwischenzeit.

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

BERGOFFEN, C.J.

FUSCALDO, P.

2005

2000

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

2001

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

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

BIETAK, M. 1984

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

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

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

HEIN, I. 1994

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

1998

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

2001

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

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

HEURTLEY, W.A. 1938

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

BIETAK, M., DORNER, J., JÁNOSI, P.

HOLTHOER, R.

2004

1977

Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris. Vor-

New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites, The Pottery, The Scan-

58

Bettina Bader

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

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

HOPE, C.A. 2002

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

NAGEL, G 1938

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

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

RAVEN, M.J. 1991

KARAGEORGHIS, V. 2001

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

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

PECORELLA, P.E. 1977

KOPETZKY, K. 2002

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

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

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

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

PETRIE, W.M.F. 1933

Ancient Gaza III, BSAE 55, London.

MARCHAND. S., TALLET, P.

1934

Ancient Gaza IV, BSAE 56, London.

1999

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

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

MARTIN, M.A.S. 2004

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

1924

SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH, T., TROY, L. 1991

MERRILLEES, R. 1970

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

MÜLLER, V. 1996

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

2001

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

2002

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

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

SCHAEFFER, C.F.A. 1936

Missions en Chypre 1932–1935, Paris, 1936.

SEILER, A. 2005

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

STEINDORFF, G. 1937

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

WESTHOLM, A. 1938

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

WILLIAMS, B.B. 1992

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

Von Palmen und Vögeln

Tafel 1

59

60

Bettina Bader

Tafel 2

Von Palmen und Vögeln

Tafel 3

61

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

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

1

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

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

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

2

- Archäologe - Archäologe - Geophysiker - Geophysiker

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

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

64

Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller

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

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

65

66

Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller

Artur Buszek Piotr Kolodziejczyk

- Geophysiker - Geophysiker

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

3

4

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

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

5

6 7

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

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

Abb. 3 Übersichtsplan über das Palastareal F/II

67

68

Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller

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

8

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

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

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

Abb. 4 Lehmziegelmauer mit Schilfmatten

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

69

70

Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller

25

24

K

23 L12

L12

L

L23

L23 L55

M L59

Ra m pe L59

N

Turm

ng

M49

u nd

Hof C

La

0

Abb. 6 Abschnitt A

10m

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

24

71

25

N

Turm M49

Landung

O

23

M83

pp Tre Ko

r

M82

r

pe

o rid

ep Tr

P

e

M81

Hof L186

Q 0

10m

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

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

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

72

Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller

Abb. 8 Wasserleitung aus Kalkstein in Raum [L508]

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

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

73

Abb. 10 Schlüssellochförmige Öfen zur Metallverarbeitung

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

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

9

10

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

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

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

74

Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller

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

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

Abb. 11 Grube [L 81]

11

S. oben.

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

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

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

75

76

Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller

Abb. 14 Nubische Keramik aus Grube [L81]

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

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

12

14

13

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

BIETAK/FORSTNER-MÜLLER/HERBICH im Druck.

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

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

IV. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

15

18

16 17

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

77

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

19

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

78

Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller

Bibliographie ARNOLD, F. 2005

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

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

BIETAK, M. 2005

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

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

HOULIHAN, P.F. 1997

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

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

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

MÜLLER, V. 2002

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

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

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

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

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

2003

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

2003

2005

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

NEWBERRY, P.

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

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

1893

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

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

BRUNNTER-TRAUT, E.

SPENCER. A.J.

1975

1979

Affe, LÄ I, 83–85.

FUSCALDO, P.

VOSS, S.

2002

1999

The Nubian Pottery from the Palace District of

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

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

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

1

2

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

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

3 4 5 6

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

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

80

Irene Forstner-Müller und Wolfgang Müller

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

81

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

Bibliographie DORNER, J.

HEIN, I., P. JÁNOSI

1999

2004

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

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

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

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

2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

4

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

2 3

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

5

6

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

84

Julia Budka

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

7

8 9

10

11

12

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

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

13

14

15 16

17

18

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

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

85

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

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

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

19

22

20 21

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

23

24

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

86

Julia Budka

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

25

26 27

28 29

30

31

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

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

32

33 34 35

36 37

38

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

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

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

39 40

41

42

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

87

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

43

44

45

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

88

Julia Budka

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

46 47 48 49

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

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

50 51 52

53 54

55

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

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

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

89

90

Julia Budka

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

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

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

56

57

58

59 60 61 62

63 64

65

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

91

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

66

67

68

69 70

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

92

Julia Budka

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

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

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

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

93

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

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

71 72 73

74 75

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

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

76 77 78 79

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

94

Julia Budka

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

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

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

80

82

81

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

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

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

95

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

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

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

83

85

84

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

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

86

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

96

Julia Budka

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

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

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

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

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

97

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

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

88 89 90

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

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

91

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

98

Julia Budka

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

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

92 93 94 95

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

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

96

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

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

99

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

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

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

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

97 98 99

100 101 102

103 104

105

106

107 108

100

Julia Budka

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

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

109

113

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

110 111

112

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

114 115 116 117

118

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

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

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

101

102

Julia Budka

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

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

103

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

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

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

119

121

120

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

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

104

Julia Budka

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

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

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

122

123

124

125

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

105

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

126

127 128 129

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

106

Julia Budka

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

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

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

130

134

131

132 133

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

135

136

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

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

107

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

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

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

137

138

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

139

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

108

Julia Budka

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

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

140

141

142

143 144

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

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

145

146

147

148 149 150 151

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

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

109

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

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

152

153

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

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

154

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

110

Julia Budka

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

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

111

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

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

Cf. HARVEY forthcoming.

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

112

Julia Budka

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

156

157

158 159

160 161

162 163

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

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

164

165

166

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

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

113

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

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

167

172

168

169

170

171

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

173 174

175

176

177

178

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

114

Julia Budka

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

179

180

181

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

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

182 183

184

185 186

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

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

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

115

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

ATP No.

Label

Location

Fabric

Surface

6552.1

Amphora

27/8/10

Marl A2

uncoated

late 18th–19th Dyn.

Date

Fig. 14.10

Fig.

7499.1

Amphora

27/23/33

Marl A2

uncoated

late 18th–19th Dyn.

Fig. 14.11

7380.8/7298.1

Amphora

27/17/24

Import

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 14.3

6566.1

Amphora

27/7/12

Import

uncoated

18thDyn.?

Fig. 14.5

5095.1

Amphora

22/8/1

Mixed B1

yellowish/pinkish slip

Ramesside

Fig. 14.6

4115.5

Amphora

20/8/9

Marl A3

selfslipped

(late) 18th Dyn.?

Fig. 14.9

5156.2

Amphora

21/4/3

Import

white slipped

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 9.10

5660.1

Amphora

24/4/6

Import

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 9.11

6423.1

Amphora

25/1/4

Import

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 9.8

5081.1

Amphora

22/5/1

Marl D? Import?

uncoated?

6564.1

Appliqué/Ibex

27/9/11

Nile B2

white washed

5870.1

Beaker

22/4/6

Marl A4 var. 2

uncoated

4242.28

Beaker/ovoid jar

19/7/12

Nile B2

10136.6

Beer jar

33/4/8

Nile B2

5842.2

Beer jar

22/4/5

Fig. 9.9 late18th Dyn. Late Period?

Fig. 17 Fig. 14.12

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

Nile D2

uncoated

early–mid

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 10.2 Fig. 2.8 Fig. 2.1

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

187 188

189

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

190

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

116

Julia Budka

ATP No.

Label

Location

Fabric

Surface

8042.3

Beer jar

25/10/12

Nile B2

uncoated

Date early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 2.2

Fig.

8049.2

Beer jar

25/10/12

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 2.3

8049.3

Beer jar

25/10/12

Nile B2

uncoated

early

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 2.4

6286.2

Beer jar

27/8/10

Nile B2

uncoated

early

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 2.5

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 2.6

8037.11

Beer jar

25/10/12

Nile B2

uncoated

early

8065.5

Beer jar

25/14/13

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 2.7

8128

Beer jar

28/10/28

Nile B2

uncoated

19th Dyn.

Fig. 11.1

8042.2

Beer jar/Drop-pot

25/10/12

Nile B2

red washed

Fig. 20.4

5830.2

Bottle

22/15/1

Nile D2

white washed

early 18th Dyn. Ramesside Ramesside

Fig. 14.2

Ramesside

Fig. 14.4

Fig. 14.1

7027.1

Bottle

27/7/19

Nile D2

white washed with red rim band

6316.7

Bottle/Globular jar

27/1/2

Mixed B2

white slipped

5723.1

Bottle

28/2/5

Marl A3

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 9.1

7530.1

Bottle

30/11/25

Nile B2

red washed

mid 18th Dyn.?

Fig. 9.12

5618.10

Bottle

24/1/2

Nile B2

red washed

early–mid 18th Dyn.

Fig. 9.13

6802.3

Bottle

28/2/13

Nile D2

red washed

18th Dyn.

Fig. 9.2

8042.1

Bottle

25/10/12

Nile B2

red washed

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 9.3

5414.2

Bottle

22/11/1

Nile D2

white slipped

18th Dyn.

Fig. 9.4

5156.7

Bottle

21/4/3

Import?

white slipped

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 9.7

4127.4

Bottle

20/8/9

Nile D4

white slipped

18th Dyn.

Fig. 9.5

7527.1

Bottle

30/10/23

Nile D2

pinkish slip

18th

Fig. 9.6

5471.1

Bottle/Amphora

22/13/1

Mixed B1

cream slipped

5685.1

Bottle/jar

24/1/8

Marl A2

4470

Bread mould

20/5/16

7380.2

Bread plate

7211.6

Dyn. Ramesside

Fig. 14.7

RWBI

early–mid 18th Dyn.

Fig. 10.1

Nile E4

whitish layer

early–mid 18th Dyn.

Fig. 1.4

27/17/24

Nile C2

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 1.3

Burner/dish

28/2/14

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.?

Fig. 3.1

5040.2

Burner/dish

22/1/1

Nile C1

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 3.13

7741.1

Burner/dish

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.?

Fig. 3.2

6300.6

Burner/dish

27/7/12

Nile B2

red rim band on uncoated

early 18th Dyn.?

Fig. 3.4

8091

Burner/tall offering stand

25/11/15

Nile B2

white washed

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 3.16

18th

6008.1

Carinated Bowl

24/4/9

Marl A2

RSMO

early–mid

Dyn.

Fig. 10.6

5618.1

Carinated Bowl

24/1/2

Marl A2

RSMO

early–mid 18th Dyn.

Fig. 10.7

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

5521.1

Carinated Bowl

21/3/12

Nile B2 sandy

5156.9

Carinated Bowl

21/4/3

Nile B2 sandy

7069.2

Carinated Bowl

27/17/22

Nile B2

6397.3

Carinated Bowl

19/16/29

Nile B2

BP on white slip out above carination, white slipped in

7432.9

Carinated Bowl

27/19/28

Marl A2/4

4243.2

Carinated Bowl

19/7/12

Marl A2/4 Nile B2

BPCS out; red rim band, un–coated in

Fig. 14.13

20th Dyn.?

Fig. 18.1

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

Fig. 18.2

Ramesside?

Fig. 18.3

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 5.10

UCRS

18th Dyn.

Fig. 5.9

red washed in and out above Ramesside? carination

6041.1

Carinated Bowl

21/7/10

4240.12

Carinated Bowl/Dish

19/7/12

Nile B2

red slipped in and out

6207.2

Cooking pot Pan Grave

29/4/4

Nubian Nile C2 variant

uncoated, incised decoration

6300.2

Dish

27/7/12

Nile B2

BPWW

Fig. 8.3

Ramesside?

Fig. 14.14

early 18th Dyn. Ramesside

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 15.1

18th

7801.1

Dish

25/18/16

Marl B

uncoated

early–mid

5870.12

Dish/Burner

22/4/6

Nile B2

uncoated

5860.1

Dish

22/4/5

Nile B2

BPRS

early 18th Dyn. Ramesside?

Fig. 15.2

8554.1

Drop-pot

33/13/50

Nile B2

red washed

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 19.1

10503.1

Drop-pot

33/4/12

Nile B2

red washed

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 19.2

Table 1 continued

Dyn.

Fig. 5.8 Fig. 3.3

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

Surface

Date

117

ATP No.

Label

Location

Fabric

8554.3

Drop–pot

33/13/50

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 19.3

Fig.

8556.1

Drop–pot

33/4/51

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 19.4

10138.5

Drop–pot

33/4/8

Nile B2

uncoated

early

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 19.5

8430.1

Drop–pot

33/7/44

Nile B2

uncoated

early

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 19.6

18th

8554.5

Drop–pot

33/13/50

Nile B2

uncoated

early

Dyn.

Fig. 19.7

7309.2

Drop–pot

33/7/27

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 19.8

8430.2

Drop–pot

33/4/8

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 19.9

7309.1

Drop–pot

33/7/27

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 20.1

10141.1

Drop–pot

33/4/9

Nile B2

red washed

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 20.2

7319.1

Drop–pot

33/6/29

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 20.3

10136.8

Drop–pot

33/4/8

Nile B2

white washed

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 20.6

8448.1

Drop–pot

33/7/48

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 20.5

4465.4

Flowerpot

20/5/16

Nile B2

uncoated

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 7.3

4015.11

Flowerpot

19/6/6

Nile B2

uncoated

early–mid

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 7.5

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 7.1

early

4015.20

Flowerpot/dish

19/6/6

Nile B2

uncoated

early–mid

5900.1

Flowerpot/dish

26/1/4

Nile D2

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 7.2

5859.2

Flowerpot/dish

26/1/3

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 7.4

4472.6

Flowerpot/dish

20/5/16

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 8.1

6418.1

Globular jar

19/15/30

Marl D 1

white slipped, burnished

Fig. 11.2

6657.4

Globular jar

28/2/8

Mixed B

cream slipped

mid–late 18th Dyn. Ramesside

6043.7

Hathoric bowl

24/7/10

Nile B2

UCRS

Ramesside?

Fig. 18.4

6560.1

Hathoric bowl

27/7/12

Nile B2

UCRS

Ramesside?

Fig. 18.5

Nile D2

red washed in and out; smoked

Ramesside?

Fig.1.2 Fig. 8.5

6657.1

Lamp

28/2/8

5040.14

Large bowl/plate

22/1/1

Nile B2

uncoated

18th

6005.1

Large funnel-necked storage jar

24/4/9

Nile B2

BPWW

late 18th Dyn.

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Dyn.?

Fig. 14.8

Fig. 16.1

4015.24

Large plate

19/6/6

Nile B2

6088.10

Large storage jar

24/4/13

Marl A2/4

BPWW

late

Dyn.?

Fig. 16.4

6005.2

Potstand/Lid?

24/4/9

Nile B2

BPWW

late 18th Dyn.?

Fig. 15.6

8044.1

M–dish

25/10/12

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 3.10

4162.8

M–dish

19/6/8

Nile C1

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 3.5

4260.4

M–dish

18/5/10

Nile C1

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 3.6

5367.5

M–dish

31/1/1

Nile C1

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 3.7

5824.4

M–dish

26/1/3

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 3.9

4015.26

Meat jar

19/6/6

Marl A2

uncoated

late 18th–19th Dyn.

Fig. 11.3

6088.1

Meat jar

24/4/13

Marl A2

uncoated

late 18th–19th Dyn.

Fig. 11.4

6009.6

Meat jar

24/4/9

Marl A2/4

uncoated

18th–19th

Fig. 11.5

late

18th

18th

Fig. 8.4

Dyn.

8078.3

M–vessel

25/10/12

Nile B2

uncoated

early

Dyn.

Fig. 3.8

7010.1

Necked storage jar

27/7/19

Marl A2

BPWW

late 18th Dyn.?

Fig. 16.2

8034.1

Necked storage jar

25/10/12

Marl A2

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 6.7

3065.9

Neckless storage jar

11/8/12

Nile B2

red slipped

late 18th–19th Dyn.

Fig. 11.6

6008.2 7597

Ornamental Bowl

24/4/9, 19/24/34

Nile B2

BPCS

late 18th Dyn.

Fig. 15.7

6008.5

Ovoid jar

24/4/9

Nile B2

BPCS

late 18th Dyn.

Fig. 15.3

6316.1

Ovoid jar

27/1/2

Nile B2

BPWW

late

18th–

yn.

Fig. 15.4

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 15.5

7609

Ovoid jar

19/26/37

Nile B2

BPCS

late

5874.3

Plate/dish

22/4/7

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 4.7

5874.2

Plate/dish

22/4/7

Nile B2

red slipped ent.

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 4.6

4048.11

Plate/dish

19/7/7

Nile C1

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 4.5

7520

Potstand

30/10/23

Nile B2

red washed

late 18th Dyn.

Fig. 11.7

5410.1

Potstand

22/7/2

Marl C

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 12.1

5872.1

Potstand

26/1/4

Marl B

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 12.2

7570.1

Potstand

19/23/32

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 12.3

Table 1 continued

118

Julia Budka

ATP No.

Label

Location

Fabric

5318.1

Potstand

25/1/1

Marl C

uncoated

Surface

early 18th Dyn.

Date

Fig. 12.4

5360.5

Potstand

30/1/4

Marl B

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 12.5

6552.6

Potstand

27/8/10

Nile B2

uncoated

early

18th

6904.1

Potstand

30/w. baulk

Marl B

uncoated

early

18th

7380.4

Potstand

27/17/24

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 13.2

5346.1

Potstand

30/1/2

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 13.7

5142.1

Potstand

ANOB 1/1/3

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 13.3

6668.2

Potstand

28/4/10

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 13.8

5166.1

Potstand

21/3/4

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 13.4

7648.2

Potstand

25/6/8

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.

Fig. 13.9

5630.2

Potstand

24/1/4

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 13.5

5508.3

Potstand

21/3/9

Nile B2

uncoated

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 13.6

7592.2

Potstand

19/24/34

Nile B2

white washed

early

5624.2

Pedestal bowl /Burner

24/1/2

Nile D2

exterior white plastered

18th Dyn.?

Fig. 3.12

5142.2

Pedestal bowl /Burner

ANOB 1/1/3

Nile B2

white wash

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 3.14

6207.5

Pedestal bowl /Burner

29/4/4

Nile B2

traces of white wash

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 3.15

6668.1

Ringstand

28/4/10

Nile D5

white washed

Ramesside

6352.7

Simple bowl

24/West Profile Cleaning

Nile B2

black rim band on red slipped

early–mid 18th Dyn.

Fig. 10.3

3928.13

Simple bowl

19/1/4

Nile B2

black rim band on red slipped

early–mid 18th Dyn.

Fig. 10.4

18th

18th

Fig.

Dyn.

Fig. 13.1

Dyn.

Fig. 13.10

Fig. 3.11

Dyn.

Fig.1.5

5870.15

Simple bowl

22/4/6

Nile B2

red washed in and out

early

Dyn.

Fig. 4.1

7397.8

Simple bowl

27/19/26

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 4.3

8086.4

Simple bowl

25/15/14

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 4.4

7499.6

Simple bowl

27/23/33

Nile B2

UCRS; in red burnished

early–mid 18th Dyn.

Fig. 4.8

6904.2

Simple bowl

30/w. baulk

Nile B2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 4.9

8065.7

Simple bowl

25/14/13

Nile B2

red slipped in and out

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 5.1

4240.28

Simple bowl

19/1/12

Nile D2

red rim band

18th

Dyn.

Fig. 5.3

early–mid

18th

8037.3

Simple bowl

25/10/12

early

Nile B2

red rim band on uncoated

Fig. 5.5

Dyn.

Fig. 5.4

4015.18

Simple bowl

19/6/6

Nile D2

red rim band on uncoated¸ Thutmoside with splash decoration

5001.5

Simple bowl

ANOB 1/1/1

Nile B2

red rim band on uncoated¸ Thutmoside with splash decoration

Fig. 5.6

5179.1

Simple bowl

21/4/6

Nile B2

red slipped ent., out lower part uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 5.7

7741.2

Simple bowl

28/5/21

Nile B2

UCRS

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 4.2

10503.3

Simple bowl

33/4/12

Nile D2

red washed ent.

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 5.2

Thutmoside?

Fig. 10.5

5620.1

Storage jar

24/1/2

Marl A2

monochrome painted on uncoated ware

6410.5

Storage jar

19/15/30

Marl A2

BPRS

late 18th Dyn.?

Fig. 16.3

5335.1

Storage jar

26/1/2

Marl B

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 6.2

7928.1

Storage jar

28/2/24

Nile B2

red washed

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 6.3

5304.1

Storage jar

ANOB 1/1/4

Marl B

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 6.8

5044.3

Storage jar, funnelnecked

22/2/1

Nile D2

white washed

late 18th–19th Dyn.?

Fig. 6.4

4477.1

Zir

20/5/10

Marl C

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 6.1

18th

7642.1

Zir

25/6/8

Mixed A

uncoated

early

Dyn.

Fig. 6.5

4311.1

Zir/storage jar

20/8/13

Marl A4 var. 2

uncoated

early 18th Dyn.

Fig. 6.6

Table 1 continued

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

119

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

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

120

Julia Budka

1989

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART ONE: HORUS IS HATHOR?

2

3 4 5

6

7

8 9

10

122

Orly Goldwasser

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

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

11

12 13

14

15

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

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

16

17

18

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

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 123

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

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

19

25

20

21 22 23 24

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

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

26

27 28 29

30

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

124

Orly Goldwasser

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

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

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

31

32

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

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

33 34

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

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 125

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

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

b)

c)

a)

d)

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

126

Orly Goldwasser

b)

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

(G5) or a generic “bird”

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

35 36

d)

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

a)

3. A frame

c)

.

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

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

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

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 127

a)

b)

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

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

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

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

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

37

38 39

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

40

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

128

Orly Goldwasser

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

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

41

42

43 44

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

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

45

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

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 129

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

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

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

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

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

46

49

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

47 48

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

50

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

130

Orly Goldwasser

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

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

a)

b)

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

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

51

52

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

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

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 131

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

53

54

55

56

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

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

57 58

59

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

132

Orly Goldwasser

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

60

61 62 63

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

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

64

65

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

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 133

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

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

66

73

67

68 69

70 71

72

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

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

74 75 76

77

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

134

Orly Goldwasser

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

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

78

80

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

79

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

81 82

83

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

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 135

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

84

85

86

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

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

Sinai 377

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

87

88

89

90

91

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

136

Orly Goldwasser

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

a)

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

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 137

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

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

Sinai 354 97

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

92

93 94

95

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

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

96 97

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

138

Orly Goldwasser

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

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

b)

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

98 99 100 101

102 103

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

c)

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

a)

c)

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

b)

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 139

140

Orly Goldwasser

No. 7

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

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

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

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

No. 10

Sinai 349, 365a

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

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

104

108

Sinai 353

105 106 107

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

109 110 111 112

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

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 141

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

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

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

No. 14

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

113

114

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

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

115

116

117

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

142 Orly Goldwasser

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

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

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

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

118

122

119 120 121

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

123

124

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

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 143

The missing link – the case of bet

Sinai 359, 346a

Sinai 352

Sinai 357

Sinai 346b, 349, 362

Sinai 374, 380125 Of all identified letters in the Protosinaitic script, bet is one of the least-debated. After the identification of the word b-a-l-t by Gardiner (it is still the only word not challenged by different translations), it was accepted by all scholars that the bet sign represents a schematic house. Those scholars who believed that hieroglyphic signs constituted prototypes for the Protosinaitic signs suggested that the Egyptian “house” hieroglyph (O1) and the “shelter” hieroglyph (O4) are sources of the bet sign.126 However, somewhat surprisingly, of all the Protosinaitic versions of the bet, not even one (!) shows a version of the correct Egyptian hiero-

125

126

127

128

Bietak suggests that this example (from inscription 380, discovered by Sass) be seen as a variation of a building with a hurdle-wall enclosing a courtyard which is attached to a building. See the recent discussion of Hamilton, with history of research, HAMILTON 2006: 39–52. SATZINGER (2002: 17) suggests also (O6), and DARNELL et al. 2005 add also (O20). For the definition of this script, variation, and its complications, see FISCHER 1976: 40–44; HAMILTON 2006; DARNELL et al. 2005. E.g., ANTHES 1928; DARNELL 2002. A single variation with a low-part side-opening can be seen on the otherwise nicely executed Hammâmât inscription no. 87, dating to the reign of Sesotris I; see COUYAT and MONTET 1913: 64–65, with pl. 20.

glyphic signs O1 or O4; rather, one finds a plethora of versions of a square sign, sometimes open at the corner and, in a few rare cases, with a clear entrance. The Protosinaitic sign differs from most hieratic, cursive, or “semi cursive”127 variations of the sign, all clearly showing a tendency towards a wide open lower part (e.g., Fig. 17b, col. 2).128 Where does the Protosinaitic bet come from? Sinai 92 is a Serabit el-Khâdim stela positioned at the old pathway to the temple (Fig. 18). The stela is inscribed on all four of its sides. However, the inscriptions differ considerably. The east face of the stela, which was the main side, was inscribed with a hieroglyphic inscription dated to “Year 13” and dedicated to Ptah. The hieroglyphs are of high quality and present a high level of “Egyptianness” (Fig. 18c). The north edge of the stela (a narrow side) contains hieroglyphs of the same good quality as the east face of the stela. The well executed hieroglyphs give the titles of a “god’s treasurer,” a high Egyptian official (his name is lost).129 However, the two additional inscribed sides are very different. Clearly added by a different (later?) hand, the south-edge inscription (Fig. 18a) is paleographically a world apart.130 The handwriting on this side of the stela strongly recalls the different cursive hieroglyphs in mining areas in Egypt, such as Wadi el-Hudi.131 The hand hieroglyph (D47) appears in a version closer to hieratic, and thus represents the “expedition paleographical dialect” mentioned above. This crude “mixed style” is rather rare in the Serabit temple area itself, especially on stelae, and thus it becomes even more exceptional. This inscription

129 130

131

This stela is also of a mixed style, but includes relatively few hieratic versions of signs .Very conspicuous are the numbers on column six of the inscription; see COUYAT and MONTET 1913: pl. 20. Most other inscriptions of semi-cursive hieroglyphs (on the different levels of “semi-cursive,” see FISCHER 1976: 40–43) do not tend to have a square shape but do tend to have an open lower part – e.g., BUDGE 1912: pls. 1–2. A full list of examples has to be reserved for a forthcoming, more exhaustive publication. VALBELLE and BONNET 1996: 18. VALBELLE and BONNET (1996: 76) speak about the typical inscriptions for the four sides of a stela at the site. The #bdd inscriptions fall nicely in this pattern. See FAKHRY 1952.

144 Orly Goldwasser

commemorates the a “brother of the HoA n RTnw, #bdd,” known from other inscriptions as well. This man, carrying the same title, appears again in another inscription as part of a list of Egyptian officials, and is part of the Egyptian establishment and team. His attestations in Sinai span a period of at least two decades.132 It seems that a similar hand is also responsible for the west face of the stela (Fig. 18b), where the name of a certain “young (TAy?) official, Kms,” seems to be repeated. Whoever wrote the text for #bdd (or did he do it himself?) had a special paleographical idiolect, which is not repeated in other inscriptions in the temple. The hieroglyphs are clumsy and show a low level of “Egyptianness.” Nevertheless, for some unknown reason he writes the pr “house” (O1) sign in a very unusual way. The bet repeatedly appears as a mere square, or square with a little opening on the side (e.g., Fig. 18a, l. 4; 18b, l. 8).133 This variant is very rare in the parallel “expedition dialect” in Egypt. However, Serabit Stela 92 is not the end of the career of the “closed O1” in Sinai. It reappears in Sinai inscriptions 28 (see Fig. 6a–c) and 32 (both Wadi Maghârah). Sinai inscriptions 28, 29, and 32 were probably written by a single scribe. Inscription 28 and 29 both date to year 42 of Amenemhat III’s reign. Inscription 28 is almost intact, but very little remains of inscription 29. Nevertheless, one can discern that both were written in the “expedition paleographical dialect,” and both inscriptions

contain very specific idiosyncratic paleographic affinities, even within the framework of the unstable “semi-cursive” script (Fig. 6). In both inscriptions, the kA sign (D28) is written with clearly exaggerated “breasts” (Fig. 6c; Fig. 6d, col. 2).134 The word mfkAt presents an idiosyncratic spelling with an additional A, probably as “phonetic complement” for kA.135 This spelling is uncommon in the inscriptions from the temple area. In the two inscriptions, the Hwt sign possesses a plethora of square iconic variations, unknown from any other inscription in Sinai or Egypt (Fig. 22). It exhibits a typical case of “Canaanite reading” (see detailed discussion in Part I, above). Inscription 28 contains an incorrect grammatical form (see above, p. 129), and at least one sign that cannot be safely identified even if it shows a high level of iconicity ( , see Fig. 6a, col. 5). The sign is read tentatively by the authors of Sinai II as a Htp sign (R4) representing an unusual altar. It may be that Sinai 28, 29, and some other inscriptions from Wadi Maghârah, preserve the tradition of partially literate Canaanite scribes. The hieratic “intrusions” into the text are rather limited in number, yet these writers have their own tradition of Egyptian writing. It is possible that we can trace the buds of this tradition in the earlier inscription from the temple, Sinai 92 discussed above. Moreover, they keep the tradition of the square pr encountered two decades earlier in the inscriptions of #bdd. The scribes from

Fig. 22 Examples of the Hwt sign taken from inscriptions at Wadi Maghârah (a: Sinai I: pl. XII, no. 28, col. 1; b: ibid.: col. 2; c: ibid.: col. 3; d: ibid.: col. 5; e: ibid.: col. 7; f: ibid.: pl. X, no. 29, col. 1; g: ibid.: pl. XIII, no. 30, col. 1)

132 133

134

GARDINER 1961: 47. Sass already mentioned the closeness of these bet variations to Sinai 92, and provides a plate showing the inscription (SASS 1988: 111). However, he did not carry the discussion further. For such a writing of the kA sign as part of the name of

135

Queen Hatshepsut on a scarab, see PETRIE 1917: pl. XXVI, 19. Only one more version with an A is known to me from Sinai. It is a stela dating to year 23 of Amenemhat III. This spelling is not present in the Wb.

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 145

Fig. 23 “Soul house” from a Middle Kingdom tomb (after HAMILTON 2006: 40, fig. 2.4)

Maghârah are more “free” in their idiosyncratic use of the Egyptian hieroglyphs than the writer of Sinai 92. Unlike the case of the temple area, the workers in the mines probably had free access to the Wadi Maghârah inscriptions and to the few (but

beautiful) hieroglyphic inscriptions in the mining area. It is not surprising, then, that most of the repertoire of the Egyptian prototypes for the Protosinaitic graphemes can be detected in these very texts, despite their sometimes unusual use of Egyptian hieroglyphs. However, the creative history of the Canaanite bet grapheme does not end here. There are at least two very clear and non-debated examples of the bet grapheme in Protosinaitic with a clear “entrance” (see above, Sinai 359 and 346a). Until Hamilton’s last publication, no scholar had explained this phenomenon. However, Hamilton ingeniously suggested that these examples reflect a typical “soul-house” – offering tables of the poor in the form of a house, which usually show an “entrance” (see Fig. 23).136 The “soul houses” are common in the Middle Kingdom,137 and are certainly appropriate to the social environment of the miners. No examples of such houses have yet been recorded in the Sinai finds; yet little atten-

Fig. 24 Graffito from Lower Nubia mentioning a MnTw-Htp (ZÁBA 1974: pl. CLXII, fig. 292, no. 170)

136

HAMILTON 2006: 42.

137

For the “soul houses,” see ROIK 1988: 40–50.

146 Orly Goldwasser

tion was given by the early excavators to broken pottery, and many sherds and small finds still await publication. The “soul house” explanation is a clear example of the mixture, in one grapheme, the b, of two referents. One referent comes from the written hieroglyphic examples, and the other from a “real life” object referent. Strong support for the reading of the sign as

a pictorial representation of a “soul-house” offering table comes from a unique example published by Zába (Fig. 24).138 In this rock inscription from Nubia, which he dates to the early 12th Dynasty, a similar sign appears. In a detailed and convincing discussion, Zába proposes that the sign should be read as Htp, “offering-table,” and sees it as a unique variation of the Htp hieroglyph. However, he does not recognize its connection to the special type of offering table depicted here, the “soul house.” In the Protocanaanite case, the signified of the grapheme is “house.” Thus, this specific Protosinaitic grapheme creates the bridge between the traditional offering table (which is well known in Sinai, see, e.g., Sinai 65) and the special type of offering table, “the soul house.” It also shows that this object was understood as a “model of a house” by the Canaanites, as it is used as a signifier for the meaning “house.”139 If identified correctly, it seems that the bet grapheme in Sinai displays a wide variation of forms in the early stage of the script. There might even be one example which depicts a house with two columns (Table, 2F). Only two signs will continue to develop, the “square” variation, and the “courtyard” (O4) variation, which is hardly attested in Sinai. At the end of the day, the “courtyard” version will be the winning form, and it will continue into the first century BCE. Wadi el-Óôl inscriptions as a case of “reproduction”

a)

If Sinai is indeed the place of invention of the Protocanaanite script, the two lines of Wadi el-Óôl may provide an example for a “reproduction” process of the script in a different area (Fig. 25).

b) Fig. 25 Protocanaanite inscriptions from Wadi el-Óôl (a: after DARNELL et al. 2005: 83, fig. 16a; b: ibid.: 75, fig. 2a)

138

For a discussion of the sign, see ZÁBA 1974: 175–176 with figs. 292–293.

139

This very sign survives into the Roman period as a mason’s sign probably also with the meaning “offering table.” See ZÁBA 1974: 175.

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 147

It is difficult to say whether this example of the script is indeed entirely alphabetical, or whether it contains intrusions of some Egyptian principles (e.g., classifiers140), which may have been known to the writers in this area from their closer acquaintance with the Egyptians and the surrounding Egyptian inscriptions. It is difficult to say whether one and the same inscription was even written by the same hand and in the same direction. Concerning the date of the inscriptions, Darnell and his collaborators present a somewhat complicated picture. The date of the actual inscriptions is the end of the 12th Dynasty or beginning of the 13th Dynasty, the heyday of activity in this area. Moreover, Darnell suggests that the inscriptions may be connected to a neighboring inscription of a certain Bbi who is imy-r mSa n aAmw, “general of the Asiatics,” which is dated to the late Middle Kingdom.141 However, the paleographic data as presented by Darnell’s team leads to a much earlier date – early Middle Kingdom. Thus, Darnell et al. end up suggesting that the paleographic data points to the date of the invention, and not to the later, incidental date of the Wadi el-Óôl inscriptions. In this case, the place of invention is neither Wadi el-Óôl nor Sinai, but a hypothetical location providing “a plurality of cultural contexts.” Moreover, this place, in their opinion, should be in Egypt, as they consider the prototypes of the script to be a mixture of borrowing from lapidary hieroglyphs and hieratic signs, a mixture, they believe, could have existed only in Egypt.142 It seems to us that the paleographic data that Darnell presents as anchoring the invention at the beginning of the 12th Dynasty or even earlier should be questioned.

140

141

142

Already suggested in DARNELL et al. 2005: 81. WIMMER and WIMMER-DWEIKAT 2001 regard these texts as mixed inscriptions written partially in a Canaanite dialect, and partially in Egyptian. “Near the main inscription sites in Wadi el-Óôl is a small concentration of hieratic inscriptions, paleographically and onomastically of late Middle Kingdom (probably late 12th Dynasty) date. Two of the texts have a bearing on the presence of Asiatics in the Wadi elÓôl, and appear to have been executed at roughly the same time.” DARNELL et al. 2005: 87. The inscriptions of Sinai present many examples of hieratic intrusions, lapidary hieratic, and even cursive hieratic. It is difficult to understand why this fact is usu-

1. The “head” graphemes All three head signs of Wadi el-Óôl can be interpreted as “reproductions” of the prototype “head.” The resemblance to the hieratic examples presented by Darnell is difficult to follow.143 With some imagination the leftmost head on the horizontal inscription could be a man with a beard. The head grapheme in the vertical line (Fig. 25a) could well be a representation of a head with a Canaanite “mushroom head” coiffure (Fig. 25b). 2. The problem of the vertical mem Examples of vertical Egyptian n hieroglyphs are indeed best known in the early Middle Kingdom Egyptian stelae, as Darnell et al. have correctly shown.144 However, it is a rare phenomenon even at the beginning of the Middle Kingdom, and it appears only as a marginal occurrence in inscriptions which would otherwise be comprised of regular horizontal examples of the hieroglyph n .145 However, the unusual positioning of the mem in the inscription of Wadi el-Óôl (Fig. 25b) may be due to its location in a horizontal line of writing, which keeps only one grapheme on the line, a rather non-Egyptian attitude. I would suggest that in this case, if applying the “Canaanite reading,” the uninitiated may have had in his mind images of other cursive signs that look like a “water” sign positioned vertically. Candidates for such visual borrowing during the late Middle Kingdom in Wadi el-Óôl may be the hieratic vertical ligature for Hr and other ligatures (Fig. 26). 3. The “human” grapheme The human grapheme with two raised arms (once) and one raised arm (twice) may be one and the same grapheme, but may just as well be two different ones. The “one raised arm”

143 144

145

ally overlooked by most scholars. The script of the Middle Kingdom in Sinai will be dealt with in a separate publication. DARNELL et al. 2005: 76. SASS forthcoming: 12–13, refutes this argument by citing the reservations of von Bissing and Sethe about putting too much weight for dating criteria on the unusual vertical position of some hieroglyphic signs. E.g., LIMME 1979: 18, vertical n ( ) only once, at the end of line 3. Otherwise, the hieroglyph n in the normal horizontal position appears 17 (!) times on this small funerary stela. This occurrence is one of the examples mentioned by DARNELL et al. 2005: 78, fig. 6e.

148

Orly Goldwasser

Fig. 26 Egyptian graffiti from Wadi el-Óôl (a: after DARNELL 2002: pl. 109b, no. 28; b: ibid.: pl. 110b, no. 29; c: ibid.: pl. 111b, no. 30)

Fig. 27 Inscription no. 33 from Wadi Maghârah (Sinai I: pl. XII, no. 33)

Fig. 28 Examples for hieroglyphic sign A1 from two graffiti (a: Nubia, b: Wadi Hammâmât) (a: HINTZE and R EINEKE 1989: Part II: 63, no. 195 with fig.; b: GOYON 1957: 94, no. 74)

grapheme (in both inscriptions it looks very similar) resembles all sorts of cursive variations of the classifier (A1) [HUMAN+MALE]. A plethora of variations of this sign is well known through the whole Middle Kingdom, and is also well known in

many variations in Sinai (e.g., Figs. 17a; 27, col. x+4; 28a–b). It also appears on scarabs where it sometimes merges with other “human” signs such as / / (variations of A17), and (A84146) 147 (see Fig. 29). At least in the vertical inscription

146

147

This sign appears on a rare scarab of Amenemhat III (Fig. 29c), which Keel dates to the reign of the king, but which may well belong to the 13th Dynasty or even later, as it already shows the typical “Canaanite” style.

Compare REISNER 1955: 66, fig. 14, nos. 355–357. The date of the scarabs is 13th Dynasty. I thank Christa Mlinar for calling my attention to these examples.

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 149

Fig. 29 Three scarabs with human figures (a: after TUFNELL 1984: 277, pl. IX, no. 1476 [Tell elAjjul]; b: after EGGLER and KEEL 2006: 223, no. 50; c: after KEEL 1997: 793, fig. 34)

Fig. 30 Examples of hybrid hieroglyphic signs (O1+O4+ O6) from Sinai and Wadi el-Hudi (a: Sinai I: pl. XII, no. 33, col. 3; b: ibid.: pl. XI, no. 35, col. 1; c: ibid.: pl. XL, no. 131, edge, col. 2; d: ibid.: pl. LIII, no. 142, n. edge, col. 2; e: FAKHRY 1952: 36, fig. 28, col. 2; f: ibid.: col. 3)

it can be a classifier (for the tentative reading, see below). Also without any knowledge of Egyptian, anybody living in a “hieroglyphic environment” would easily recognize the ubiquitous human classifier. The human classifier has a very salient presence, and in many examples (a phenomenon known in all periods and genres of Egyptian inscriptions) it may be slightly larger than its neighboring signs, or clearly separated from them. The pictorial salience of this classifier is also known in other pictorial writings, such as Luwian.148 Nevertheless, the variation of the man with the two raised arms (Fig. 25b) looks more like the signifier of the Canaanite grapheme h, as it keeps the most important part of the grapheme – the square raised hands.

However, it is important to note that in hieroglyphic inscriptions in Sinai as well as from Wadi el-Hudi in Egypt, there are cases of “hybrid forms,” which are a clear result of a mixture of the hieroglyphs pr (O1) and h (O4) (Fig. 30). Moreover, it seems that the two hieroglyphs were indeed understood as a “minimal building” by the Egyptian scribes, and this closeness of meaning created the hybrids. The Sinai inscriptions of Wadi Maghârah present also a mixture of Hwt (O6) and pr (O1) signs (Fig. 22g, Fig. 30a–c). The bet that resembles the O4 sign in Wadi el-Óôl could be part of the process of sign “reproduction,” where the writer in Egypt presents a sign he knows and understands as “house.” It should also be noted that, according to Hamilton’s publication, a bet based on O4 may have existed in Sinai as well (Fig. 31).

4. The bet of Wadi el-Óôl Another reason for the anteriority of the Wadi elÓôl inscriptions is found by Darnell in the type of bet that appears in the horizontal inscription. This bet, according to Darnell et al., is not known in Sinai, but resembles the later Canaanite bet and the South Arabian bet.149 This fact leads him to suggest that the Wadi el-Óôl bet is the earlier prototype that will surface again in Canaan a few centuries later. Sass correctly questions this reasoning, suggesting that “If anything, these different bets transpose Darnell’s order, for they make the Wadi el-Óôl inscriptions outwardly closer to the 12th-century Lachish bowl fragment than are the Protosinaitic inscriptions.” Sass goes on to suggest that this is just another variant of the bet sign.150

148

149 150

E.g., BUNNES 2005. I am grateful to Benjamin Sass for this reference. DARNELL et al. 2005: 77. SASS forthcoming.

Fig. 31 A special variation of bet in Protosinaitic inscription no. 353 (after HAMILTON 2006: 347, fig. A.17)

150

Orly Goldwasser

5. The “two hands” grapheme I agree with Hamilton, who cautiously suggests that the second and tenth sign in Fig. 25a may be versions of the Egyptian hieroglyph kA (D28).151 In this case, the Canaanite writer could not retrieve from his memory the correct kap grapheme (palm of the hand in upright position [see above, p. 140], no hieroglyphic model!) and, in searching for the image, confused it with another picture with a similar phonetic value and similar meaning – the Egyptian hieroglyph kA, “raised hands with open palms,” that he recalled, maybe even from its very common use on Canaanite scarabs (e.g., Figs. 1b, 11a, 32). The Wadi el-Óôl kA shares with the Middle Bronze Canaanite scarabs the representation of the handpalms as circles. Such an identification may also yield an attractive (even if highly tentative) reading for the vertical inscription (Fig. 25a):152

Fig. 32 Scarab from Tell el-Ajjul with kA sign (after TUFNELL 1984: pl. L, no. 2954)

This translation fits well with most of the short Egyptian inscriptions in the area, as these contain a title followed by a personal name. P-k-<-l may be the name of a place or of a water spring. In most cases in Egyptian inscriptions, even if short and cursive, the [HUMAN+MALE] classifier would appear after the personal name, and not after the title (i.e., not between the title and the name). However, in the neighboring inscription of Bbi, “the general of the Asiatics,” which Darnell

considers to be related to the Protocanaanite inscriptions, we find in the fourth column the title sinw (translated by Darnell as “express courier”) followed by a personal name.156 Here also the classifier appears between the title and the name. The “express courier” carries the long name ¡rnb-xAswt-m-s(A).f,157 which presents the god Horus as the master of the “foreign lands.” The name may be very meaningful in the case of a courier that moves between Egypt and the Levant. Looking for comparisons for the letters of the alphabetic inscriptions of Wadi el-Óôl in fully cursive “papyri hieratic” or even lapidary hieratic (as suggested by Darnell et al. and Hamilton158) seems to me, again, methodologically precarious. The inscriptions are clearly written by untrained hands (see, e.g., the H sign in Fig. 25b), and obviously by people of a low level of literacy of any kind.159 It is hard to believe that these people, most probably Canaanites, had any access to a “papyri hieratic” level of Egyptian writing. One

151

155

m-k-t-r 153 (+ classifier) a-w-t-(i)154 p-k-<-l155 (The) besieger ytwu, “El’s trickle”

152

153

154

HAMILTON 2006: 329–330. In n. 3 on p.329, he recalls the early suggestion of Mallon, who considered this sign to be the origin of kap. I am grateful to Prof. Steve Fassberg from the Department of Hebrew Language at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for discussing the readings with me. All mistakes are, however, mine. As there are no written records of the Semitic dialect that was spoken in Canaan and Egypt during the Middle Bronze Age, all suggestions remain purely hypothetical. For k-t-r see BDB: 509b. The word means literally “the one who encircles.” In this case it may be a military title, or a title taken from the sphere of the nomads or shepherds. a-w-t-(i) ytwu, BDB: 736b; ZADOK 1998: 32, n. 53, p. 142, 162–163, 441; NAVEH 1979: 186. Naveh relates the name to the Arabic root ©awT, meaning “to help,” “to rescue.” The name surfaces in the written repertoire rather late.

156 157

158 159

For p-k see BDB: 810a. P-k may also be a noun, “juglet,” and in this case it may refer to an offering. I thank Prof. Fassberg for this suggestion. Note the little space between a-w-t-(i) and the following p-k. As no standardization or rules of writing yet existed, is it possible that the writer instinctively created a little space before the following word? There is also a little space between p-k and <-l. DARNELL et al. 2005: 88. “Horus, the Lord of the Foreign Lands, is behind him”. The combination ¡r-nb-xAswt is rare (not mentioned in LGG). It may allude to a Horus which is dominant on Near Eastern seals and Canaanite scarabs of the Hyksos period (see discussion in Part I), and KEEL 1989a: 276–277. DARNELL et al. 2005: 91; HAMILTON 2006: 290 and passim. For the opposite opinion, see SATZINGER 2002.

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 151

should keep in mind, however, that Egyptian is very different from any other script. Hieroglyphic Egyptian (and to a certain extent good cursive hieroglyphs as well) is an “open,” friendly system, where the uninitiated beholder can identify iconically160 (but not read!) many meaningful forms due to the high level of the iconicity of the script. The level of iconicity of hieratic is emphatically reduced, and very few signs can be identified iconically without a structured study and through knowledge of Egyptian. CONCLUSION In this article, I have tried to substantiate, sign after sign, the suggestion that most of the prototypes for the graphemes of the Protosinaitic script are to be found in the Middle Kingdom inscriptions in Sinai.161 Secondly, I suggested that the graphemes that do not have hieroglyphic prototypes were probably created after prototypes in “the real world.” Some graphemes oscillate between hieroglyphic and concrete referents as models. My working hypothesis was that the inventors of the script did not know how to read or write Egyptian, and were only acquainted with the pictorial level of the script. Accordingly, much of the systemic aspect of the Egyptian script was unavailable to them. They had no access to the monoconsonantal signs, which could otherwise have provided an elegant solution for their needs. It is indeed unnecessary to turn to the hieratic script, or even to lapidary hieratic, in search of prototypes. It seems extremely unlikely that people of a low level of literacy would have had access to specific hieratic signs, would have known to recognize them, to isolate them, and to “translate” them back to the correct icon.162 Serabit el-Khâdim may have been a natural cultural site for the creation of the new script. A melt-

160

161

162

Sometimes “wrongly” from the point of view of the Egyptian system. A similar suggestion was early put forward by GARDINER 1916, then enthusiastically by ULLMAN 1927, BUTIN 1936, and later by SASS 1988. Other Egyptologists after Gardiner suggested seeing hieratic as the source of the alphabet (e.g., ZAUZICH 2003), or Canaan as its place of birth. HAMILTON 2006 and DARNELL et al. 2005 believe in a “mixed” source – hieroglyphic and hieratic (including cursive hieroglyphs). However, detailed paleographic comparison to the Sinai Egyptian corpus was very limited. It seems that Hamilton is aware, at least to a certain

ing-pot, a place of a “plurality of cultural contexts,”163 yet with its residents completely cut off from the outside world, Serabit el-Khâdim was “a world unto itself.” The workers in the mines stayed for long days and nights together in the isolated desert, secluded in their camps, and they may have not been in direct touch with the higher level Egyptian administration at the site. The Lady of Turquoise governed their life. When she wanted, they succeeded in their mission; when she turned her back on them, they failed. The difficult and dangerous work probably strengthened the feeling of personal piety among the workers who saw the Goddess as personally ruling their fate. The Egyptians nearby also prayed and gave tribute to the Goddess. But they also did something else: they wrote. Their names stood with her and by her in the temple for eternity. Their requests remained with her even when those who had made the requests were gone. We may imagine or postulate that during a visit to the temple, the inventors or their circles were shown some inscriptions which were of special meaning to them. Here was ¢bdd, the brother of the HoA n RTnw, of whom they had heard so much. They were shown the names of his people on the stela (Sinai 92), and the name of the one from the “house of silver”(Fig. 18a, l. 4). And again, on the other side of the stela, more names of people they had heard of, and the name of their Rêis (Fig. 18b, l. 3–8). Did they try to understand, did they see “house signs” and were told that it meant “house”? Did they see the pictures of the Rêis with his lifted arms – indeed as they knew the Rêis when he shouted to gather his people? Would these very people, in one of their next visits to the temple, leave their small block statues behind?164 Was it a special favor granted by the Egyptian administration to the rb nobnm,165 “chief of the miners”?

163

164 165

extent, of the problems of this reconstruction. In his final discussion he speaks of a few Semites that should have had “a fairly deep knowledge of the pre-existent Egyptian usages for the signs,” HAMILTON 2006: 294. Such a “plurality” provided according to Darnell a suitable setting for the invention of the script. See DARNELL et al. 2005: 91. See also above, p. 147. See SASS 1988. “N-a-m, the chief of miners.” On the possible reading of N-a-m as a personal name, see SASS 1988: 15, citing Albright. Was N-a-m a Rêis or was he the chief of all workers? On the Egyptian private monuments in the temple, see VALBELLE and BONNET 1996: 154–159.

152

Orly Goldwasser

Was it the forlorn remote place, the pressure, the sudden acknowledgment of an option of “eternalizing the name,” of “contacting the gods” that led the Canaanites to this great invention? Did the unusual daily encounter of non-literate Semites with the product of the highest level of the Egyptian writing culture – the seductive pictorial hieroglyphic script – in hundreds of examples, in hundreds of repetitive pictures, in the middle of the desert, create the need and the urge to write? Was it the constant “writing to the gods in pictures” of the Egyptians that created a strong psychological pressure and a feeling of “we could also” among the Canaanites who worked in the mines? Did such a scenario finally lead to the invention of the alphabetic script? However, before we can accept the date and the completely hypothetical reconstruction of the background of the invention, two major issues, lately put forward in detail by Sass should be dealt with. Sass correctly identified two crucial issues which he dubbed the “Dabca absence” and “standstill.” The “Dabca absence” questions the proposed date of the invention at the end of the 12th Dynasty in the light of the complete absence to date of any Protosinaitic inscriptions in Tell elDabca. If this is indeed the date, why was not any inscription found in Avaris, the capital of the Canaanites? The “standstill” question demands an explanation for the much delayed process of linearization or, as Sass puts it, “the very gradual loss . . . of the ‘Proto-Sinaitic’ look and transition to linear shapes of letters.”166 This process starts to be visible only around the 13th–12th centuries BCE. What kept this great invention at bay for a few hundred years? Why didn’t the Hyksos rulers adopt the “Canaanite script”? The answer in my opinion is a cultural one. This “caravan-script” was born on the fringe of Canaanite society. The invention was not born in the milieu of the educated Canaanite-Egyptian scribes, but in that of the Canaanite miners and

166 167

168

169 170

SASS 2004/2005: 149. A great modern civilization, the Chinese civilization, piously keeps until today the extraordinarily rich nonalphabetic script, which incorporates thousands of signs. See GOLDWASSER 1995. On the psychological “seduction” of the pictorial script, see GOLDWASSER and LAOR 1991. GUNN 1943: 56. On the “competition” theory, see SASS 2004/2005: 155–156. Sanders does not believe in such a “compe-

caravan population, whose way of thinking was not “contaminated” by the rules of other writing systems known at the time. The people that invented the script belonged to the lower echelons of Egyptian and Canaanite societies. There was no power-holder or establishment that would have been interested in this “limited” and cumbersome-looking way of writing. The alphabet may indeed be the “better” system in the eyes of the modern Western beholder, but this is a very subjective view. As semiotic systems, the Egyptian system and the cuneiform system are both much richer, rewarding communication systems.167 They present the reader with a great deal of extra meta-linguistic information, which is embedded in the complex structure of logograms and classifiers.168 One is reminded of the remarks of the outstanding English Egyptologist Battiscombe Gunn, who was very well versed in Ancient Egyptian writings, in response to the courageous experiment of a scribe of the Late Period, in which the scribe attempted to write parts of an inscription in mono-consonantal signs: “ ... the complexity of normal Egyptian writing, with its determinatives and word-signs, its traditional differences in orthography for different words having the same consonants ... renders it much more easily readable than the single consonants in an unbroken succession (my italics) ... maybe it is now time to stop chiding the Egyptians for not ‘taking the step which seems to us so obvious’, and discarding all but their unilateral signs, availing themselves ... of the alphabet which they had already to hand.”169 Gunn probably comes as close as one can get in our days to the point of view of an Ancient Near Eastern scribe. The new system surely seemed cumbersome and primitive, and no competition170 for the “great” script systems of the Near East. The great invention did not go completely unnoticed. Some knowledgeable Ugaritic scribes did not hesitate to imitate the much simplified communication option, obviously grasping the

tition,” stating: “The alphabet does not pose a challenge to his hegemony during its first 500 years. … In this earliest phase, the alphabet is the quick and dirty tool of foreign workers, scrawled in desolate places: the mines, the gulch of terror. There is no high culture here. While it may have been used for low-budget scribal record-keeping, the alphabet’s first documented use boils down to the most basic and touching form of communication – ‘I was here.’” (SANDERS 2004: 44).

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 153

great advantages of the system. How they came to know about the script is hard to assess. However, while embracing the new option, they domesticated it completely into their cultural repertoire, and it surfaced on the stage of Late Bronze culture as a new “Ugaritic invention.” The Ugaritic domestication process robbed the script of one of its great advantages for the amateur writer, namely, the mnemonic connection between the “name” of the letter and the form of its grapheme. This connection was negligible for trained scribes, who probably were not too appreciative of the “primitive” (and maybe still very unstable) forms of the Protocanaanite graphemes. Nevertheless, it seems that the institutional Ancient Near East was not yet ready to give up its elite communication systems. The “Ugaritic experiment” died out when the Ugaritic civilization came to its end. Regarding the Protosinaitic script and its Protocanaanite successors as the “script of the caravans,” or, better, the “script of the poor,” easily explains its absence from monuments in Tell elDabca. The acculturated elite which lived in the “Capital of the Hyksos” was busy imitating the prestigious elite symbols, Egyptian and Near Eastern. Near Eastern and Minoan style gold finds, together with daggers and knifes of luxury pro-

duction, illustrate the best Near Eastern tradition,171 while wide-range usurpation of non-royal and royal Egyptian statuary show a real assimilation effort. It is needless to argue why this kind of society and its power-holders would show no interest in the “script of the poor.” Perhaps one day, on the back of a stela or of a statue, in Tell elDabca or in Tanis,172 a Protosinaitic scrabbled graffito will be found. However, Canaanite caravans, with workers, soldiers, and their families, continued to wander in Egypt and in Canaan, probably mainly in Southern Canaan during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. The knowledge of the script continued to move in these very circles. No schools and no scribes were involved. People learned from each other the forms of the letters, in order to write their names, or to write the name of their god. Being amateurs, they kept the icons, as it helped them to remember the forms. In any event, no large scale writing was involved and no conditions for any cursive developments or standardization were created. All this would have to wait until the official establishments of the 9th century states adopted the “script of the poor” and made it the new official script of the Near East. With its adoption by the Greeks, it became the script of most Western civilizations.173

References Graphemes of the Protosinaitic Script No. 1 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 7 No. 8 No. 9 No. 10 No. 11 No. 12 No. 13

171

172

after HAMILTON 2006: 31, fig. 2.1 after ibid.: 68, fig. 2.18 after ibid.: 78, fig. 2.20 after ibid.: 88, fig. 2.23 after ibid.: 58, fig. 2.13 after SASS 1988: 183, table 4 (y/379) after HAMILTON 2006: 118, fig. 2.33 after ibid.: 128, fig. 2.35 after ibid.: 139, fig. 2.40 after ibid.: 163, fig. 2.48; 164, fig. 2.50 after ibid.: 182, fig. 2.55

E.g., BIETAK and HEIN 1994: 97–98 (dagger), 211–213 (golden dog pendant). Most of the stone monuments of Avaris were moved to Pi-Ramesses and then to Tanis. HABACHI 1954: 458–470;

No. 14 No. 16 No. 17 No. 19

after ibid.: 190, fig. 2.59 after ibid.: 213, fig. 2.66 after SASS 1988: 183, table 4 (r/357) after HAMILTON 2006: 233, fig. 2.71

The missing link – the case of bet l. 1 l. 2 l. 3 l. 4 l. 5

173

after HAMILTON 2006: 40, fig. 2.4 after ibid.: 41, fig. 2.5 after ibid.: 41, fig. 2.5 after ibid.: 41, fig. 2.6 after ibid.: 48, fig. 2.9

HABACHI 2001: 115, 118; VAN SETERS 1966: 126–137, YOYOTTE 1971–1972: 172–173; BIETAK 1975: 213–214, 219. For an overview of the history of the alphabet, see NAVEH 1997.

154

Orly Goldwasser

Table The letters of the Protosinaitic alphabet and their presumed correspondents from Middle Kingdom hieroglyphic inscriptions in Sinai (mainly from Wadi Maghârah and Rod el-cAîr) (The given numbers refer to the Sinaitic corpus. All Protosinaitic signs have been reproduced after SASS 1988: 183, table 4, except those with preceding “H,” which follow HAMILTON 2006. The hieroglyphic signs have been taken from Sinai I) I am grateful to Nicola Math for her help in creating this table as well as her assistance with the other figures

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 155

Orly Goldwasser

156

References for the Table Protosinaitic A 349 A 345 A 346 A 348 A 351 A 346 A 349

B 353 B 346 B 352 B 353 B 376 B 363 B 365b

8

A 346

B 379

9

A H349

10

A 346

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

A 345 A 357 A 352 A 353 A 352 A 346 A 357 A 357 A 348 A 346 A 361

B 353

C 377 C 348 C 357 C 345

Egyptian Hieroglyphs D H362 D E F H353 H352 H367 D 376 D E 354 379

C 360 C 353

b 53, l. 5 b 32, l. 5 b 53, l. 14 b 24a, l. 3 b 23, l. 2 b 523 b 35, col. 4 b 142, n. e., col. 4

c 166, l. 1 c 92, w. f., l. 8 c 90, l. 18 c 35, col. 9 c 35, l. 1 c 517 c 106, s. e., l. 2

a 35, l. 2

b 35, col. 6

c 35, col. 6

a 27, col. 4 a 35, l. 1 a 23, l. 5 a 23, col. 3 a 27, col. 3

b 23, col. 7 b 27, col. 2 b 23, l. 4 b 90, tab., col. 9 b 33, col. 6

c 23, l. 2 c 30, col. 1 c 43 c 89, r. s. c 30, col. 1

a 23, l. 2

C 363

D 345

E 348

F 376

B C D 346 353 359 B C D E 352 346 361 365a B C D E 353 358 346 345 B C D 357 375 355 B C D H352 356 H352 B C D E 349 350 351 380 B C D E 352 H349 376 364

B 349 B 357 B 380

a 89 a 28, col. 1 a 54, l. 7 a 24a, l. 2 a 27, col. 8 a 522 a 35, col. 2

C 365a

D 360

AA BB H362 375a

d e 142, s. e., col. 2 500

d 53, l. 9 d 27, col. 3

d 23, l. 3

e f 92, s. e., l. 1 517

e 106, s. e., l. 3

d 523

d 516 d 30, col. 4

d 54, l. 10 e 516 e 56, col. 1

a 53, l. 1; 53, l. 3; 53, l. 6 a b 35, l. 2 33, l. 2 a 23, l. 3 a 514 a b 35, l. 2 27, col. 2

e 165, l. x+7

f 56, l. 1

aa 53, l. 1

bb 501

Bibliography ALBRIGHT, W. F.

ARNOLD, DO.

1966

forthc. Image and Identity: Egypt’s Eastern Neighbors, East Delta People and the Hyksos, in: V. DAVIES (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (13th–17th Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects, Leuven.

The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Their Decipherment, Harvard Theological Studies 22, Cambridge, MA.

ALI, M. S. 2002

Hieratische Ritzinschriften aus Theben, Göttinger Orientforschung IV/34, Wiesbaden.

ANTHES, R. 1928

ATZLER, M. 1972

Die Felsinschriften von Hatnub, UGAÄ 9, Leipzig.

Einige Bemerkungen zu ten, CdE 47, 17–44.

ARNOLD, DI.

AUFRÈRE, S. H.

1991

Building in Egypt. Pharaonic Stone Masonry, New York/Oxford.

2002

2002

The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret III at Dahshur. Architectural Studies, New York.

und

im Alten Ägyp-

The Deserts of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Upper Egyptian Nomes during the Middle Kingdom, 207–214, in: R. FRIEDMAN (ed.), Egypt and Nubia: Gifts of the Desert, London.

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 157

BAINES, J. and EYRE, C.

BIETAK, M. and HEIN, I.

1983

1994

Four Notes on Literacy, GM 61, 65–96.

BDB = BROWN F., DRIVER S. R., and BRIGGS C. A. 1972

A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford.

BECK, P. 2002

Imagery and Representation. Studies in the Art and Iconography of Ancient Palestine: Collected Articles, Edited by Nadav Na’aman, Uza Zevulun, and Irit Ziffer, Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Occasional Publications 3, Tel Aviv.

BECKERATH, J. von 1999

Handbuch der Ägyptischen Königsnamen, MÄS 49, Mainz.

BEN-TOR, D. 1997

1998

The Relations between Egypt and Palestine in the Middle Kingdom as Reflected by Contemporary Canaanite Scarabs, IEJ 47, 162–189. The Relations between Egypt and Palestine during the Middle Kingdom as Reflected by Contemporary Canaanite Scarabs, 149–163, in: C. EYRE (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists. Cambridge, 3–9 September 1995, OLA 82, Leuven.

BIETAK, M. 1975

1979

1984

Tell el-Dabca II. Der Fundort im Rahmen einer archäologisch-geographischen Untersuchung über das ägyptische Ostdelta, UZK 1, Vienna.

Pharaonen und Fremde. Dynastien im Dunkel, exhibition catalogue: Historisches Museum der Stadt Wien, Vienna.

BLACKMAN, A.M. 1915

The Rock Tombs of Meir, Part II, London.

BRIQUEL-CHANTONNET, F. 1998

Les inscriptions protosinaitiques, 56–60, in: D. VALBELLE and C. BONNET (eds.), Le Sinai durant l’antiquité et le moyen age. 4000 ans d’histoire pour un désert. Actes du Colloque « Sinai » qui s’est tenu à l’UNESCO du 19 au 21 septembre 1997, Paris.

BUDGE, E.A.W. (ed.) 1912

Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, &c., in the British Museum. Part III, London.

1913

Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, &c., in the British Museum. Part IV, London.

BUNNENS, G. 2005

From Carchemish to Nimrud. Between Visual Writing and Textual Illustration, 21–24, in: P. TALON and V. VAN DER STEDE (eds.), Si un homme ... Textes offerts en hommage à André Finet, Subartu 16, Turnhout.

BUTIN, R. 1936

Some Egyptian Hieroglyphs of Sinai and Their Relationship to the Hieroglyphs of the ProtoSinaitic Semitic Alphabet, Mizraim 2, 52–56.

CERNÝ, J.

Egyptology and the Urban Setting, 95–144, in: K.R. WEEKS (ed.), Egyptology and the Social Sciences: 5 Studies, Cairo.

1935

Zum Königreich des aA-zH-Ra Nehesi, SAK 11, 59–75.

1972

Semites in Egyptian Mining Expeditions to Sinai, Archiv Orientální 7, 384–389.

CHASSINAT, E. and DAUMAS, F. Le Temple de Dendera. Tome septième, Cairo.

1990

Zur Herkunft des Seth von Avaris, Ä&L 1, 9–16.

COLLESS, B.E.

1992

Die Chronologie Ägyptens und der Beginn der Mittleren Bronzezeit-Kultur, Ä&L 3, 29–37.

1988

Recent Discoveries Illuminating the Origin of the Alphabet, Abr-Nahrain 26, 30–67.

1996

Avaris, the Capital of the Hyksos – Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dabca, The first Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation Distinguished Lecture in Egyptology, London.

1990

The Proto-Alphabetic Inscriptions of Sinai, AbrNahrain 28, 1–52.

1998

2003

Gedanken zur Ursache der ägyptisierenden Einflüsse in Nordsyrien in der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, 165–176, in: H. GUKSCH and D. POLZ (eds.), Stationen – Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens Rainer Stadelmann gewidmet, Mainz. Two Ancient Near Eastern Temples with Bent Axis in the Eastern Nile Delta, Ä&L 13, 13–38.

COUYAT, J. and MONTET, P. 1913

CROSS, F.M. and LAMBDIN, T.O. 1960

Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications, CChEM 8, Vienna.

1999

Eine palatiale Anlage der frühen Hyksoszeit (Areal F/II). Vorläufige Ergebnisse der Grabungskampagne 2006 in Tell el-Dabca, Ä&L 16, 61–76.

Tell el-Dabca IX. Eine Plansiedlung des frühen Mittleren Reiches, UZK 15, Vienna.

DARNELL, J.C. 2002

Theban Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian Western Desert, Volume I: Gebel Tjauti Rock Inscriptions 1–45 and Wadi el-¡ôl Rock Inscriptions 1–45, OIP 119, Chicago.

2003

Die frühalphabetischen Inschriften im Wadi el%ôl, in: W. SEIPEL (ed.), Der Turmbau zu Babel.

BIETAK, M. and FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I. 2006

A Ugaritic Abecedary and the Origins of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet, BASOR 160, 21–26.

CZERNY, E.

BIETAK M. and CZERNY E. (eds.) 2004

Les inscriptions hiéroglyphiques et hiératiques du Ouâdi Hammâmât, MIFAO 34, Cairo.

158

Orly Goldwasser

Ursprung und Vielfalt von Sprache und Schrift, 3a: Schrift, Vienna/Milan, 165–171.

2006

DARNELL, J.C., DOBBS-ALLSOPP, F.W., LUNDBERG, M.L., MCCARTER, and P.K., ZUCKERMAN, B. 2005

Two Early Alphabetic Inscriptions from the Wadi el-%ôl. New Evidence for the Origin of the Alphabet from the Western Desert of Egypt (together with: M.S. CHESSON et al., Results of the 2001 Kerak Plateau Early Bronze Age Survey), AASOR 59, Boston, MA, 67–124.

DRIVER, G. R. 1976

Semitic Writing. From Pictograph to Alphabet, 3rd rev. ed., London.

The Essence of Amarna Monotheism, 267–279, in: G. MOERS, H. BEHLMER, K. DEMUSS, and K. WIDMAIER (eds.), jn.t Dr.w. Festschrift für Friedrich Junge, vol. I, Göttingen.

GOLDWASSER, O. and LAOR, N. 1991

The Allure of the Holy Glyphs: A Psycholinguistic Perspective on the Egyptian Script, GM 123, 37–51.

GOYON, G. 1957

Nouvelles inscriptions rupestres du Wadi Hammamat, Paris.

GUNN, B. 1943

Notes on the Naukratis Stela, JEA 3, 55–59.

DUNANT, M.

HABACHI, L.

1950

1954

Khatâ‘na-Qantir: Importance, ASAE 52, 443–562.

2001

Tell el-Dabca I. Tell el-Dabca and Qantir – The Site and Its Connection with Avaris and Piramesse. Aus dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von Eva-Maria Engel unter der Mitarbeit von Peter Jánosi und Christa Mlinar, UZK 2, Vienna.

Fouilles de Byblos, Tome II, 1933–1938, Atlas, Paris.

EDER, C. 1995

Die ägyptischen Motive in der Glyptik des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes zu Anfang des 2. Jts. v. Chr., OLA 71, Leuven.

EGGLER, J. and KEEL, O.

HAMILTON, G.J.

2006

2006

Corpus der Siegel-Amulette aus Jordanien. Vom Neolithikum bis zur Perserzeit, OBO SA 25, Fribourg/Göttingen.

The Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Scripts, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 40, Washington D.C.

FAKHRY, A.

HELCK, W.

1952

1971

The Egyptian Deserts. The Inscriptions of the Amethyst Quarries at Wadi el Hudi, Cairo.

Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend. v. Chr., 2nd rev. ed., ÄA 5, Wiesbaden.

FISCHER, H.G.

HINTZE, F. and REINEKE W.F.

1976

1989

Archaeological Aspects of Epigraphy and Palaeography, 29–50, in: R. CAMINOS and H.G. FISCHER (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Epigraphy and Palaeography, New York.

GARDINER, A.H. 1916

The Egyptian Origin of the Semitic Alphabet, JEA 3, 1–16.

1957

Egyptian Grammar, Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, 3rd rev. ed., Oxford.

1961

Once again the Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions, JEA 48, 45–48.

KARKOWSKI, J. 1981

Protosinaitische Inschriften, LÄ 4, 1156–1159.

1985

Egyptian Scarabs from Western Asia from the Collections of the British Museum, OBO SA 3, Fribourg/Göttingen.

GOLDWASSER, O. 1995

From Icon to Metaphor: Studies in the Semiotics of the Hieroglyphs, OBO 142, Fribourg/Göttingen.

2002

Prophets, Lovers and Giraffes: Wor(l)d Classification in Ancient Egypt (with an Appendix by Matthias Müller), Classification and Categorisation in Ancient Egypt 3, Göttinger Orientforschungen IV/38, Wiesbaden.

2005

Where Is Metaphor? Conceptual Metaphor and Alternative Classification in the Hieroglyphic Script, Metaphor and Symbol 20/2, 95–113.

Faras V: The Pharaonic Inscriptions from Faras / Faras V : Inskrypcje faraonskie z Faras, Warszawa.

KAMMERZELL, F. 2001

GIVEON, R. 1982

Felsinschriften aus dem sudanesischen Nubien, Band 1, Teil I: Text, Teil II: Tafeln, Publikation der NubienExpedition 1961–1963, Berlin.

Die Entstehung die Alphabetreihe. Zum ägyptischen Ursprung der semitischen und westlichen Schriften, in: D. BORCHERS, F. KAMMERZELL, and S. WENINGER (eds.), Hieroglyphen, Alphabete, Schriftreformen: Studien zu Multiliteralismus, Schriftwechsel und Orthographieneuregelungen, Lingua Aegyptia – Studia Monographica 3, Göttingen, 117–158.

KEEL, O. 1980

La Glyptique, in: J. BRIEND and J.B. HUMBERT (eds.), Tell Keisan (1971–1976): une cité phénicienne en Galilée, OBO SA 1, Paris.

1989a Zur Identifikation des Falkenköpfigen auf den Skarabäen der ausgehenden 13. und 15. Dynastie, 243–280, in: O. KEEL, H. KEEL-LAU, and S. SCHROER (eds.), Studien zu den Stemplsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel, OBO 88, Fribourg/Göttingen. 1989b Der ägyptische Gott Ptah auf Siegelamuletten aus Palästina/Israel, 281–323, in: O. KEEL, H. KEELLAU, and S. SCHROER (eds.), Studien zu den Stemplsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel, OBO 88, Fribourg/Göttingen.

Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs 159

1995

Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Einleitung, OBO SA 10, Fribourg/Göttingen.

1996

Ein weiterer Skarabäus mit einer Nilpferdjagd, die Ikonographie der sogenannten Beamtenskarabäen und der ägyptische König auf Skarabäen vor dem Neuen Reich, Ä&L 6, 119–136.

CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN, and A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, OLA 149.2, Leuven-Paris-Dudley, MA. forthc. The Depiction of Animals on Scarabs of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine and Egypt (The Shelby White – Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications).

1997

Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel, Katalog Band I, OBO SA 13, Fribourg/Göttingen

1998

Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible, Sheffield.

1928

Byblos et l’Egypte. Quatre campagnes de fouilles à Gebeil, 1921 – 1922 – 1923 – 1924, vols. 1 (texte), Paris.

2004

Some of the earliest groups of locally produced scarabs from Palestine, 73–101, in: M. BIETAK and E. CZERNY (eds.), 2004.

1933

La stèle de l’an 400 retrouvée, Kêmi 4, 191–215.

KEEL, O. and UEHLINGER, C. 1998

Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, Minneapolis.

MONTET, P.

NAVEH, J. 1979

The Aramaic Ostraca from Tel Beer-Sheba (Seasons 1971–1976), Tel Aviv 6, 182–198.

1997

Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography, reprint of 2nd rev. ed. (1987), Jerusalem.

LAMBERT, E. J. 1914

Hieroglyphic texts from Egyptian Stelae, &c., in the British Museum. Part V, London.

ORNAN, T. 2005

LEMAIRE , A 2000

Les «Hyksos» et les débuts de l’écriture alphabétique au Proche-Orient, in: R. VIERS (ed.), Des signes pictographiques à l’alphabet. La communication écrite en Méditerranée, Actes du Colloque, 14 et 15 mai 1996 Villa grecque Kérylos Fondation Théodore Reinach (Beaulieu-sur-Mer), Paris, 103–133.

LGG = LEITZ, C. (ed.) 2002

Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, vols. I–VI, OLA 110–116, Leuven/Paris/Dudley, MA.

1993

The Sidon Scaraboid S/3487, Archaeology & History in Lebanon 24, 78–84.

LOUD, G. 1948

1917

Megiddo: Seasons of 1935–39, Chicago.

LUTZ, H. F.

PRISSE D’AVENNES, E.

2004

Atlas of Egyptian Art /Atlas de l’Art Égyptien (originally published as Atlas de l’Histoire de l’Art Égyptien, d’après les monuments, depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu’à la domination romaine [Paris : A. Bertrand, 1868–1878]), Cairo.

1955

Clay Sealings of Dynasty XIII from Uronarti Fort, Kush 3, 26–69.

RICHARDS, F. 2001 ROIK, E.

AL-MAQDISSI,

1988

M.

Identifying the Officials of the Fifteenth Dynasty, 171–193, in: M. BIETAK and E. CZERNY (eds.), 2004.

REISNER, G. A.

1927 Egyptian Tomb Steles and Offering Stones, Leipzig. 2001

Scarabs and Cylinders with Names, BSAE/ERA 29, London.

QUIRKE, S.

Stèles égyptiennes, Guides du Départment Égyptien 4, Brussels.

LOFFET, H.-C. 2006

The Graffiti of Pharaonic Egypt: Scope and Roles of Informal Writings (c. 3200–332 B.C.), PdÄ 17, Leiden/Boston/Cologne.

PETRIE, W. M. F.

Granulation and Glass: Chronological and Stylistic Investigations at Selected Sites, ca. 2500–1400 B.C.E., BASOR 290, 29–94.

LIMME, L. 1979

PEDEN, A. J. 2001

1991

LILYQUIST, C.

The Triumph of the Symbol. Pictorial Representation of Deities in Mesopotamia and the Biblical Image Ban, OBO 213, Fribourg/Göttingen.

Kurzbericht über die syrischen Ausgrabungen in Mišrife – Qatna, MDOG 133, 141–155.

The Anra Scarab: An Archaeological and Historical Approach, BAR Intern 919, Oxford. Das altägyptische Wohnhaus und seine Darstellung im Flachbild, Europäische Hochschulschriften 38/15, Frankfurt am Main.

MLINAR, C.

SADEK, A. I.

2001

Die Skarabäen aus dem Grabungsareal A/II-o/14 – A/II-p/15 von Tell el-Dabca, Ä&L 11, 223–264.

1980

2004

The Scarabs Workshop of Tell el-Dabca, 107–140, in: M. BIETAK and E. CZERNY (eds.), 2004.

SANDERS, S.L.

2006

Palästinensische Skarabäen aus einem Grab der frühen Hyksoszeit in Tell el-Dabca, 213–247, in: E.

2004

The Amethyst Mining Inscriptions of Wadi el-Hudi, Vol. 1: Text, Warminster. What Was the Alphabet for? The Rise of Written Vernaculars and the Making of Israelite National Literature, Maarav 11, 25–56.

160

Orly Goldwasser

SASS, B. 1988

TEISSIER, B. The Genesis of the Alphabet and Its Development in the Second Millennium B.C., ÄAT 13, Wiesbaden.

2004/2005 The Genesis of the Alphabet and Its Development in the Second Millennium B.C. – Twenty Years Later, De Kêmi à Birît Nâri 2, 147–166. 2005

The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium: the West Semitic Alphabet ca. 1150–850 BCE/The Antiquity of the Arabian, Greek and Phrygian Alphabets, Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Occasional Publications 4, Tel Aviv.

forthc. Wadi el-Hôl and the Alphabet, in: C. ROCHE (ed.), Du Sapounou au Saphon, Paris. SATZINGER, H. 2002

Syllabic and Alphabetic Script, or the Egyptian Origin of the Alphabet, Aegyptus 82, 15–26.

SCANDONE MATTHIAE, G. 2004

Les scarabées d’Ebla, 195–202, in: M. BIETAK and E. CZERNY (eds.), 2004.

1996

Egytian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age, OBO SA 11, Fribourg/ Göttingen.

TUFNELL, O. 1975

Seal Impressions from Kahun Town and Uronarti Fort, JEA 61, 67–90.

1984

Studies on Scarab Seals: Volume Two. Scarab Seals and Their Contribution to the History in the Early Second Millennium B.C., Part 2 (Inventory – Plates – Index), Warminster.

ULLMAN, B.L. 1927

The Origin and Development of the Alphabet, AJA 31, 311–328.

VALBELLE, D. and BONNET, C. 1996

Le Sanctuaire d’Hathor maîtresse de la turquoise, Paris.

VAN SETERS, J. 1966

The Hyksos. A New Investigation, New Haven/London.

SCHNEIDER, T.

WARD, W.A.

1998

Ausländer in Ägypten während des Mittleren Reiches und der Hyksoszeit. Teil I: Die ausländischen Könige, ÄAT 42/1, Wiesbaden.

1978

Foreign Egypt: Egyptology and the Concept of Cultural Appropriation, Ä&L 13, 155–161.

1926–1963 Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache, Leipzig/ Berlin.

2003

Studies on Scarab Seals: Volume I: Pre-12th Dynasty Scarab Amulets, Warminster.

Wb = ERMAN, A. and GRAPOW H. (eds.)

SCHROER, S.

WIMMER, S.J. and WIMMER-DWEIKAT, S.

1989

2001

Die Göttin auf den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel, 89–207, in: O. KEEL, H. KEEL-LAU, and S. SCHROER (eds.), Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel, OBO 88, Fribourg/Göttingen.

SETHE, K. 1935

Das hieroglyphische Schriftsystem, Glückstadt/Hamburg.

SEYFRIED, K.-J. 1981

Beiträge zu den Expeditionen des Mittleren Reiches in die Ost-Wüste, HÄB 15, Hildesheim.

SHALOMI-HEN, R. 2006

The Writing of Gods. The Evolution of Divine Classifiers in the Old Kingdom, Classification and Categorisation in Ancient Egypt 4, Göttinger Orientforschungen IV/38, Wiesbaden.

The Alphabet from Wadi el-Hôl – A First Try, GM 180, 107–112.

YARDENI, A. 2004

Aventurelettres: L’histoire de l’alphabet, Jerusalem.

YOYOTTE, J. 1971–1972 Religion de l’Égypte Ancienne. Année[s] 1969–1970 et 1970–1971, Annuaire de l’E.P.H.E. Ve section – science religieuses 79, 157–195. ZÁBA, Z. 1974

Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia (Czechoslovak Concession), Prague.

ZADOK, R. 1998

The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography, OLA 28, Leuven.

Sinai I–II = GARDINER, A. H., PEET, T. E., and CERNÝ, J.

ZAUZICH, K.-T.

1952

The Inscription of Sinai Part I: Introduction and Plates, Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir 36, London.

2003

1955

The Inscription of Sinai Part II: Translations and Commentary, Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir 45, London.

ZIFFER, I. 1998

STADELMANN, R. 1967

Syrisch-palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten, PdÄ 5, Leiden.

1986

Vierhunderjahrstele, LÄ 6, 1039–1043.

Unsere Buchstaben – ägyptische Hieroglyphen, 183–189, in: W. SEIPEL (ed.), Der Turmbau zu Babel. Ursprung und Vielfalt von Sprache und Schrift, 3a: Schrift, Vienna/Milan. O my Dove, That Art in the Clefts of the Rock. The Doveallegory in Antiquity, Tel Aviv.

ZIVIE-COCHE, C. 2002

Sphinx. History of a Monument, Ithaca, N.Y./London.

PROVENANCE STUDY AND RE-EVALUATION OF THE CUNEIFORM DOCUMENTS FROM THE EGYPTIAN RESIDENCY AT TEL APHEK By Yuval Goren*, Nadav Na’aman*, Hans Mommsen** and Israel Finkelstein* INTRODUCTION Eight cuneiform tablets, two Egyptian inscriptions and a Hittite fragment of a bulla were found in the excavations of Building 1104 at Tel Aphek, dated to the 13th century BCE and interpreted by the excavators as an Egyptian residency (for summary discussions, see KOCHAVI 1990, esp. xiv–xix and plates 29–31; SINGER 1983a; for references, see HOROWITZ et al. 2006:29–38; for the archaeology of the site see BECK and KOCHAVI 1993; GADOT 2003). The diversity in the types of documents (lexical and administrative tablets, letters, a bulla, a faience seal and a faience plaque) and languages (Sumerian, Akkadian, Canaanite, Egyptian, and Hittite) uncovered at Aphek is unique in Late Bronze Canaan. This is remarkable since the residency of Aphek is quite small (about 400 square meters), compared to other, much larger Late Bronze Canaanite palaces, which yielded no more than a few cuneiform texts. An exception is Kamid el-Loz, where nine cuneiform tablets have been discovered. However, the latter site was the main Egyptian centre of northern Canaan and its prominent place in the Egyptian administrative system is well documented, unlike the residency of Aphek that is not mentioned in any document. The documents from Aphek were found scattered throughout the building. This could have been done by whoever assaulted the building, before it was put to the torch, or, the documents could have been stored in the residency’s upper storey and scattered when the building collapsed as a result of the heavy conflagration. The documents were all published and discussed in detail, so that only a short presentation is necessary. However, provenance studies carried out on five

* ** 1

Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University. University of Bonn. The petrographic study of the Aphek texts was carried out as part of a research project entitled: Provenance Study of the Corpus of Cuneiform Tablets from EretzIsrael. This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant No. 817/02-25.0). We wish to

of the cuneiform tablets and the Hittite Bulla by two of us using microarchaeological (petrographic – Goren) and elemental (neutron activation – Mommsen) methods, supply new data that necessitates some reevaluation and new interpretations of the documents, and of the role of the site in the Late Bronze Age. METHOD A. Microarchaeological Analysis The microarchaeological examination of five of the eight cuneiform tablets and the Hittite bulla followed the method and preparation processes advocated elsewhere (GOREN, FINKELSTEIN and NA’AMAN 2004: 4–22).1 In terms of the local availability of clays, Tel Aphek is located in an area dominated by brown alluvial soils, or vertisols. These are brown soils of valleys and plains that developed on ancient alluvium of Terra Rossa in the Mediterranean climatic zones. Their typical color is dark tan, often with reddish or dark gray shade due to the high iron contents (RABIKOVITCH 1981: 153–174). In the hilly area to the east of Aphek, hard limestone and dolomite of the Bina Formation (Turonian) is exposed. This lithology is typically represented by Terra Rossa soils. The petrographic study of selected pottery vessels from Aphek (undertaken by Goren) indicates that brown alluvial or Terra Rossa soils, which cannot be differentiated in petrographic thin sections of ceramics, were constantly used as the raw material for ceramic production at the site. The matrix of these ceramics contains high proportions of quartzitic silt, with high contents of “heavy minerals” including horn-

thank M. Kochavi from the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University, H. Katz, Head of the National Treasuries Division in the Israel Antiquities Authority, and O. Misch-Brandl, Curator of the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Antiquities in the Israel Museum, for their permit to sample the tablets and Hittite bulla.

162

Yuval Goren, Nadav Na’aman, Hans Mommsen and Israel Finkelstein

blende, mica and feldspar minerals, zircon, epidote, and opaques. The quartz is also represented in the sand sized fraction, together with some limestone and Nari. The external source of the silt-size quartz grains is considered to be an aeolian contribution to the soil. The largest amount of aeolian dust occurs in soils that developed on hard limestone and dolomitic limestone, in which the residual material released from the dissolution of the rocks makes only about 2% (ADANBAYEWITZ and WIEDER 1992). Hence, this overall profile is expected to represent the local ceramic products at Tel Aphek. B. ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) of minor and trace elements is much used to characterize and classify clay and ceramics and to determine their provenance (see for example MOMMSEN 2004). NAA is very well suited for measuring element concentration profiles of clays. It has low detection limits of about = 1 ppm (parts per million) for many elements and it also has small measurement errors of a few percent even for trace elements, since for the main elements of clay (Si, Al, O) only short-lived isotopes are formed by neutron irradiation. They decay after a few days and do not interfere with signals of other, longer-lived isotopes from trace elements. The concentrations of up to 30 elements, if present above detection limits, can be determined with the procedure applied in the NAA laboratory (in our case the Helmholtz-Institut fur Strahlen- und Kernphysik in the University of Bonn). Only a small amount of about 60–80 mg material is needed for the analysis. A few crumbs obtained by peeling (see above) are powdered in an agate mortar or the powder is obtained by moving a small drilling machine with a pure sapphire drill bit across a small area of a broken surface. To guarantee fixed measurement geometry, the powder of each sample is mixed with powder of cellulose (60 mg) and pressed into a pill of 10 mm diameter. Each pill is wrapped with a sheet of pure aluminum-foil to avoid loss of material. A set of 36 pills is then sent to the research reactor (in our case at Geesthacht near Hamburg), together with 4 pills of the pottery standard of known composition and a blank cellulose pill. The concentrations of this standard have been calibrated with the wellknown Berkeley pottery standard (PERLMAN and ASARO 1969) and checked with various commercially available and other standards (HEIN et al.

2002). The whole set is then irradiated for 90 min at a thermal neutron flux of 5 * 1013 neutrons/(cm2*s). After the transport of the samples to the laboratory (in Bonn), each sample is measured in varying energy ranges in the time period 5–24 days after the irradiation (these measurements are described at length in MOMMSEN et al. 1991). The measurement of 4 spectra of each sample allows many concentration values to be determined repeatedly on the basis of different gamma lines and the results to be confirmed. The final result is the elemental composition pattern of each sample, which is added to the (Bonn) data bank, which now constitutes more than 6000 samples from the entire eastern Mediterranean. This pattern of about 30 concentration values is assumed to be unique and characteristic for the production place or region. Local concentration patterns of different places have to be determined by reference material of known provenance like kiln wasters of pottery or, in the case of tablets, letters of archives known to have been locally produced. To compare the elemental patterns of samples and reference material and to form groups of samples of similar composition statistical grouping methods like cluster analysis (CA) or Principal Component Analysis (PCA) are usually applied. In Bonn a statistical filter method has been developed (BEIER and MOMMSEN 1992), which has the advantage, in comparison to usual methods, of being able to consider the experimental measuring errors of individual concentration values. Moreover, a possible dilution of a sample, for example as a result of a refinement procedure of the clay, can be corrected during the group forming procedure. This method, using statistical criteria, allows the hypothesis that a sample might belong to an already formed group that can be checked directly during the comparison. Only the concentration values are taken into consideration; no archaeological criteria are used as this could bias the results. TEXTUAL COMMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS Two Lexical Tablets Two lexical tablets were discovered in the excavations of Aphek. The first fragmented tablet is a lower left part of a lexical text (RAINEY 1975:125–128; HOROWITZ et al. 2006:29–31 [Aphek 1, IAA 90–251]). Two columns have been preserved: Sumerian words in the left hand col-

Provenance Study and Re-evaluation of the Cuneiform Documents from the Egyptian Residency at Tel Aphek

Fig. 1 Microscopic view of the letter from Ugarit in thin section, crossed polarizers. Field length: about 2.5 mm

Fig. 2 The Hittite bulla from Aphek

Fig. 3 Microscopic view of the Hittite bulla in thin section, crossed polarizers. Field length: about 2.5 mm

umn followed by a double Glossenkeil and a column of Akkadian words. The Sumerian sequence of words includes some agricultural terms (ploughing, wheat, spade?, ox) as well as some other nouns and adjectives (god, hand, large, battle?). Most of the Akkadian words are broken, the

163

three extant words may be restored thus: gišmar : gi-[iš?-mar?-ru?], ‘spade’; lúkúr : ta-a[m?-xa?-ru?], ‘battle’ (RÖLLIG 1979:126) or ta-á[r?-gi?-gi?], ‘evildoer’ HOROWITZ et al. 2006:30; gu4: al-p[u], ‘ox’. The first restoration is based on the assumption that the determinative is included in the transcription (see below the writing dUTU-ši). The second restoration, if correct, indicates unusual Akkadian equivalent for the Sumerian word. Another irregular trait in the Sumerian column is the complement -ši after dUTU (‘my Sun’, i.e., Majesty). It reflects the influence of letter correspondence on the lexical scribal tradition at Aphek (SINGER 1983a:20–21). We may assume that originally there was a third column with Canaanite words, like the other lexical tablet (see below). Petrographic examination of this tablet reveals that it was made of Terra Rossa soil with sandsized inclusions of rounded quartz, nari and limestone (Fig. 1). The firing temperature is estimated at 800° due to the alteration of hornblende into oxyhornblende and the partial decomposition of the calcite in the inclusions that occur at this temperature. As we stated above, the combination of Terra Rossa soil with this inclusion suit is typical to the local ceramic production. Although Terra Rossa soil is widespread, the mineralogical composition of the silt and sand within it is typical to the western foothills of the Central Hill Country of Israel. Indeed, the distribution of this petrographic group in ceramic assemblages is typical to the western foothills of the Judean Ridge (cf. GOREN, FINKELSTEIN and NA’AMAN 2004: 284–285, with references). Hence a local provenance for this text can be readily suggested. The second text is a fragment of a prism in which five broken lines are preserved (RAINEY 1976: 137–139; HOROWITZ et al. 2006:31–32 [Aphek 3, IAA 90–254]). The three columns are partly preserved and contain a trilingual (Sumerian-Akkadian-Canaanite) list of liquids: water (Canaanite mu-mi), wine (Canaanite ye-nu), oil (Canaanite word missing) and honey (Canaanite [d]u-uš-pu). Petrographically it is similar to Aphek 1 (Fig. 2) and should also be considered a local product. A fragment of a trilingual (Sumerian-Akkadian-Canaanite) lexical text was discovered at Late Bronze Ashkelon (HUEHNERGARD and VAN SOLDT 1999). However, unlike the tablet of Ashkelon, whose first two columns appear in the Ôar-ra = xubullu Mesopotamian lexical series, the trilingual

164

Yuval Goren, Nadav Na’aman, Hans Mommsen and Israel Finkelstein

text of Aphek does not belong to a known series. The addition of a Canaanite column – the vernacular language of Canaan – to the Sumerian and Akkadian columns, may be compared to the addition of the vernacular language in the trilingual (Sumerian-Akkadian-Hurrian) and quadrilingual (Sumerian-Akkadian-Hurrian-Ugaritic) lexical texts from Ugarit and the trilingual (SumerianAkkadian-Hittite) texts from Boghazköy. We may further mention the Egyptian-Akkadian vocabulary discovered at Amarna (EA 368). However, unlike the other lists in which the Sumerian column is written on the left side and the vernacular language on the right side, in the Amarna vocabulary the Egyptian appears on the left side, indicating that it was written as an aid for learning this language (IZRE’EL 1997:77–81). The double Glossenkeils written in the two lexical tablets of Aphek usually appear in Ugarit and Phoenicia and are unusual in southern Canaan, whereas the single Glossenkeils that appear on the Ashkelon tablet are common in this area (ARTZI 1963:33–35).

their character cannot be established (RAINEY 1976:139–140; HOROWITZ et al. 2006:32–33). A third tablet is fragmentary and in a fragile state of preservation (OWEN 1981:15; HOROWITZ et al. 2006:38). It is uninscribed, except for a few signs that open three lines and include the measurements PA (parísu) and BANES (1imdu) possibly followed by fragmented personal names.3 SINGER (1983a:26) suggested that this tablet was prepared for further writing in the future. THE LETTER FROM UGARIT

One tablet found at Aphek (IAA 90–252) is typically administrative and contains the beginning of four lines (RAINEY 1975:128; KOCHAVI 1990:29): (1) “one thousand x [.…]”; (2) “four hundred (measures of) w[heat?? …]” (G[IGmeš??...]); (3) “two hundred c[attle? .…] (a[l?-pu?-ú?]);2 (4) “five thousand [….]”. It indicates that at least part of the administrative work at Aphek was done in Akkadian. Petrographic analysis of this tablet indicates that it is identical by its clay, temper and firing temperature to Aphek 1 and 2 (Fig. 3). Therefore, it should be considered a locally produced document. A few 15th–14th century administrative tablets have been discovered so far at Taanach (six tablets), Hazor (one tablet) and Jericho (one tablet) (see the literature cited by Horowitz et al. 2002:757 [Hazor 12], 758, 760–761). 13th century administrative tablets have been discovered so far only at Aphek. Two fragmented tablets discovered at Aphek are so small and the inscribed signs are so few that

The Ugarit letter (IAA 90–271), the only complete tablet found at Aphek, has 41 lines written on both sides and on the edge of an unbaked clay tablet (OWEN 1981; ARNAUD 1981/82:214; SINGER 1983a:22–26; HOROWITZ et al. 2006:35–38). It was sent by Takuhlinu, a high official (sakinu) in the court of Ugarit, to Haya, the Egyptian governor of Canaan (for the offices, careers and date of the two officials, see SINGER 1983b:6–23; 1999:654–655; VAN SOLDT 2001:588– 590). Its contents may be summarized as follows: In the past Adduya, possibly a man of Acco (line 33 LÚ [A?]-ak-ka-a-a; Arnaud 1981/82:214) and a commercial agent of Takuhlinu, delivered about 15 metric tons (250 parisu) of wheat to Turshimati, probably a commercial agent of Haya, in the Egyptian centre of Joppa ([uruIa-p]u-ú) (lines 13–17). The wheat was sent at the request of Haya who promised to give back the same amount of wheat (lines 18–21). In return to his good will in delivering the wheat Takuhlinu asks Haya to fulfill a certain request (mereštu) that is not specified in the tablet (lines 22–27). In light of the Amarna letters we may guess that the ‘request’ refers to a dispatch of gold. However, Haya neither gave back the 250 parisu of wheat nor fulfilled Takuhlinu’s ‘request’, and the latter implores him to keep to his promises (lines 28–33). Takuhlinu further asks Haya to deliver (favorable) judgment in a financial affair that Adduya, his agent, had with a certain ‘enemy’ (line 35 |ù|? [L]Ú? na-ki-ri) (lines 34–38). The background of the dispute is not specified in the letter. The letter ends with details of the present that Takuhlinu dispatched to Haya: one hundred shekels of blue wool and ten shekels of red wool (lines 39–41).

2

3

AN ADMINISTRATIVE TEXT AND THREE ADDITIONAL FRAGMENTS

Compare the broken sign in line 3 with the sign al in the lexical text in the photograph published by KOCHAVI 1990:29.

It is impossible to see anything on the published photograph of the tablet.

Provenance Study and Re-evaluation of the Cuneiform Documents from the Egyptian Residency at Tel Aphek

The delivery of wheat from Ugarit to Canaan is exceptional. According to other historical records it was Egypt that supplied large quantities of grain to Hatti in the closing decades of the Empire, when there was severe food shortage and famine in vast areas of Anatolia (KLENGEL 1974; SINGER 1983b:4–5; 1999:715–719). Noteworthy also is that a man of Acco (Adduya) was the agent of the prefect (sakinu)) of Ugarit in his commercial affairs. The maritime connection between Ugarit and Acco is attested in the Ugaritic tablets (HELTZER 1978:151; XELLA 1995:257–258), and Takuhlinu must have deliberately selected a local Canaanite agent to promote his transactions in the land of Canaan. There are other remarkable traits in the letter. For example, the tablet is unbaked, unlike all other international letters. Among the orthographic and linguistic peculiarities we may note the writing ša-ki-LUGAL for the title sakinu (line 5); the omission of the determinative URU before the city Acco (line 33); and the unusual logogram SA5 (instead of ÔÉ.MED/ME.DA) for tabarru (line 40). Exceptional also are the expressions “my father (and) my lord” (line 2) and “your son (and) your servant” (line 5) in the introductory section. They do not fit the hierarchic relations of the Ugaritic sakinu vis à vis the Egyptian governor of Canaan. Also remarkable is Takuhlinu’s twice repeated request (mereštu) from Haya whose content is not specified. Finally, the discovery of a letter sent to Haya, the Egyptian governor of Canaan, at Aphek is unexpected since the governor’s seat was at the Egyptian centre of Gaza. Petrographic analysis of this tablet reveals the same matrix and inclusions as in all the previous documents, but the minerals are lacking any sign of change due to heating. Moreover, a tiny fragment of its clay tested in the laboratory easily crumbed when wetted with distilled water; hence this tablet has never been fired. Therefore, we are confident that this letter was made at Aphek. A confirmation to this conclusion came from our examination of the Ugaritic letters EA 45–48 from the Amarna archive (GOREN, FINKELSTEIN and NA’AMAN 2004:88–91), as well as thirty tablets from Ras Shamra-Ugarit now deposited in the Louvre Museum (carried out by GOREN, yet unpublished). They all presented petrographic features of the Ras Shamra region, features which are very different from those of the letter from Aphek. There are two alternatives to interpret these

165

findings. According to the first, the latter is a copy of an original Ugaritic letter deposited in another place; for instance, an emissary with a letter from the sakinu of Ugarit on the way to the Egyptian governor in Gaza could have stopped at Aphek, where the letter was copied and stored for administrative reason (or copied in order to be sent to nearby Jaffa – see below). According to the second interpretation, this is a literary model letter that imitated authentic Ugaritic letters. According to this explanation the text was based on various authentic elements that the scribe borrowed from the reality of his time. Model letters intended to teach young scribes and to serve for future correspondences are known from Egypt, in particular under the Ramesside XIXth–XXth dynasties (CAMINOS 1954; 1982: 243–244 with earlier literature). Recently one of us suggested that some letters discovered in the Amarna archive served as such models (NA’AMAN 2002:80–81). Thus, the assumption that the Aphek document is a kind of a model letter fits well into a common practice in Egyptian scribal schools in the time of the New Kingdom. A FRAGMENT OF A TABLET OF UNCLEAR NATURE HALLO (1981) published a fragment of a tablet from Aphek, in which only the ends of the lines have been preserved (IAA 90–212). The script of the tablet looks archaic compared to all other tablets from Aphek. Hallo deciphered the text (eight line-ends on the obverse and five on the reverse) and interpreted it as a letter dealing with real estate. HOROWITZ el al. (2006:33–34), on the other hand, identified it as a school text preserving Sumerian and Akkadian entries. They did not bring evidence to support this interpretation. The content of the tablet is therefore unclear and we concur with Edzard’s judgment (EDZARD 1985:252) that the text is “völlig unbestimmbar”. Petrographic examination of this tablet reveals that the matrix is dense, yellowish-tan in planepolarized light, containing hematite particles. The inclusions are made of badly sorted, single rhombs of clear, idiomorphic dolomite, sizing between 25μm and 250μm. Based on the extensive body of reference material, this petrographic group is identified as originating from clay of the upper member of the Moza formation, mixed with dolomitic sand that was quarried from the capping ‘Amminadav formation. It is well known from pottery assemblages from sites of different periods spread throughout the central hill coun-

166

Yuval Goren, Nadav Na’aman, Hans Mommsen and Israel Finkelstein

try anticline. In the Amarna archive, it is typical of the letters sent by ‘Abdi-Ôeba of Jerusalem and Lab’ayu of Shechem (GOREN, FINKELSTEIN and NA’AMAN 2004:262–269 with references). The origin of the tablet from the highlands east of Aphek supports the identification of this text as a letter. Whether it was sent from Shechem or from Jerusalem, the two main city-states of the central hill country, remains unknown. A HITTITE BULLA The bulla (IAA 90–268), about half of which was preserved, carries the stamp of a Hittite prince or princess whose name probably begins with Ar[…] (SINGER 1978; 1983b 5, n. 4). It was impressed on a document, a royal gift or a commercial artifact. This is the only royal Hittite bulla discovered so far outside the Hittite empire. Singer dated it to the second half of the 13th century BCE, following the signing of a piece treaty between Egypt and Hatti (1258 BCE). The possible source for the royal Hittite bulla could be first and foremost in one of the Hittite administrative centers of the 13th century BC, namely Hattusha (Boghazköy), Ugarit or Carchemish. The environs of Boghazköy are characterized by a Mesozoic ophiolitic suit containing limestone, spilite, dolerite, basalt, marl, radiolarite and serpentine (KETIN 1962:74). Nearby there are exposures of Neogene continental deposits of various lithologies, and Eocene flysch containing mainly sandstones and sandy schists (KETIN 1963:48). As reference for the clay used in Boghazköy for tablet production we used the Hittite tablets in the Amarna archive (GOREN, FINKELSTEIN and NA’AMAN 2004:31–32) and tablets from Boghazköy which have been checked by one of us (GOREN, yet unpublished). The Ugarit clay was described in detail elsewhere (GOREN, FINKELSTEIN and NA’AMAN 2004:88–91). As some reference for the clay that was used in Carchemish for document production, we used a letter from the King of Carchemish to the King of Ugarit (RS 8.333, see GOREN, FINKELSTEIN and NA’AMAN 2004:56–57). The general as well as detailed geological mappings of the area between Gaziantep and Carchemish indicate that the sediments around the site and upstream the Euphrates are very homogeneous (TOLUN and PAMIR 1975; ULU 1996a; 1996b). The site is located on recent Euphrates fluvial sediments. Immediately next to it lays the Gaziantep Formation of

the Upper Eocene, composed of silty, clayey or chert-including limestone or chalk with glauconite concentrations. North of Carchemish one finds the Quaternary “Old alluvium” with partly consolidated clay, sand and gravel. Our petrographic examination reveals that the clay of the Aphek bulla does not fit any of these environs. Rather, the bulla was made of Aphek’s local clay; it is identical to the above-discussed lexical tablets. The Aphek bulla was also subjected to Neutron Activation analysis. The elemental concentration pattern of the Hittite bulla is given in Table 1, column 1, multiplied by a factor (dilution factor) of 1.21. After application of this best relative fit factor the pattern is statistically similar in composition to a sample N48 in the Bonn data bank, which has been taken from a krater from the fortress of Kadesh-barnea in northeastern Sinai, dated to the seventh-sixth century BCE (column 2). This vessel has a unique seal impression consisting of a rectangle with 3 Xs, topped by a crown (chemical single in GUNNEWEG et al. 1991, 249 and Tab. 2). The chemical pattern of these 2 samples cannot be located exactly, but it is quite close to the composition of reference material from the sites Yavneh, Ashdod and Ashkelon. The chemical pattern of this group (labeled PALJ), consisting in total of 23 samples, is shown in column 3. It was first detected in material from Qantir (MOUNTJOY and MOMMSEN 2001, there called JPAL), where, at that time, only a probable provenance from Palestine could be suggested. The general similarity of the pattern of the bulla to Group PALJ points to its origin in the general region of the coastal plain of Palestine. The elemental composition of clay from Boghazköy shown in column 4 is very different, so a Boghazköy provenance can be excluded. Therefore, the NAA supports the results of the petrographic examination – that the bulla was made at Aphek. This conclusion opens the way for various speculations to account for the presence of the bulla at Aphek. For example, that a Hittite prince(ss) arrived at Aphek with his/her stamp, sealed there a certain object, and that the bulla was then broken and left at the site. Or that he/she arrived at a nearby place such as Jaffa, sealed there his/her present and dispatched it to an Egyptian official who was based at Aphek. Another possibility is that the bulla was an (ancient) fake made by a local artisan who knew how a royal Hittite seal looked like. Needless to say, these assumptions

Provenance Study and Re-evaluation of the Cuneiform Documents from the Egyptian Residency at Tel Aphek

are highly speculative, and we can suggest no conclusive explanation for this unique find. DISCUSSION The diversity in the kind of texts and languages of the documents discovered in the relatively small residency of Aphek is without parallel in second millennium BCE sites excavated so far in the land of Canaan and calls for an explanation. To introduce the discussion, let us first compare the corpus of Akkadian texts unearthed at Aphek with that of Kumidi (Kamid el-Loz), the Egyptian centre located in the Beqa’ of Lebanon. Nine tablets and fragments from Kumidi have thus far been published. Eight of them are letters exchanged with neighbouring rulers (EDZARD 1970; 1976; 1982; WILHELM 1973; 1982; ARNAUD 1991; 2003; HUEHNERGARD 1996). Most (or all) of the letters were written in the second half of the 14th century BCE, shortly after the Amarna period (NA’AMAN 1988:179–191; HUEHNERGARD 1996: 98–100). They demonstrate the centrality of Kumidi in the Egyptian system of government of northern Canaan after the conquest of êumur and Ullasa by Aziru of Amurru. The governor of Kumidi supervised the areas of northern Canaan and the coast of Lebanon, and whenever necessary the local rulers addressed him as the higher Egyptian authority in this vast area. The ninth tablet is a school text, the only tablet unearthed so far that was probably written in Kumidi (EDZARD 1980; HALLO 1992: 80 n. 109; NA’AMAN 2005). Comparison of the two groups of texts emphasizes the differences between the two sites. Firstly, whereas the vast majority of tablets from Kumidi are letters, the tablets from Aphek are of mixed nature. Secondly, though the Kumidi letters have not been examined in a microarchaeological method, it is logical to assume that they were dispatched to the Egyptian center from nearby locations; in contrast, our work has shown that the Aphek tablets were nearly all written at the site. Indeed, though Egyptian officials controlled both sites, Aphek had a different function than the Egyptian government centre of Kumidi. Late Bronze Aphek was a small settlement, which was restricted to the acropolis of a much larger mound (BECK and KOCHAVI 1993). A series of monumental buildings were constructed there in the Late Bronze II (GADOT 2003), the last one – Building 1104 in which the Aphek tablets were found – shows clear evidence in both architecture

167

and finds for Egyptian presence. Aphek is located at the headwaters of the Yarkon River, on the main international road that crossed the Land of Canaan (the so-called Via Maris). As such, it is mentioned already by Thutmose III and Amenophis II. Only a very small section of a Late Bronze IIA building (Stratum X-14) was unearthed, and its nature remains unknown. In a later phase of the Late Bronze II it was replaced by a monumental building which does not feature Egyptian characteristics yet (Stratum X-13). The Egyptian residency was built in the Late Bronze IIB (the 13th century BCE) over part of the previous building, incorporating the rest of it. The residency must have served as an Egyptian stronghold – a garrison and administration center, as well as a caravanserai. The site was selected by the Egyptians due to its strategic position on the vital international artery, in a place where the road goes through a relatively narrow pass between the Yarkon River to the west and the hills to the east. Other considerations could have been the site’s location in the centre of fertile agricultural land and next to a major water source. Jaffa, the main Egyptian administration center and harbor in this region (GOREN, FINKELSTEIN and NA’AMAN 2004: 322–325; for the archaeology see KAPLAN 1972), is located on the coast, away from the international road. In other words, officials and caravans on the way from the north to Egypt did not go via Jaffa. For this reason, in the 13th century BCE Aphek was annexed to the territory of Jaffa (which now extended from the sand dunes on the coast to the sources of the Yarkon River in the east), and a command center was built there in order to supervise and serve the Egyptian interests along the international road. The inscriptions discovered at Aphek point to an additional aspect of the Egyptian presence at the site. The scholarly – including trilingual – texts prove that scribes of Canaanite origin were active there. Their role must have been to supervise the dispatch of letters and merchandises brought by foreign envoys and merchants who traveled along the international road to southern Canaan and Egypt. The administrative texts in Akkadian discovered in the site were part of the registration of agricultural output and livestock brought to the place or passed nearby. The scholarly tablets probably reflect their activity in training young apprentices, probably as part of an Egyptian attempt to monopolize the training of local scribes – in this way the Egyptian adminis-

168

Yuval Goren, Nadav Na’aman, Hans Mommsen and Israel Finkelstein

Hittite Bulla 1 sample factor 1.21 C ± d(%) As Ba Ca % Ce Co Cr Cs Eu Fe % Ga Hf K% La Lu Na % Nd Ni Rb Sb Sc Sm Ta Tb Th Ti % U W Yb Zn Zr

3.22 369. 9.68 62.8 15.5 107. 1.55 1.27 3.40 14.3 15.6 2.20 29.0 0.53 0.72 22.5 91.8 53.6 0.27 11.6 4.51 1.27 0.85 8.15 0.87 1.63 1.50 3.47 88.5 578.

3/1 8/1 2.0 1.0 0.7 0.8 4/4 1/9 0.4 17. 0.7 1/4 0.4 3/4 0.6 6/5 32. 3/7 19. 0.2 0.4 2/7 5/7 0.8 8/5 4/9 11. 1/6 2/5 4/4

N48 1 sample factor 1.00 C ± d(%) 8.62 286. 5.44 61.0 15.3 114. 1.53 1.18 3.26 10.4 13.7 2.34 28.3 0.43 1.35 26.8 58.0 39.2 0.48 11.6 5.10 1.14 0.70 8.32 0.49 2.74 1.33 3.22 92.0 574.

2/1 3/5 2/1 0.7 0.7 0.8 4/6 2.0 0.5 25. 0.8 2/2 1/7 2/9 1/7 1/9 12. 4.0 9/5 0.2 0.4 2/2 4/7 0.7 2/6 0.9 14. 1/8 2/4 4/7

PALJ 23 samples factor 1.00 M ± s(%) 4.49 524. 7.24 63.6 17.0 98.5 1.29 1.32 3.77 14.2 10.9 1.12 28.4 0.44 0.62 26.1 54.4 40.9 0.48 12.5 5.03 1.13 0.76 7.23 0.65 1.83 1.29 2.91 74.1 365.

14. 29. 43. 5/8 6/5 4/1 18. 3/2 4/5 14. 14. 19. 3/4 5.0 32. 3/3 21. 11. 19. 4/9 3/3 5/6 4/6 5/4 9/4 22. 19. 3/7 34. 22.

Hattusha 15 samples factor 1.00 M ± s(%) 61.3 540. 3.57 80.6 22.1 190. 17.9 1.23 4.24 25.4 5.35 3.08 37.4 0.49 0.55 29.2 152. 143. 1.28 20.1 5.33 1.05 0.70 13.3 0.55 2.56 2.37 3.06 258. 126.

55. 21. 30. 4/7 13. 17. 20. 2/6 10. 9/3 4/5 10. 4/6 5/6 26. 6/4 24. 8.0 47. 3/2 5/7 3/4 6/7 4/6 15. 5/1 12. 3/5 62. 26.

Table 1 Samples from the Hittite Bulla, N48, the PALJ group and Hattusha Concentrations of elements measured by NAA in μg/g (ppm), if not indicated otherwise; given for the samples are concentrations C and measuring errors d in percent of C, for groups averages M and spreads s (root mean square deviations) in percent of M. The data of the Bulla are multiplied with the best relative fit factor 1.21 with respect to sample N48, a krater from the Kadesh-barnea fortress of the 7th/6th century BCE of similar paste

tration system could increase its control over the local Canaanite rulers. Significantly, no text written in hieratic was discovered at the site. Scribal activity in the time of the XIXth Egyptian Dynasty increased due to the tightening of the relations between Egypt and Hatti. We refer especially to the extensive correspondence and commercial exchange held between the two royal courts after the 21st year of Ramesses II (1259 BCE). Only later, possibly in the time of the XXth Dynasty, did the Egyptians start promoting the use of hieratic for writing administrative texts in

southern Canaan (GILULA 1976; GOLDWASSER 1982; 1984; 1991a; 1991b; GOLDWASSER and WIMMER 1999; MAEIR, MARTIN and WIMMER 2004). The developments in the time of the XIXth–XXth Dynasties may explain the unique assemblage of texts written in cuneiform signs discovered at Tel Aphek and the replacement of cuneiform Akkadian by hieratic texts in later decades. Yet, any discussion of this matter depends on the dating of the Aphek residency – mainly its end days. SINGER (1983b:23) tentatively dated the Ugaritic letter from Aphek to about 1230 BCE. Most of

Provenance Study and Re-evaluation of the Cuneiform Documents from the Egyptian Residency at Tel Aphek

the references to Takuhlinu are dated to the reign of ‘Ammishtamru II (ca. 1335–1260) (SINGER 1999:678–683) and there is no evidence that he was in office in the time of ‘Ammishtamru’s successor (VAN SOLDT 2001:588–590). Haya was probably appointed to his mission in Canaan in the 34th year of Ramesses II (1246 BCE) (SINGER 1983b:21–22). In this light we may tentatively argue that the assumed original letter was dispatched by Takuhlinu to Haya in about 1240 BCE, and that this date is a terminus post quem for the destruction of the Aphek residence. The terminus ante quem depends on the original stratigraphic affiliation of the Ramesses IV scarab found in a Stratum X-10/9 pit together with Philistine bichrome pottery (KEEL 1997: 85, No. 17) – pottery which no doubt postdates the days of this monarch. Two possibilities present themselves: that the scarab originated from Stratum X12 (the residency) or from Stratum X-11 (simple

169

houses built over the destroyed residency). Ramesses IV scarabs found at other terminal Late Bronze Egypto-Canaanite centers would favor the former alternative (UEHLINGER 1988; FINKELSTEIN 2005), while the pottery assemblage from the residency could favor the latter alternative (see BECK and KOCHAVI 1985 who date the Stratum X-12 assemblage to the late 13th century, and a recent, more cautious approach by GADOT 2003). The first solution would mean that the distinction in the use of Akkadian and hieratic is geographical and not chronological. It is noteworthy in this connection that the XXth Dynasty strata at the Egyptian center of Beth-shean (Level Lower VI), as well as nearby Megiddo (Stratum VIIA) did not produce hieratic inscriptions. This may support the conclusion that the hieratic writing in the time of the XXth Dynasty did not extend beyond the area of southern Canaan and hence did not reach the Aphek residency.

Bibliography ADAN-BAYEWITZ, D. and WIEDER, M.,

CAMINOS, R.A.

1992

1954

Late Egyptian Miscellanies, London.

1982

Musterbriefe, 243–244, in: W. HELCK, and E. OTTO (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie IV, Wiesbaden.

Ceramics from Roman Galilee: A comparison of several techniques for fabric characterization. Journal of Field Archaeology 19: 189–205.

ARNAUD, D. 1981/82 Conference et travaux, Annuaire de l’école Pratique des Hautes Études 90: 210–215. 1991

Une lettre de Kamid el-Loz. Semitica 40: 7–16.

2003

Remarques sur une lettre de Kamid el-Loz / Kumidi de l’époque dite d’El-Amarna, Studi Miceni ed Egeo-Anatolici 45: 125–127.

ARTZI, P. 1963

The ‘Glosses’ in the Amarna Tablets (and in Ugarit), Bar-Ilan: Annual of Bar-Ilan University I. Jerusalem: 24–57 (Hebrew).

EDZARD, D.O. 1970

Die Tontafeln von Kamid el-Lóz, 55–62, in: D.O. EDZARD et al. (eds.), Kamid el-Lóz – Kumidi. Schriftdokumente aus Kamid el-Loz, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 7, Bonn.

1976

Ein Brief an den „Grossen“ von Kumidi aus Kamid el-Lóz, ZA 66: 62–67.

1980

Ein neues Tontafelfragment (Nr. 7) aus Kamid elLoz, ZA 70: 52–54.

1982

Ein Brief an den „Grossen“ von Kumidi aus Kámid el-Lóz, in: R. HACHMAN et al. (eds.), Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kámid el-Lódz in den Jahren 1971 bis 1974, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 32, Bonn.

1991

Edomite’, ‘Negbite’ and ‘Midianite’ pottery from the Negev desert and Jordan: Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis results, Archaeometry 33: 239–253.

1985

Amarna und die Archive seiner Korrespondenten zwischen Ugarit und Gaza, 248–259, in: J. AMITAI (ed.), Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem April 1984, Jerusalem.

BECK, P. and KOCHAVI, M. 1985

1993

A Dated Assemblage of the Late 13th Century B.C.E. from the Egyptian Residency at Aphek, Tel Aviv 12: 29–42. Aphek (in Sharon) Excavations in the 1970s and 1980s, The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 1: 64–72.

BEIER, TH. and MOMMSEN, H. 1994

Modified Mahalanobis Filters for grouping pottery by chemical composition, Archaeometry 36: 287–306.

170

Yuval Goren, Nadav Na’aman, Hans Mommsen and Israel Finkelstein

FINKELSTEIN, I.

HUEHNERGARD, J. and VAN SOLDT, W.

2005

1999

From Canaanites to Israelites: When, How and Why, 11–27, in: E. GABBA, a.o. (eds.). Recenti tendenze nella ricostruzione della storia antica d’Israele, Rome.

IZRE’EL, S. 1997

GADOT, Y. 2003

Continuity and Change: Cultural Processes in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Israel’s Coastal Plain, Ph. Thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv (Hebrew with English abstract).

GILULA, M. 1976

GOLDWASSER, O. 1982 1984

The Lachish Hieratic Bowl Once Again, Tel Aviv 9: 137–138. Hieratic Inscriptions from Tel Canaan, Tel Aviv 11: 77–93.

Serac

1972

1962

1:500,000 ölçekli Türkiye Jeoloji Haritalsi, Explanatory Text of the Geological Map of Turkey, Sinop. Ankara.

1963

1:500,000 ölçekli Türkiye Jeoloji Haritalsi, Explanatory Text of the Geological Map of Turkey, Kayseri. Ankara.

KLENGEL, H.

1991a An Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew Kingdoms, Tel Aviv 18: 248–253. 1991b A Fragment of an Hieratic Ostracon from Tel Haror, Qadmoniot 24: 19 (Hebrew).

1990

2004

Inscribed in Clay, Provenance Study of the Amarna Letters and Other Near Eastern Texts. Tel Aviv.

A Letter Fragment from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 8: 18–24.

1992

The Syrian Contribution to Cuneiform Literature and Learning, 69–88, in: M.W. CHAVALAS and J.L. HAYES (eds.), New Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 25, Malibu.

HEIN, A., TSOLAKIDOU, A., ILIOPOULOS, I., MOMMSEN, H., BUXEDA I GARRIGOS, J., MONTANA, G., KILIKOGLOU, V. 2002

Standardisation of elemental analytical techniques applied to provenance studies of archaeological ceramics – an interlaboratory calibration study. The Analyst 127: 542–553.

HELTZER, M. 1978.

Goods, Prices and the Organization of the Trade in Ugarit, Wiesbaden.

Aphek in Canaan. The Egyptian Governor’s Residence and Its Finds, The Israel Museum, catalogue No. 312, Jerusalem.

MAEIR, A.M., MARTIN, M. and WIMMER, S. 2004

An Inscribed Hieratic Inscription from Tell eßÍâfi, Israel, Ä&L 14: 125–134.

MOMMSEN, H., KREUSER, A., LEWANDOWSKI, E., WEBER, J. 1991

HALLO, W.W. 1981

“Hungerjahre” in Hatti, Altorientalische Forschungen 1: 165–174.

KOCHAVI, M. (ed.)

GOLDWASSER, O. and WIMMER, S.

GOREN, Y., FINKELSTEIN, I. and NA’AMAN, N.

Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel, Katalog Band I, Freiburg.

KETIN, I.

in Southern

Hieratic Fragments from Tell el-Farcah (South), BASOR 313: 39–42.

The Archaeology and History of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, BA 35: 66–95.

KEEL, O.

1974

1999

The Amarna Scholarly Tablets, Cuneiform Monographs 9, Groningen.

KAPLAN, J.

1997

An Inscription in Egyptian Hieratic from Lachish, Tel Aviv 3: 107–108.

A cuneiform Lexical Text from Ashkelon with a Canaanite Column, IEJ 49: 184–192.

Neutron Activation and Plasma Emission Spectrometric Analysis in Archaeology, 57–65, in: M. HUGHES, M. COWELL and D. HOOK (eds.), Provenancing of pottery: Status report and grouping, British Museum Occ. Papers 82, London.

MOMMSEN, H. 2004

Short Note: Provenancing of Pottery – The need for an Integrated Approach?, Archaeometry 46: 267–271.

MOUNTJOY, P. and MOMMSEN, H. 2001

Mycenaean pottery from Qantir-Piramesse, Egypt, Annual of the British School at Athens 96: 123–156.

NA’AMAN, N. 1988

Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kamid el-Loz Apiru Letters, Ugarit-Forschungen 20: 179–193.

2002

Dispatching Canaanite Maidservants to the Pharaoh, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 39: 76–82.

2005

On Two tablets from Kamid el-Loz, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 42: 315–320.

HOROWITZ, W., OSHIMA, T. and SANDERS, S.

OWEN, D.I.

2006

1981.

Cuneiform in Canaan. Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times, Jerusalem.

An Akkadian Letter from Ugarit at Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 8: 1–17.

HUEHNERGARD, J.

PERLMAN, I. and ASARO, F.

1996

1969.

A Byblos Letter, Probably from Kamid el-Loz, ZA 86: 97–113.

Pottery analysis by neutron activation, Archaeometry 11: 21–52.

Provenance Study and Re-evaluation of the Cuneiform Documents from the Egyptian Residency at Tel Aphek

südpalästinischen Tempelgüter und der Übergang von der Ägypter- zur Philisterherrschaft: ein Hinweis auf einige wenig beachtete Skarabäen, ZDPV 104: 6–25.

RAINEY, A.F. 1975

Two Cuneiform Fragments from Tel Aphek, Tel Aviv 2: 125–129.

1976

A Tri-lingual cuneiform fragment from Tel Aphek, Tel Aviv 3: 137–140.

RABIKOVITZ, S. 1981.

The Soils of Israel: Formation, Nature, and Properties, Tel-Aviv (Hebrew, English summary).

RÖLLIG, W. 1979

The Inscriptions, in: M. KOCHAVI et al., Aphek Antipatris 1974–1977, Tel Aviv 1978. Die Welt des Orients 10, 126–127.

SINGER, I. 1977

A Hittite Hieroglyphic Seal Inscription from Tel Aphek, Tel Aviv 4: 178–190.

1983a The Aphek Inscriptions, Cathedra 27: 19–26 (Hebrew). 1983b Takuvlinu and Vaya: Two governors in the Ugarit letter from Tel Aphek, Tel Aviv 10: 3–25. 1999

A Political History of Ugarit, 603–733, in: WATSON, W.G.E and WYATT, N. (eds.), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, Handbuch der Orientalistik, I/39, Leiden.

TOLUN, N. and PAMIR, H.N. 1975

1:500,000 ölçekli Türkiye Jeoloji Haritalsi, Hatay (with explanatory notes), Ankara (Turkish and English).

UEHLINGER, C. 1988.

Der Amun-Tempel Ramses’ III. in pA-Knan, seine

171

ULU, Ü. 1996a 1:100,000 ölçekli Açinsama Nitelikli Türkiye Jeoloji Haritalari Serisi No 43, Suruç - L 25 Paftasi. Ankara (Turkish with English abstract). 1996b 1:100,000 ölçekli Açinsama Nitelikli Türkiye Jeoloji Haritalari Serisi No 42, Urfa - K 25 Paftasi. Ankara (Turkish with English abstract). VAN

SOLDT, W.

2001.

Studies on the sakinu-Official (1). The Spelling and the Office Holder at Ugarit, UF 33: 579–599.

WILHELM, G. 1973

Ein Brief der Amarna-Zeit aus Kamid el-Loz (KL 72:600), ZA 63: 69–75.

1982

Die Fortsetzungstafel eines Briefes aus Kamid elLoz (KL 72:600), 123–129, in: HACHMANN, R. et al. (eds.), Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kamid el-Loz in den Jahren 1971 bis 1974, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 32, Bonn.

XELLA, P. 1995

Ugarit et les Phéniciens. Identité culturelle et rapports historiques, 239–266, in: M. DIETRICH, and O. LORETZ (eds.), Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung. Band I, Ugarit und seine Altorientalische Umwelt, Münster.

THE STATUE OF AN ASIATIC MAN FROM TELL EL-DABcA, EGYPT1 By Robert Schiestl

All the pieces of the statue presented here were found between 1986 and 1988 in a southeastern part of the cemetery F/I at Tell el-Dabca by the excavation team of the Austrian Archaeological Institute under the directorship of Manfred Bietak. The cemetery of stratum d/2 is the oldest cemetery unearthed at Tell el-Dabca to date (BIETAK 1991 b). The boundaries of the cemetery have so far been only discovered in the north, where a settlement, centering around a Syrian “Mittelsaalhaus”, was discovered (BIETAK 1984, 324–325, Abb. 3; EIGNER 1985, 19–21, Abb. 1). A small group of tombs was built immediately to the south of the residential area, but the main cemetery area began about 50 m to the

south. Of this cemetery, which seems to have been used exclusively for funerary purposes, an area covering roughly 3500 m² and 45 tombs have been excavated to date. The tombs are predominantly mud brick built chambers covered with mud brick vaults, which were set into pits. They stand in an Egyptian tradition of funerary architecture. A small number of tombs consist only of pits without architecture. Most people were interred individually, adults as well as children, but our picture is blurred by the high degree of plundering. There is great variation in tomb size, ranging from brick cist tombs for infants and small children (e. g. tombs o/19-Nr. 6 and 7; Fig. 1) to large single- or multi-chambered constructions. The diversity in dimensions of tomb constructions among the adult burials could be indicative of a marked social stratification. While we lack almost any inscriptional evidence, the remaining funerary ensembles represent an intriguing mixture of Egyptian and nonEgyptian features. The overwhelming majority of the ceramic tomb goods are Egyptian in shape, fabric and production, specific symbolic goods, however, such as the weaponry, are exclusively of Syro-Palestinian types, for example a duck bill axe, numerous socketted javelin heads and a dagger with two mid ribs (SCHIESTL 2002 and in print). Also the earliest evidence at Tell el-Dabca for the Near Eastern custom of ritually interring a donkey in entrance pits of tombs or in an offering pit in the cemetery (o/19-offering pit 3, o/19-tomb 8, o/21-pit 14, see Fig. 1) occurs in stratum d/2. We are dealing with an ethnic group of aAm.w or Asiatics, as they are called in Egyptian and referred to in Egyptology respectively.2 In the following stratum d/1 this cemetery continued to be used. 27 tombs have been unearthed so far. They now formed part of an elite and organized necropolis of homogenous appearance, focused on the palatial structure

1

2

The site of Tell el-Dabca, today generally identified with ancient Avaris (BIETAK 1996), has become synonymous with a meeting point for East Mediterranean cultures, a fertile urban ground for reshaping various traditions to local needs. Among the most remarkable, and monumental, expressions of this found at the site are the fragments of a larger than life statue of an Asiatic man. The head, bearing a voluminous mushroom shaped coiffure, and an adjoining shoulder fragment have been published (BIETAK 1991 b, 62–63, Abb. 10, Taf.16, 17; 1994; 1996 a, fig. 17, pl. 4 B–C) and often reproduced (e.g. BOURRIAU 2000, 189; SCHNEIDER 2003, 188–189). Further fragments can be attributed to this sculpture and, while constituting only a very small part of the whole, a reconstruction of the statue is suggested here (Figs. 2, 3 and 5). The following questions will be addressed: The archaeological context of the fragments, the reconstruction of the statue and a discussion of its iconography. The discussion of the mutilations is excluded here (see SCHIESTL in print). 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM CEMETERY, WHERE THE STATUE FRAGMENTS WERE FOUND

This is an updated version of a paper presented at the Third ICAANE in Paris in April 2002.

For discussion of the term see the latest summary by SCHNEIDER 2003, 5–11.

174

Robert Schiestl

The Statue of an Asiatic Man from Tell el-Dabca, Egypt

erected in the north (EIGNER 1985; BIETAK 1991 b) and thus dubbed “Palace Cemetery”. The older tombs of stratum d/2 were generally respected and not disturbed by new constructions. 2. THE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS OF THE

SCATTERED FRAGMENTS AND THE ORIGINAL PLACEMENT OF THE STATUE

The fragments of the statue under discussion were discovered in the context of plundered tombs of strata d/2 (= phase H, late 12th Dynasty; ca. 1820–1785 B.C.), d/1 (= phase G/4, early 13th Dynasty, ca. 1785–1750 B.C.) and possibly c (= phase G/1–3, first third to mid 13th Dynasty, 1750–1710 B.C.);3 see Fig. 1, shaded tombs). The tombs lie in an area which continued to be used as a cemetery throughout the 13th and into the 15th Dynasty (the Hyksos period). It is noteworthy that no fragments of the statue were found in these later tombs (not shown in Fig. 1). It has been argued (BIETAK 1991 b, 61–64) that the statue was originally set up in the most prominent tomb structure of stratum d/2, tomb p/19Nr. 1, where the head, a part of the right fist, different fringes of garments, numerous fragments painted red and presumably belonging to the seat and a part of the inscribed base were discovered in the upper layer of a robber’s pit. The tomb is a massive construction at the southern end of the cemetery, with remains of a superstructure measuring 8 × 7 m and a smaller annex, 3.7 × 3.7 m, erected in the east of it (BIETAK 1991 b, Abb. 7–9). All in all it covered about 70 m2. As only the lowest layers of this construction remain, we cannot say what its superstructure originally looked like, but other Middle Kingdom parallels suggest a vaulted chapel. The tomb had been completely plundered and nothing was left of the original tomb equipment inside the chamber. Bone fragments from the burial chamber can be assigned to two individuals, an adult male and a mature female.4 While this tomb remains a very good possibility for the original location of the statue, tomb p/21-Nr.1 of stratum d/1, discovered 20 m to the east one year later, would also qualify. In

3 4

5

6

Cf. BIETAK 1996, fig. 3. I thank K. Grossschmidt and his team for this information. It cannot, however, be excluded that more, very similar statues had been set up. I am indebted to my father Reiner Schiestl, my col-

175

order to accommodate such a massive figure, a large superstructure is required, which both tombs possess. Of the superstructure of tomb p/21-Nr. 1 only the length (approximately 8.2 m) is known. The width is not clear, as the construction is cut off by a huge pit in the south. If the width is reconstructed symmetrically in relationship to the tomb-chamber, it reaches almost the same measurements, resulting in a roughly square layout of even greater size than p/19-Nr. 1 (see Fig. 1). In a brick-lined entrance shaft to the tomb-chamber a large assortment of lime stone fragments, many without traces of hewn surfaces, and amongst them the right shoulder of the statue was found. As head and shoulder were a fit, it was clear one statue had been smashed and the fragments spread out. Thus the likelihood that further fragments discovered also belong to the same statue increased and all fragments discovered, such as a left foot found in the tomb o/20Nr. 11 of stratum d/1 (Fig. 1), are included in this reconstruction.5 Chips of limestone painted red were found in the small tomb p/19-Nr. 10, just south of p/19-Nr. 1. This tomb was completely robbed and filled with settlement debris. It is very difficult to date, but most likely should be placed in stratum c (G/1–3). Thus, unfortunately, the original position and stratigraphic attribution of the statue remain ambiguous. The end of this monument, its mutilation (Fig. 4.1 and 4.2) and destruction (see SCHIESTL in print) are tentatively assigned to the end of stratum c. 3. THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUE Putting the pieces together, the following reconstruction is suggested (Figs. 2 and 3):6 The seated figure of a man reaches a height of approximately 2 m, the depth of the seat is about 70 cm (about 1.3 m including the base).7 The figure is approximately one and a half times life size. On the back of the right shoulder the top right corner of a back support is still visible, thus making its placement and height certain. Emerging from the fragment of the fist tiny traces of the throw-stick

7

league Nicola Math and Biri Fay for helping me with this reconstruction. Any mistakes are, however, my own. The reconstruction is based on the Egyptian canon (Cf. ROBINS 1991). It should, however, be noted that the neck is “too” wide, possibly indicating that the whole figure is to be reconstructed with a stockier build.

176

Robert Schiestl

or crook can be detected,8 thus clearly placing it in the right hand. The length of the garment is hypothetical. Also, there are no indications of how the left arm and hand were positioned. The fragments painted red on their flat and smoothened surfaces are considered as part of the seat. Initially the statues’ eyes were considered to have been inlayed. A limestone eye-inlay found north of the tomb p/21-Nr. 1 was suggested to be from the statue (HEIN in BIETAK and HEIN (eds.) 1994, 99, 112–113). However, the eye sockets are not deep enough to receive inlays. The eye inlay, which is hardly damaged, must therefore have belonged to something different –possibly a funerary mask. Larger than life size statuary of non-royal Egyptians in the Middle Kingdom is very unusual, but rare examples do exist throughout the 12th Dynasty, both from tombs9 and from temples.10 They seem to be limited, however, to families of highest ranks. In the late Middle Kingdom nonroyal statuary can become quite small in size (VANDIER 1958, 255, 271, 284), as represented by the statuette from tomb l/19-Nr. 1 of stratum d/1 (BIETAK 1991 b, Abb. 12). On the other hand, most examples of non royal larger than life statuary date to this period as well.11 The most prominent features of the statue are the protruding hair-do, which is painted in a dark brownish red, and the throw-stick or crook, which in Egyptian hieroglyphs ( ) can be used to write aAm, “Asiatic”. The skin is painted yellow and its combination with red hair constitutes the Egyptian ethnic code for Asiatic people. Parallels for these features are well known in Middle Kingdom art, such as for example on a relief from the pyramid complex of Sesostris I from Lisht (HILL 1995, 153) or the representations of Asiatic group from Beni Hasan tombs 2 (GRIFFITH 1900,

8 9

10 11

I thank N. Math for this detection. E.g. EVERS 1929, Taf. 22, 24; Cf. the depiction of the transport of a colossal statue in the tomb of Djehuti-hetep at el-Bersheh (NEWBERRY 1894, pl. XV); WILLEMS, PEETERS and VERSTRAETEN 2005, 173–189. Abydos; MMA 02.4.191; WILDUNG 2000, 149, Nr. 71. E.g. Ibu from Qau, STECKEWEH and STEINDORFF 1936, pl. 15 a; Imenjseneb from Elephantine, HABACHI 1985, 51, pls. 61–67 (Nr. 21).

Fig. 2 Graphic reconstruction of limestone statue of an Asiatic man from Tell el- Dabca, area F/I. Fragments from tombs p/19-Nr. 1 (head, fist, fringe of garment, fragments of seat and base), p/21-Nr. 1 (right shoulder), o/20-Nr. 11 (left foot)

The Statue of an Asiatic Man from Tell el-Dabca, Egypt

177

Fig. 3 Graphic reconstruction of statue of Asiatic man from Tell el- Dabca, area F/I. For findspots of fragments, see Fig. 2

pl. XXIII, 3) and 3 (NEWBERRY 1891, pl. XXX). The hair style appears in the depictions of conquered Asiatic warriors on the pectoral of princess Mereret from Dahshur (DE MORGAN 1895, pl. XX, 2, pl. XXI). It is also worn by a bound Asi-

atic prisoner on a Middle Kingdom magic wand (FISCHER 1987, pl. IV, 14) and is similar to the hairstyle of crudely fashioned execration figurines, covered with magical texts (POSENER 1940, frontispiz, Figs. 3–4). Two small figures of

178

Robert Schiestl

Fig. 4.1 Head of the statue of the Asiatic man from Tell el-Dabca. Chisel marks on top of head

Fig. 4.2 Head of the statue of the Asiatic man from Tell el- Dabca. Chisel marks in left eye

The Statue of an Asiatic Man from Tell el-Dabca, Egypt

Fig. 5 Statue of the Asiatic man from Tell el- Dabca. View of the back of the right shoulder. The reconstruction of the garment: The dark areas represent traces of actual colours. The backpillar has been omitted.

foreign women also have comparable hairstyles, a wooden statuette from Beni Hasan (BOURRIAU

12

13

14

MÄS 7171, WILDUNG 2000, 165, Nr. 83; I would like to thank Biri Fay who kindly provided me with information on this statue. The evidence for dress from tombs is also scarce. As of stratum b/3 (F) onwards toggle pins are found in situ in tombs at Tell el-Dabca. They are always on the left side of the upper body (Cf. BIETAK 1991 a, 156–157). There are, in glyptic art and wall paintings, exceptions, where the left shoulder is shown bare. For example in Beni Hasan tomb 3 (NEWBERRY 1893, pl. XXX): Of the group of four Asiatic men in the middle, one is depicted with a bare left, one with a bare right shoulder. On

179

1988, 108–191, fig. 97) and an ivory figure from Kerma (WILDUNG 1984, fig. 159). The closest parallel is a limestone head recently acquired by the Egyptian Museum in Munich.12 The hair protrudes even more prominently on all sides. In contrast to the Dabca head, traces of a beard, which by Egyptian standards is typical for Asiatics, have remained as well. The colors on the Munich head have disappeared but for a small region in the back where the back pillar enters the hair and some traces on the top. The remaining traces of color are of the same diagnostic reddish brown as on the Tell el-Dabca head. Another feature emphasized in Egyptian depictions of Asiatic people is their colorful attire. On our statue traces of the design of the garment are best visible on the back of the right shoulder (Fig. 5): A collar is detectable, with three horizontal stripes in black, red and black, with white spaces in between. Above this, short vertical red lines radiating from the neck are visible. Beneath the collar, the cloth consists of vertical red stripes (see Fig. 5). Traces of the same design can still be detected on the front upper chest, beneath the crook. It is clear that the right shoulder was covered and therefore, despite our scarce evidence, we can draw some conclusions as to how the garment looked.13 The whole upper body was covered, as is clear by the way the horizontal stripes of the garment fall in the back (Fig. 5). Furthermore, if a shoulder is left bare, it is generally the right one, both in Syro-Levantine14 and Egyptian costumes. The figure was clearly not wearing the Syro-Mesopotamian robe with fringes (“Fransenmantel”)15 or thickly rolled borders (“Wulstsaummantel”),16 which either leaves the right shoulder free17 or drapes one end of the garment over it.18 The fragment of an end of a cloth shows a different arrangement of stripes: four vertical red stripes and two vertical black stripes

15 16 17

18

seals (cf. for example, SCHROER 1985, Abb. 12, 44) in both cases two persons are shown antithetically and the person facing right is shown with a bare left shoulder, presumably due to the composition as a mirror image. STROMMENGER 1958, 121. SCHROER 1985, 51–115. E.g. statue of Ishtup-Ilum, from Mari, PARROT 1959, pls. I–II, or statue of dignitary from Ebla, MATTHIAE 1992, pl. 50:1–3. E.g. statue of Idi-Ilum, from Mari, PARROT 1959, pls. IX–X, or statue of a sitting king from Ebla, MATTHIAE 1992, pl. 50:4, pl. 51:1–2.

180

Robert Schiestl

Fig. 6 Fragment of a fringe (8754H2), from tomb p/19-Nr. 1, limestone, wavy fringe painted black, 1:1

remain, as well as part of a larger, possibly round black design. It is most likely that this fragment is from a separate garment, the main piece of clothing, while the red striped garment might constitute a sort of short cape. Such garments are shown as worn by elite men in Egyptian tombs of the Middle Kingdom (e.g. NEWBERRY 1894, pl. XI, XII, XIX, XX).19 However, in addition there are three small fragments which seem to be part of a wavy fringe painted black (Inv.Nr. 8754H 2, 3, 4, Fig. 6). This fringe could have formed part of the main garment, possibly a wrap around cloak with a vertical fringe. Such garments appear on stelae of the Second Intermediate Period (MARÉE 1993), possibly representing a fashion influenced by Asiatics. The fabrics worn by Asiatic men and women (NEWBERRY 1891, pls. XXX–XXXI) tend to be shown as very ornate and full of intricate detail, in contrast to the Egyptian’s clean cut textiles. A parallel to the comparatively plain cloth worn by the Dabca statue can be found in the depiction of Asiatic men on a well preserved stela at the temple of Serabit el-Chadim on Sinai. Two figures are wearing kilts with a décor of horizontal red and white

19 20

I thank Dorothea Arnold for this suggestion. Statuette Inv. Nr. 5093 was found in the chamber of F/Il/19-tomb 1 (BIETAK 1991 b, 64–65, Abb. 12, Taf. 25 B, C), which dates to stratum d/1. A second statuette (Nr. 7195) was found out of context, in area F/I-p/19-above tomb 13 (HEIN 1994). Other out of context finds of

stripes („ERNY, GARDINER and PEET 1952–1955, 206, fig. 17, pl. LXXXV). There also exist long Egyptian cloaks with horizontal stripes (Cf. NEWBERRY 1894, pl. VII); one type in particular had become popular in late Middle Kingdom private statuary (VANDIER 1958, 231, 256). It seems most likely that the cape and cloak represented an Egyptian-Asiatic stylistic mixture. A similar blend can possibly be seen in the cloak, draped equally over both shoulders, depicted on a Bronze statuette of an Asiatic dignitary, which is said to have been found in the Delta (WILDUNG 1984, 186, fig. 164). 4. MIDDLE KINGDOM TOMB STATUES AT TELL ELDABcA AND IN THE DELTA The excavations of the late Middle Kingdom and 2nd Intermediate Period cemeteries of Tell elDabca have produced few tomb statues. From the hundreds of tombs excavated at Tell el-Dabca to date, only three statues have been found, and only one is clearly associated with a specific tomb.20 So far all tombs discovered are associated with the Syro-Palestinian population, which settled at Tell el-Dabca as of the late Middle King-

fragmentary Middle Kingdom statues were considered to originally have been set up in temples (ROGGE 1994, 192–193). The royal Middle Kingdom statues discovered by L. Habachi had most likely originally been set up in the Memphis-Fayoum region and been carried off to Avaris at a later point in time (ENGEL 2001, 156).

The Statue of an Asiatic Man from Tell el-Dabca, Egypt

dom (stratum d/2). While there is evidence of Egyptian settlement at the site at least from the early 12th Dynasty onwards, we lack any information on their tombs and thus are not able to compare the funerary customs of the immigrants to local ones. While tomb statues, as the sculptural representation of the deceased set up in his or her burial place, are an integral feature of Egyptian tombs, this is not the case for the Middle Bronze Age Levant, the region from where it is assumed the Asiatic population at Tell el-Dabca came. However, the few statues found are also from a cemetery of Asiatic people, albeit only associated with tombs of the earliest two strata (d/2 and d/1, H and G/4) discovered so far. Despite a range of foreign features already present in these oldest tombs (SCHIESTL 2002), many aspects of the funerary equipment are in agreement with contemporary Egyptian tombs. Tomb statuary might have been one element of Egyptian religious life the Asiatic settlers originally integrated into their culture of death, but, over time, eventually decided to eliminate. Most tombs excavated at Tell el-Dabca date to the very late Middle Kingdom and the 2nd Intermediate Period. In the course of the Middle Kingdom changes in Egyptian funerary practices are observable. The importance of tomb statues seems to decrease, while the wish to set up statues and stelae in temples (DELANGE 1987, 8; BOURRIAU 1991, 8) and shrines, both local and “national” such as at Abydos, increases. This shifting of importance from the resting place of the dead body to cultic centers might have intensified in the 2nd Intermediate Period. However, other regional factors should be taken into account as well. There is a remarkable general dearth of private Middle Kingdom tomb statuary from the Delta (VANDIER 1958, 261–262). It cannot only be explained by the lack of large scale excavations of Middle Kingdom cemeteries there, as also “unprovenanced” hard stone statues in museums and collections very rarely refer to Delta sites. One factor could be the disappearance of any wooden statuary, as no organic material survived in the envi-

21

22

www.muzarp.poznan.pl/muzeum/muz_eng/Tell_el_ Farcha/index_tel.html The problem of using primarily North Syrian and Mesopotamian sources to reconstruct Palestinian and Levantine costume was addressed by D. REDFORD. He

181

ronment of Tell el-Dabca and other Delta regions. Considering the local absence of stone raw material, the small wooded areas of the Delta (BUTZER 1975, 1048) could have served as the basis of a regional tradition, now lost. Thus our understanding of wooden statues in the Middle Kingdom and the observation that they become less frequent towards the end of the 12th Dynasty (VANDIER 1958, 255; DELANGE 1987, 7; for exceptions see NEEDLER 1981; FAY 1996, 137, fig. 26), is based on statues from Middle and Upper Egyptian sites. In this context one could note the recent discovery of gold foil originally covering two remarkable late Predynastic or Protodynastic wooden statues from the Eastern Delta site of Tell el-Farkha.21 Had they not been covered in metal, no evidence of these wooden statues would have survived. 5. ASIATICS IN MIDDLE KINGDOM ART Due to the lack of Palestinian early Middle Bronze images, looking for comparisons one is largely forced to resort to either Egyptian or Syrian depictions. Both have their ethno-cultural22 and contextual limitations. In the Egyptian perspectives, Asiatics are restricted to ethnic stereotypes and limited to scenes of conquered or bound prisoners, the Asiatic people essentially being vanquished by definition. There are, however, some indications in Middle Kingdom art, which could be interpreted as a cautious loosening of the rigidly prescribed role the Asiatic foe previously had to play. As other sources tell us of a sizeable Middle Kingdom Asiatic presence in Egypt (POSENER 1957; SCHNEIDER 2003), before and beyond the region of Tell el-Dabca, these changes in Egyptian society are but dimly reflected in art. This is on the one hand due to a generally swift visual integration. Of the large group of people specifically noted as cAm (Asiatic) mentioned and shown on Egyptian Middle Kingdom stelae, only very few are visually set apart from Egyptians: In one case a woman is marked by an unusual hairdo and costume (SCHNEIDER 2003, 186), in another case the men’s skin color is shown as red (SCHNEIDER 2003, 59). On the

concludes, however, that “Cloak over kilt…also was the vogue in Palestine and the Levantine coast” and it can be “construed as the basic winter costume of the ”Amorite” upper class” (REDFORD 1988, 21).

182

Robert Schiestl

Our reassembled statue, however, is a rare example of the self-representation of foreigners living in Egypt, drawing on and emphasizing Egyptian stereotypes of skin color and hairstyle and transforming them to a monument of self-confidence. The statue reflects iconographically what the material culture of the tombs of the strata d/2 and d/1 indicated: a highly Egyptianised, elite group of Asiatics, who strived to successfully combine their own traditions with the new ways of the country to which they had immigrated. The material of the statue, limestone, and the high workmanship are definitely Egyptian, the conception a collaboration of the Egyptian artist and his Asiatic client. The size and quality of the product argue for a connection to a royal workshop. Of particular interest is the inscribed block, which must have formed part of the base upon which the feet rested. It is painted red on the smoothened top and sides, the bottom was left rough and unpainted. Of the hieroglyphic inscription the only legible part is the word cnTr, incense, written at the beginning of a horizontal line of text, running from right to left. Above it,

a second horizontal line can just be made out, but the signs unfortunately remain illegible (discussion in SCHIESTL in print). They are the last traces of the offering formula, in which the deceased requested certain provisions, such as food, drink, clothes and more, to be offered to him. What makes this most remarkable is that this is our first clear proof that an Asiatic inhabitant of Tell el-Dabca is presented as an integrated member in the Egyptian concept of afterlife and all that entails. Whether he, or the other people buried in these tombs, believed in it as well we do not know. Until the recent discovery of statues flanking the entrance to the royal tomb in Qatna (ELSENNOVÁK, NOVÁK and PFÄLZNER 2003, 156–163), the concept of a tomb statue was considered alien to Middle Bronze Age Syria-Palestine. However, temple statues and other imagery from tombs at Ebla offer close iconographic parallels to the Dabca statue. One of the statues discovered in a pit, associated with temple P 2,24 shows a man holding a similar crook in his left hand over the left shoulder, while the right hand holds a bowl. A scene on a curved ivory object from the tomb of the Lord of the goats at Ebla25 presumably depicts a funerary banquet. A man, probably the deceased, holding a crook or staff in his right arm over his right shoulder, just as in Tell elDabca, is seated in front of a table heaped with offerings. The shape of object itself is reminiscent of Egyptian magic wands of the Middle Kingdom. As unusual as the Tell el-Dabca statue seems, within Egyptian tomb statuary it simply is a variation. Its language was derived from an iconographic Egyptian pool and as such clearly understandable to Egyptian viewers. When interpreting its message, we are easily influenced by the later history of Tell el-Dabca as capital of foreign rulers in Egypt. Thus, is it to be seen as a provocative statement of autonomy on the part of the local Asiatic community and, from the Egyptian point of view, as a warning sign of loss of control? The relationship of the Asiatic population at Tell elDabca to the Egyptian state, and their degree of independence are, during this period, not clear. Lacking textual evidence, we have to base our

23

24

other hand, when Asiatics need to be identifiable as such, different trends can be observed in their depiction: In the Beni Hasan scene (NEWBERRY 1891, pl. XXX), the Asiatics are not shown vanquished, but as traders, self-confidently carrying their own weaponry and their leader is not an anonymous enemy, but has a title (HqA-xAc.t, “leader of the foreign land”) and a name, Jbsha.23 Furthermore, on the above mentioned Dahshur pectoral, only visible on the reverse side, we can detect the conquered enemy wearing a barrel shaped cwr.t-bead, an Egyptian type of jewelry, which was often inscribed with the name of the owner (A NDREWS 1990, 196–197) and thus marked their identity as Egyptians and as human individuals. A conflation of these two trends could be seen in the base of a statue showing heads of captives which had completely lost their foreign features (SPANEL 1988, 70). Visually egyptianising foreigners in such a composition would seem to blur the message. 6. THE TELL EL-DABcA STATUE IN SOCIAL CONTEXT

For the suggested reading ’Ab(i)-Sarr see SCHNEIDER 2003, 129.

25

MATTHIAE 1995, 411. PINNOCK 1994, 22, pl. V c.

The Statue of an Asiatic Man from Tell el-Dabca, Egypt

“reading” of their political role on the remains of the material culture. This shows a high degree of acculturation to late Middle Kingdom Egyptian culture. There is no evidence that the Asiatic community was acting against Egyptian interests, but indications to the opposite. Within a suggested scenario of cooperation between the Egyptian state and the local Asiatic community in mining, trading and possibly even military expeditions, another, complementary, reading of the statue could be suggested. While it clearly shows an Asiatic man in power, a dignitary, it could also be read as a dignitary ruling over Asiatics. During the period under discussion, it could be argued both sides profited from this collaboration, resulting in a discourse on power and control. The statue could be seen as a product of this discussion, to which it also contributed. Such a collaboration must have been fraught with a certain amount of distrust on both sides. Keeping an Egyptian conception in mind, the iconographic fusion of Egyptian and “Asiatic” roles was one way of appropriating the latter. Within the fluid concepts of ethnicity, in the statue under discussion the Asiatic characteristics were (over)empha-

183

sized, just as they were completely omitted in the statuette from tomb l/19-Nr. 1 (BIETAK 1991 b, Abb. 12). In the Egyptian way of thinking, what induced fear was often used precisely against it and thus elegantly subdued. In the realm of religion and magic, dangerous creatures such as crocodiles, snakes and scorpions were turned into benevolent gods, and, for example, the scorpion goddess was called upon to help fight scorpion bites, thus, “fighting like with like… the dangerous force is neutralized” (PINCH 1994, 36–37). In the case of the god Sopdu, he was turned into a god of foreign lands, and could appear in Asiatic garb (SCHUMACHER 1988). In the Middle Kingdom he appears as such also in border regions, such as the Wadi Gasus (Gawasis), and on Sinai in the get up of a Beduin, holding a crook in one hand („ERNY, GARDINER and PEET 1952–1955, pl. XLVII). Thus, the Dabca image could be considered as actually reassuring Egyptian power over the Asiatics, both in and outside of Egypt, while, in a skilful iconographic ambiguity, simultaneously conveying to the local Asiatic community an appropriate message of their growing importance.

184

Robert Schiestl

Bibliography ANDREWS, C.

ENGEL, E.-M.

1990

2001

Ancient Egyptian Jewellery, London.

BIETAK, M. 1984

Eine Palastanlage aus der Zeit des späten Mittleren Reichs und andere Forschungsergebnisse aus dem östlichen Nildelta (Tell el-Dabca 1979–1984), Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 121, 313–349.

ELSEN-NOVÁK, G., NOVÁK, M. und PFÄLZNER, P. 2003

1991 a unter Mitarbeit von C. Mlinar und A. Schwab, Tell el-Dabca V. Ein Friedhofsbezirk der Mittleren Bronzezeit mit Totentempel und Siedlungsschichten, UZK 8, Vienna. 1991 b Der Friedhof in einem Palastgarten aus der Zeit des späten mittleren Reiches und andere Grabungsergebnisse aus dem östlichen Nildelta (Tell el-Dabca 1984–1987), Egypt & Levant 2, 47–75. 1996

Avaris. The Capital of the Hyksos. Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dabca. London. Kopf eines Kanaanäischen Würdenträgers, Katalognummer 48, 112–113, in: M. BIETAK and I. HEIN (eds.), Pharaonen und Fremde. Dynastien im Dunkel, Vienna.

BOURRIAU, J. 1988

Pharaohs and Mortals. Egyptian Art in the Middle Kingdom, Cambridge.

1991

Patterns of Change in burial customs during the Middle Kingdom, 3–20, in: S. QUIRKE (ed.) Middle Kingdom Studies, Whitstable.

2000

The Second Intermediate Period, 185–217, in: I. S HAW (ed.), Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford.

1996

Delta, in: W. HELCK and E. OTTO (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie I, Wiesbaden, 1045–1052.

The “Abydos Princess”, MDAIK 52, 115–141.

FISCHER, H.G. 1987

The Ancient Egyptian Attitude towards the Monstrous, 13–26, in: A.E. FARKAS, P.O. HARPER and E.B. HARRISON (eds.) Monsters and Demons in the Ancient and Medieval World. Papers Presented in Honor of Edith Porada, The Franklin Jasper Wells lectures 10, Mainz am Rhein.

GRIFFITH, F.L. 1900

Beni Hasan IV. Archaeological Survey of Egypt 7. London.

HABACHI, L. 1985

Elephantine IV. The Sanctuary of Heqaib, Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 33, Mainz.

HEIN, I. 1994

BUTZER, K.W. 1975

Die Statuen, in: NOVÁK, M. und PFÄLZNER, P., Ausgrabungen im bronzezeitlichen Palast von Tall Misrife – Qatna 2002. Vorbericht der deutschen Komponente des internationalen Kooperationsprojektes, Mitteilungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft zu Berlin 135, 131–165.

FAY, B.

BIETAK, M., and HEIN, I. 1994

L. HABACHI, 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.

Bruchstück einer Statuette eines Mannes, Katalognummer 30, 100–101, in: M. BIETAK and I. HEIN (eds.), Pharaonen und Fremde. Dynastien im Dunkel, Vienna.

HILL, M. 1995

„ERNY, J., GARDINER, A.H., and PEET, T.E.

Relief of a Foreigner Throwing a Spear, 153, in: N. THOMAS (ed.), The American Discovery of Ancient Egypt, Los Angeles.

1952–1955 The Inscriptions of Sinai, I and II, Memoirs of the Egypt Exploration Society 45. London.

MARÉE, M.

DELANGE, E.

1993

1987

Musée du Louvre. Catalogue des statues égyptiennes du Moyen Empire, 2060–1560 avant J.-C.. Paris.

DE MORGAN, J. 1895

MATTHIAE, P. 1992

High Old Syrian Royal Statuary from Ebla, 111–128, in: B. HROUDA, S. KROLL AND P.Z. SPANOS (eds.) Von Uruk nach Tuttul. Eine Festschrift für Eva Strommenger. Studien und Aufsätze von Kollegen und Freunden, Münchner Universitätsschriften Philosophische Fakultät 12, Münchner Vorderasiatische Studien 12, Munich and Vienna.

1995

Statua di sacerdote seduto, 411, in: P. MATTHIAE, F. PINNOCK and G. SCANDONE-MATTHIAE (eds.) Ebla. Alle origine della civiltà urbana. Trent’anni di scavi in Siria dell’Università di Roma ”La Sapienza”, Milano.

Fouilles à Dahchour, Mars–Juin 1894. Vienna.

EIGNER, D. 1985

Der ägyptische Palast eines asiatischen Königs, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 56, 19–25.

EVERS, H.G. 1929

Staat aus dem Stein, Denkmäler, Geschichte und Bedeutung der ägyptischen Plastik während des Mittleren Reichs, München.

A remarkable group of Egyptian stelae from the Second Intermediate Period, Oudheidkundige Mededelingen 73, 7 – 22.

The Statue of an Asiatic Man from Tell el-Dabca, Egypt

Cemetery at Tell el-Dabca and Syria-Palestine. The Necropolis of F/I, Strata d/2 and d/1 (= H and G/4), 329–352, 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, Vienna.

NAGEL, W., and STROMMENGER, E. 1958

Alalax und Siegelkunst, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 12, 109–123.

NEEDLER, W. 1981

A Wooden Stauette of the Late Middle Kingdom, 134–135, in: W.K. SIMPSON und W.V. DAVIES (ed.), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean and the Sudan, Boston.

NEWBERRY, P.E. 1893

Beni Hasan I, Archaeological Survey of Egypt 1, London.

1894

El-Bersheh I, Archaeological Survey of Egypt 3, London.

PARROT, A. 1959

Mission Archéologique de Mari II, Le Palais. Peintures murales, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 69, Paris.

PINCH, G. 1994

in print Die Palastnekropole von Tell el-Dabca. Die Gräber des Areals F/I der Straten d/2 und d/1, UZK, Wien. SCHNEIDER, T. 2003

1988

1985

1957

1988

STECKEWEH, H. and STEINDORFF, G.

Les Asiatiques en Égypte sous les XIIe et XIIIe Dyasties, Syria 34, 145–163.

STROMMENGER, E.

1936

1971

The Akhenaten Temple Project Vol. 2: Rwd-Mnw, Foreigners and Inscriptions. Aegypti Texta Propositaque I. Toronto. Proportion and Style in Ancient Egyptian Art, London.

ROGGE, E. 1994

Kopf einer Statuette, später wiederverwendet, Unterteil einer Sitzstatuette, Kat.nr. 214–215, 192–193, in: M. BIETAK and I. HEIN (eds.), Pharaonen und Fremde. Dynastien im Dunkel, Vienna.

SCHIESTL, R. 2002

Some Links Between a Late Middle Kingdom

Die Fürstengräber von Qaw, Veröffentlichungen der Ernst von Siegelin-Expedition in Ägypten 6, Leipzig.

Mesopotamische Gewandtypen von der Frühsumerischen bis zur Larsa-Zeit, Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 2, Berlin, 37–55.

VANDIER, J. 1958

ROBINS, G. 1994

Through Ancient Eyes: Egyptian Portraiture, An Exhibition Organized for the Birmingham Museum of Art, Birmingham, Alabama, April 21–July 31, 1988, Birmingham.

Princes et pays d’Asie et de Nubie. Textes hiératiques sur des figurines d’envoûtement du Moyen Empire, suivis de Remarques sur les lextes similaires de Berlin par B. van de Walle, Bruxelles.

REDFORD, D.B. 1988

Der Mann im Wulstsaummantel. Ein Motiv der Mittelbronze-Zeit II B, 51–115, in: O. KEEL and S. SCHROER (eds.), Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel I, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 67, Freiburg.

SPANEL, D.

POSENER, G. 1940

Der Gott Sopdu. Der Herr der Fremdländer, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 79, Freiburg.

SCHROER, S.

Magic in Ancient Egypt, London. Considerations on the ”Banquet Theme” in the figurative art of Mesopotamia and Syria, 15–26, in: L. MILANO (ed) Drinking in Ancient Societies. History and Culture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East, History of the Ancient Near East Studies 4, Padova.

Ausländer in Ägypten während des Mittleren Reiches und der Hyksoszeit. Teil 2: Die ausländische Bevölkerung, Ägypten und Altes Testament 42, Wiesbaden.

SCHUMACHER, I.W.

PINNOCK, F. 1994

185

Manuel d’Archéologie Egyptienne III. Les Grandes Époques. La Statuaire, Paris.

WILDUNG, D. 1984

Sesostris und Amenemhet. Ägypten im Mittleren Reich, Munich.

2000

Ägypten 2000 v. Chr. Die Geburt des Individuums, Munich.

WILLEMS, H., CHR. PEETERS and G. VERSTRAETEN, 2005

Where did Djehutihotep erect his colossal statue, ZÄS 132, 173–189.

EINE SPÄTZEITLICHE SCHÜLERTAFEL AUS DEM ASASIF* Von Günter Vittmann

Aus den österreichischen Grabungen im Asasif stammt eine beidseitig beschriebene, in der Mitte auseinandergebrochene, ca. 14 cm breite, ca. 0,5 cm dicke und ursprünglich etwa 7–8 cm hohe Holztafel,1 die jetzt zusätzlich zur Grabungsregisternummer 222 eine Kairoer Journal d’Entrée-Nummer aufweist („J 94478“).2 Wie sich bei näherer Betrachtung zeigt, schließen die beiden vorhandenen Teile (Höhe am linken Rand oben ca. 2,3 cm, unten ca. 3,4 cm; am rechten Rand oben ca. 3,5 cm; unten ca. 2,4 cm) nicht unmittelbar aneinander an, vielmehr klafft hier eine an den Rändern mit ca. 1–2 cm zu veranschlagende Lücke, die speziell auf der Rückseite zu einem nicht rekonstruierbaren Textverlust in der dritten Zeile geführt hat (vgl. weiter unten). *

1

2

3

4

Ich danke Julia Budka, die mich auf diesen Text aufmerksam machte und mir die hier reproduzierten ausgezeichneten Abbildungen sowie die technischen Angaben zukommen ließ, dem Leiter der österreichischen Grabungen Manfred Bietak für die Erlaubnis zur Publikation und schließlich Günter Burkard, der zu meinen Gunsten auf die Bearbeitung der Seite mit dem Titel der Lehre des Cheti verzichtete. Vgl. M. BIETAK, Theben-West (Luqsor). Vorbericht über die ersten vier Grabungskampagnen (1969–1971), Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl., 278. Band, 4. Abhandlung, Wien 1972, 32 und Taf. XVII (b) (kleine Abbildung der Seite mit dem Cheti-Text; nur diese wird im Textteil erwähnt). Eine detailliertere Beschreibung wird die Dissertation von Julia Budka über die Funde von „Grab VII“ im Asasif enthalten. Vgl. auch unten Anm. 13. Leider war das Objekt Anfang August 2005 weder im Keller – wo es sich nach der Positionsangabe im Journal d’Entrée („S.S (= sous-sol) R 29, west cage center“) befinden sollte – noch im entsprechenden Raum des Erdgeschosses auffindbar. Den Mitarbeitern des Ägyptischen Museums, vor allem Frau Nariman, danke ich gleichwohl für Hilfe und Unterstützung bei der Überwindung bürokratischer Hindernisse sowie der Suche nach dem kleinen Gegenstand. Die Bezeichnungen „Vorderseite“ und „Rückseite“ sind willkürlich gewählt. G. POSENER, RdE 25, 1973, 251 Anm. 1. Vgl. jetzt auch

Die Vorderseite3 enthält, wie Posener4 erkannte, die Überschrift der Lehre des Cheti 5 in (spät-) hieratischer Schrift. (1) HA.t-a m sbAjj(.t) (2) ªjrj(.t).n¬ z n *Aªr¬.t (1) „Anfang der Lehre, (2) die der Mann von Sile(?)6 gemacht hat“. Die Tatsache, daß die Lehre des Cheti auch in der Spätzeit bekannt war, ist nicht neu. In erster Linie ist hier an die Schülertafel Louvre E 8424 zu erinnern, die außer der Überschrift auch den Anfang der eigentlichen Lehre enthält.7 Eine Harpokratesterrakotta im British Museum enthält die Inschrift dj=j8 mr=k(?) zS.w „Ich lasse dich(?) die Schriften lieben“, ein hier offenbar dem Harpokrates in den Mund gelegtes Zitat aus dem dritten Kapitel desselben Werks.9 Schließ-

5

6

7

8 9

U. VERHOEVEN, Untersuchungen zur späthieratischen Buchschrift, OLA 99, Leuven 2001, 16. Vgl. W. HELCK, Die Lehre des ¨wA-xtjj, Teil I, Wiesbaden 1970, 12, wo diese Holztafel natürlich noch nicht berücksichtigt werden konnte. Zur Lehre des Cheti (bzw. Dua-Cheti) vgl. jetzt S. JÄGER, Altägyptische Berufstypologien, Göttingen 2004. Die Holztafel aus dem Asasif wir dort p. 7 als „tQurna“ erwähnt, konnte vom Verfasser aber nicht ausgewertet werden. Die Analyse des letzten Wortes ist unklar; die verbreitete Auffassung als *Arw „Sile“ wurde von H.-W. FISCHERELFERT, Die Lehre eines Mannes für seinen Sohn, ÄgAbh 60, Wiesbaden 1999, 370 Anm. 8 zugunsten einer Interpretation als TAr.t als „Kabinett(?) / Internat(?)“ in Frage gestellt; vgl. auch P. VERNUS, Sagesses de l’Égypte pharaonique, (Paris) 2001, 182 und 196 Anm. 15. Skeptisch hingegen und der traditionellen Lesung „Sile“ zuneigend J.F. QUACK, BiOr 57, 2000, 537; s. auch W. SIMPSON, in: DERS., The Literature of Ancient Egypt, New Haven – London 20033, 432 und Anm. 1. S. SAUNERON, RdE 7, 1950, 186ff. (bei HELCK, a.a.O. berücksichtigt). Mit dem „Mann mit Götterbart“ geschrieben. Notiz von H.-W. FISCHER-ELFERT, in: H. GYÄRY & Z. MRÁV (Hrsg.), Aegyptus et Pannonia 1. Acta Symposii anno 2000, Budapest 2002, 94f. (ich danke H.-W. Fischer-Elfert für den Hinweis auf diese Notiz sowie die Übersendung einer Kopie). Vgl. jetzt P. KAPLONY, GM 204, 2005, 57ff., der jedoch nicht das Suffix der 2. P. Sg. Masc., sondern kj(.w) „andere (= Fremde)“ bzw. „kleine Kinder“ liest.

188

Günter Vittmann

lich ist es gut möglich, daß sich hinter jenem PAwr-Dl, der den im demotischen P. Louvre 2414 überlieferten, der Lehre des Anchscheschonki nahestehenden Weisheitstext verfaßt haben soll, in etwas veränderter Gestalt niemand anderer als der erwähnte „Mann von Sile“ verbirgt.10 Schülertafeln mit Exzerpten weisheitlicher Literatur sind aus der Spätzeit auch sonst vereinzelt bezeugt.11

Gänzlich unbekannt, und zwar nicht nur dem Inhalt nach, sondern selbst hinsichtlich seiner bloßen Existenz, war bisher der wahrscheinlich fünf, höchstens aber sechs Zeilen lange kursivhieratische Text auf der Rückseite. Infolge des Bruchs sind mindestens große Teile von Zeile 3 sowie die obere Hälfte vom Anfang der zweiten Zeile des unteren Fragments verlorengegangen. Bei der Kalkulation des Text-

10

11

R. JASNOW, Enchoria 27, 2001, 202f. (mit Literatur zu P. Louvre 2414).

Vgl. VERHOEVEN, Untersuchungen (Anm. 4) 20 mit Literatur.

Eine spätzeitliche Schülertafel aus dem Asasif

umfangs (und damit der ursprünglichen Höhe der Tafel) ist von folgenden Überlegungen auszugehen: 1. Der Abstand von der Grundlinie einer Zeile zur Grundlinie der nächsten beträgt ca. 1,2 cm. 2. Der hieratische Text auf der anderen Seite kann aus textinternen Gründen nur die zwei Zeilen umfaßt haben, die tatsächlich erhalten sind. Nimmt man an, der kursivhieratische Text habe mehr als fünf Zeilen umfaßt, würde der Abstand zwischen den beiden Zeilen des hieratischen Texts um mindestens 1,2 cm anwachsen und dadurch unverhältnismäßig und unrealistisch groß werden. Wer diese Argu-

189

mentation nicht überzeugend findet – und absolut zwingend und beweisend kann sie natürlich nicht sein –, müßte die Zeilen als 1–3 für das obere und 3+x+1 – 3+x+3 für das untere Fragment zählen. Der Schriftduktus entspricht grundsätzlich dem „klassischen“ Kursivhieratisch der 25. bis frühen 26. Dynastie. Andererseits ist jedoch zuzugeben, daß die Entwicklungsgeschichte des Kursivhieratischen noch nicht genügend bekannt und erforscht ist, und soviel ich sehe, ist für den Text auf der Holztafel ein Ansatz in den Jahrzehnten vor der 25. Dynastie mit rein paläographischen

190

Günter Vittmann

Mitteln nicht strikt auszuschließen.12 Da die in Z. 1 genannten Personen mit bestimmten wohlbekannten Funktionären der 22. Dynastie zu identifizieren sind, könnte man von daher einer Frühdatierung zuneigen. Ein derartiger Ansatz relativiert sich jedoch insofern, als die Einleitung „die Worte (o.ä.) des +d-DHwtj-iw=f-anx“ im Prinzip sehr gut zu einer späteren literarischen Überlieferung über eine Person der Vergangenheit passen könnte: Aus Gründen, die im Kommentar diskutiert werden (Anm. b; c; g), vermute ich, daß wir es mit dem Titel einer Erzählung zu tun haben, deren Held jener +dDHwtj-iw=f-anx war.13 Der archäologische Kontext, in dem die Holztafel gefunden wurde, begünstigt am ehesten einen Ansatz in der Übergangszeit von der 25. zur 26. Dynastie, was sich mit dem paläographischen Eindruck gut vereinbaren läßt.

b

a Der Pluralartikel wird, wie im Kursivhieratischen allgemein üblich, als n mit einem Punkt darüber geschrieben.

Zur Determinierung von sDd, das bisher kursivhieratisch nicht belegt war, mit „Hw-Zahn“ und „Mann mit der Hand am Mund“ vgl. P. Moskau 127, IV 9–10 (R. A. CAMINOS, A Tale of Woe, Oxford 1977, pl. 9–10). Für sDd als Substantiv gibt Wb IV 395, 13–14 die Bedeutungen „Worte, Reden jemds.“; „Erzählung“ an; für den verbalen Gebrauch (a.a.O. 394f., 1–12) „etw. erzählen, sprechen“. Im Demotischen sind die Verhältnisse analog; vgl. ERICHSEN, Demot. Glossar 482 s.v. sDj (wo allerdings „Ergebnis“ offenbar ein Lapsus calami für „Erlebnis“ ist). Die komplexe Frage nach dem genaueren Charakter dieser „Worte“ – wurden sie dem +d-DHwtj-iw=f-anx als Autor zugeschrieben, und wenn ja, als seine „Reden“, „Aussprüche“, „Erlebnisse“, „Geschichten“, „Erzählungen“, oder handelt es sich vielmehr um „Geschichten über XY“? – läßt sich aus dem Lexem selbst nicht entscheiden. Der Versuch, die hier zutreffende Bedeutungsnuance von sDd zu bestimmen, wird durch den Verlust einer ganzen Zeile stark erschwert. Wie unten in Anm. g ausgeführt, ist das unmittelbar auf den Titel des +d-DHwtj-iw=f-anx folgende, sicher nicht zur Titulatur gehörige artikellose rmTaA ein Begriff, der in der demotischen Weisheitsliteratur eine Rolle spielt. Mit n(A) sDd könnten also konkret „Aussprüche“ bzw. „Sentenzen“ gemeint sein, wie sie in diesem Text dem +dDHwtj-iw=f-anx zugeschrieben werden (und anderweitig bisher unbekannt sind). Für eine derartige Verwendung von sDd vgl. (von Wb IV 395, 13 zitiert) P. Harris 500, VI 6–7 (Antef-Lied) jw sDm.n=j md.wt Jj-m-Htp Hna ¡r-Dd=f sDd.tj m sDd.wt=sn rsj „Ich habe die Worte des Imhotep und des Hardjedef gehört, die in ihren Aussprüchen sehr (viel?) zitiert werden (o.ä.).“15 In ähnlicher Weise dient koptisch éaèe zur zusammenfassenden Bezeichnung der Logia Jesu im Thomas-Evangelium (vgl. The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, Codex II, Leiden 1974, pl. 32): naei ne Néaèe euhp entaIS etonà

12

14

Umsc
13

Dieser Eindruck stützt sich u.a. auf unpublizierte Dokumente wie die Fragmente von Qasr Ibrim, die aus onomastischen Gründen doch wohl vorkuschitisch / libysch zu datieren sind, vom Schriftduktus her aber durchaus dem „klassischen“ Kursivhieratisch entsprechen. Vgl. in diesem Sinne die Charakterisierung des Textes durch J.F. QUACK, Einführung in die altägyptische Literaturgeschichte, III. Die demotische und gräko-ägyptische Literatur, Münster 2005, 42.

15

Die von mir benutzte Umschrift des Kursivhieratischen (und Demotischen) unterscheidet sich von der des Hieroglyphischen und „normalen“ Hieratischen vor allem durch den Gebrauch von i im Anlaut anstelle von j. Transkribiert nach dem Facsimile bei W.M. MÜLLER, Die Liebespoesie der alten Ägypter, Leipzig 1899, Taf. 13; vgl. Übersetzung bei M. LICHTHEIM, Ancient Egyptian Literature, I, Berkeley 1973, 196.

Eine spätzeitliche Schülertafel aus dem Asasif

èooy „Dies sind die geheimen Worte, die der lebende Jesus sprach“. Obwohl ein „weisheitlicher“ Gebrauch von sDd gut zur anderen Seite der Holztafel mit dem Titel der Lehre des Cheti passen würde, ist auch mit der – alles in allem vielleicht sogar wahrscheinlicheren – Möglichkeit zu rechnen, daß sDd hier im Sinne von „Geschichte, Erzählung“ („story, tale, narrative“) zu verstehen ist, wie dies in der demotischen Literatur gut belegt ist. Im Schreiberkolophon der ersten Setne-Erzählung (1 Setne, VI 20) wird der Text zusammenfassend als sDj n %tne ¢a-m-wAs irm NA.w-nfr-kA-ptH irm Ih-wr.t tAj=f rmT.t Mr-ib pAj=s Sr „Geschichte von/über Setne Chaemwese und Naneferkaptah und seiner/seine Frau Ahure (und) ihrem/ihren (Sg. fem.) Sohn Merib“ bezeichnet.16 Ein später literarischer Text aus Tebtynis erwähnt 35 n wj[h]j irm 35 n sDj mnx „35 schlechte und 35 gute Geschichten“ (P. Petese Tebt. A, V 9).17 Im Hinblick auf die Verwendung im Kolophon der Setne-Geschichte versteht Quack sDj geradezu als ägyptischen Gattungsbegriff für „Erzählung“.18 c

+d-DHwtj-iw=f-anx, Sohn des Imn-m-in.t, ist im Hinblick auf Filiation und Titel mit +d-DHwtj-iw=fanx I, einer gut bekannten Persönlichkeit der 22. Dynastie und Schwiegersohn eines Königs Schoschenk (I.?), zu identifizieren; vgl. zu der betreffenden Familie P.-M. CHEVEREAU, Prosopographie des cadres militaires égyptiens de la Basse Époque, Antony 1985, 23ff. (mit Stammtafel S. 31); K. JAN19 SEN-WINKELN, SAK 33, 2005, 125ff.

191

tische Biographien der 22. und 23. Dynastie, ÄAT 8/2, Wiesbaden 1985, 546) sowie – und zwar für dieselbe Person wie auf dem Holzbrett – auf einer früher in Liverpool befindlichen, jetzt zerstörten Stele; vgl. K. A. KITCHEN, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, Warminster 1973, 207; ders., in: Hommages à Jean Leclant, IV, BdÉ 104/4, Le Caire 1994, 163ff. (Text B, Z. 7). Vereinzelte Belege für den Namen gibt es noch aus der Spätzeit (vgl. RANKE, PN 27, 22): Jmn-m-jnt hieß der Vater des thebanischen Bürgermeisters Bs in der 26. Dynastie, vgl. J. ASSMANN, Das Grab des Basa (Nr. 389) in der thebanischen Nekropole, AV 6, Mainz 1977, 16. e

sX-mSa „Heerschreiber“ ist zusammen mit dem in (f) besprochenen Zusatz ein Titel, der die sichere Identifizierung seines Trägers mit +d-DHwtj-iw=fanx (I) ermöglicht; vgl. CHEVEREAU, a.a.O. (oben c) 27f. (zS-nsw mSa n a-rsj als Titel dieses Mannes sowie seines Vaters; für den Großvater Ns-pA-qA-Swtj (II) a.a.O. 26 unten ohne das nsw belegt). Zu der entfernt an ein anx-Zeichen erinnernden Schreibung des „mSa-Mannes“ vgl. S. P. VLEEMING, The Gooseherds of Hou, Studia Demotica 3, Leuven 1991, 198 §28 mit zwei sehr ähnlichen Belegen aus den „Oracular Amuletic Papyri“ (ed. EDWARDS). Paläographisch geeignetes kursivhieratisches Vergleichsmaterial aus der 25./26. Dynastie fehlt leider; der „mSa-Mann“ wurde – wie auch hieroglyphisch und demotisch – gerne durch die -Schleife ersetzt.20 f

Imn-m-iwn(.t) ist als unetymologische, auf lautlicher Ähnlichkeit beruhende Schreibung für Imn-m-in.t zu interpretieren. Dieselbe Form des genannten Namens findet sich auf der Statue Kairo CG 42231, f 8 (vgl. K. JANSEN-WINKELN, Ägyp-

Die analytische Schreibung a-rsj „Südregion“ bestätigt, daß hieroglyphisches in den parallelen hieroglyphischen Titulaturen und auch sonst analog zu analysieren ist,21 nicht als Cma,22 wie es für sich alleine betrachtet möglich schiene. Kursivhieratisch war bisher nur das Pendant

16

20

d

17

18 19

Vgl. R. K. RITNER, in: W. K. SIMPSON, The Literature of Ancient Egypt, New Haven – London 20033, 469: „the narrative of Setna Khaemuas and Naneferkaptah“ etc. K. RYHOLT, The Story of Petese Son of Petetum and Seventy Other Good and Bad Stories, Copenhagen 1999, 18 (Transkription); 56 (Übersetzung); pl. V. Viele Belege für die verschiedenen verbalen und nominalen Gebrauchsweisen von sDj können in der in kontinuierlichem Aufbau befindlichen „Datenbank demotischer Texte“, die aber schon derzeit den größten Teil der publizierten narrativen Literatur enthält, im Kontext eingesehen werden (http://aaew2.bbaw/tla/). QUACK, Literatur (Anm. 13), 16. Ich danke dem Verfasser dafür, mir diesen Artikel bereits vor dem Erscheinen zugänglich gemacht zu haben.

21

22

So in P. BM 10432, 1 (556 v.Chr.); vgl. K. DONKER VAN HEEL, Abnormal Hieratic and Early Demotic Texts, Diss. Leiden 1995, pl. XXXI; Transkription S. 237. Vgl. in diesem Sinne etwa R. CAMINOS, JEA 38, 1952, 48, Übersetzung von Gebel Silsile Nr. 100, Z. 5 (zu pl. XI); K. JANSEN-WINKELN, GM 99, 1987, 19f. Freilich hätte bereits durch eine analytische Schreibung wie die auf der – vom letztgenannten Autor zitierten – Schreiberpalette, die W.C. HAYES, JEA 34, 1948, 47ff. mit pl. XIV (hier Z. 5) publiziert hat, die Lesung klar sein können. So offenbar Wb IV 472, wo ähnliche Schreibungen für a-rsj mit Cma zusammengeworfen wurden; P.-M. CHEVEREAU, Prosopographie des cadres militaires égyptiens de la Basse Époque, Antony 1985, 23ff. passim.

192

Günter Vittmann

a-mHß „Nordregion“ in der Verbindung rmT a-mHß als Herkunftsbezeichnung von Sklaven (Kriegsgefangenen?) in verschiedenen Papyri bekannt (im Prinzip gleichbedeutend qDwD a-mHß in Louvre E 3228 e, 3).23 a „Distrikt, Region“ ist dabei auf genau dieselbe Weise geschrieben wie an unserer Stelle. g

Auf die kursivhieratische Standardschreibung für rmT folgt die Gruppe aA, die sich mit dem vorangehenden Wort zu dem Kompositum rmT-aA „vornehm, reich“ bzw. substantiviert „Großer, Vornehmer“ (kopt. rmmao) verbindet. Vermutlich handelt es sich dabei um eine (artikellose) Charakterisierung des +d-DHwtj-iw=f-anx. Grundsätzlich besteht aber auch die Möglichkeit, daß rmT-aA eine weisheitliche Sentenz einleitet. Der Ausdruck wird oft – und zwar ohne Artikel – in der demotischen Weisheitsliteratur im Sinne von „reicher, bedeutender Mann“, „Großer“ (also als Gegenstück zum rmT-xm „kleinen Mann“) gebraucht; vgl. Anchscheschonki, VII 20; X 7; XII 10; XVIII 8. 23; XXIII 22; Insinger XV 3; XXIII 22; XXVII 19; XXVIII 23. Wir könnten es also im Prinzip mit einer Spruchsammlung des +d-DHwtj-iw=f-anx, die mit einer Sentenz über einen „schönen Vornehmen/Reichen“ eröffnet wurde, zu tun haben; Präzisierungen sind wegen der Lücke in Z. 3 nicht möglich. Zum Fehlen des Artikels bei der Bezeichnung von Kategorien und Klassen („generic“) vgl. J.H. JOHNSON, in: S.P. VLEEMING (Hrsg.), Aspects of Demotic Lexicography, Studia Demotica [1], Leiden 1987, 41ff.

h

Am Beginn der Gruppe steht offensichtlich eine Ligatur zweier Einkonsonantenzeichen; oben ein Ayin oder b, unten am ehesten n, r oder S. Da an „schön“, an das ich zuerst dachte, kursivhieratisch ganz anders geschrieben wird (das Determinativ des „umrandeten Auges“ hat eine stark abweichende Form; außerdem sollte der anGruppe die Komplementierung mit nw-Topf und w-Schleife folgen),24 erwog ich eine Lesung aDA bzw. aD „falsch, un(ge)recht“. Die daraus resultierende Übersetzung „ungerechter Rei-

23

Für die betreffenden Quellen vgl. – mit Diskussion des genannten Ausdrucks – S. VLEEMING, OMRO 61, 1980, 14 Anm. 45; J. QUAEGEBEUR, in: K. VAN LERBERGHE & A. SCHOORS (Hrsg.), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East. Festschrift E. Lipinski, OLA 65, Leuven 1995, 260ff.

cher“ (o.ä.) könnte sich dann freilich kaum auf den Helden einer Erzählung beziehen; außerdem brächte die Lesung ebenfalls paläographische wie syntaktisch-grammatische Probleme mit sich: Das Determinativ des „schlechten Vogels“ sieht sowohl kursivhieratisch als auch demotisch anders aus; zudem ist aDA / aD als Verbum („im Unrecht sein“) und Substantiv („Unrecht“; „Frevler, Schuldiger“ u.ä.) belegt, nicht aber als Adjektiv, das man attributiv an ein Substantiv anschließen und mit dem graduellen Adverb m-Ss („wirklich“, „sehr“, „ganz und gar“ o.ä.) erweitern könnte. Es dürfte also tatsächlich die Lesung an25 „schön“ zutreffen; immerhin ähnelt das Determinativ stark der im Demotischen üblichen Form. Für die Konstruktion Substantiv – attributives Adjektiv – graduelles Adverb m-Ss vgl. a.wj aA m-Ss „ein sehr großes Haus“ P. Rylands 9, VI 10; nTr.w aj.w m-Ss nA ntj n.im=f „Sehr große Götter sind es, die darin (im Tempel von Teudjoi) sind“ ibid., XII 7 (G. VITTMANN, Der demotische Papyrus Rylands 9, ÄAT 38, Wiesbaden 1998, 132f. und 154f.); NA.w-nfr-kA-ptH sX nfr rmT-rx m-Ss pAj „Naneferkaptah ist (d.h. war) ein sehr tüchtiger und gelehrter Schreiber“ Setne 1, IV 24. j

Das m (unmittelbar hinter m-Ss) sowie das Determinativ des „schlagenden Mannes“ am Ende der Zeile sind sicher, so daß für die Zeichen dazwischen die Analyse als – freilich nicht standardgemäßes – mH-Zeichen über der (nicht vollständig erhaltenen) Buchrolle wohl das wahrscheinlichste ist.26 Allerdings ist die Schreibung von mH mit einem m-Zeichen am Anfang zwar im Demotischen, nicht jedoch im (Kursiv-)Hieratischen üblich. k

Der Inhalt der Zeile ist infolge des gravierenden Textverlusts auch nicht annähernd zu rekonstruieren.

l

Hr am Anfang ist trotz der Beschädigung der oberen Hälfte sicher. Da danach eindeutig ein n steht (darüber fehlt wohl nichts), kann es sich nicht um die einfache Präposition handeln. Möglicherweise liegt Hr in der Bedeutung „Oberseite“ vor, eventuell aber auch eine mit Hr zusammenge-

24

25 26

Vgl. die Schreibung im P. Queen’s College, x+II 2 Ende (Publikation durch H.-W. FISCHER-ELFERT, dem ich für eine Kopie des Textes danke, in Vorbereitung). Vgl. QUACK, Literatur (Anm. 6), 42. rwD „Agent“ kommt schwerlich in Frage, auch ließe sich dabei das vorangehende m nicht befriedigend erklären.

Eine spätzeitliche Schülertafel aus dem Asasif

setzte Präposition. Leider erlauben die am Ende der vorangehenden Zeile erkennbaren Zeichenreste keine diesbezügliche Entscheidung. m

Das alleinstehende p ist vermutlich eine phonetische Schreibung des maskulinen Artikels pA, den man vor dem folgenden Maskulinum tmA „Matte“ ja auch erwartet. Eine solche Schreibung ist zwar für das (Kursiv-)Hieratische – nicht das Hieroglyphische – recht ungewöhnlich, doch läßt sich immerhin auf entsprechende vereinzelte kursivhieratische Graphien in Personennamen wie PA-dj-As.t und PA-dj-imn-nb-ns.wt-tA.wj verweisen; vgl. G. VITTMANN, Enchoria 25, 1999, 112 (mit Facsimiles); R.A. PARKER, A Saite Oracle Papyrus from Thebes, Providence 1962, pl. 12, K 7. n

tmA „Matte“ ist substantiell in derselben charakteristischen Weise (also „tmAmw“ mit Determinativ) geschrieben wie z.B. der erste bei LESKO, Dictionary of Late Egyptian IV 86 für dieses Wort aufgeführte Schriftbeleg; vgl. B. HARING, in: R.J. DEMARÉE – A. EGBERTS (Hrsg.), Deir el-Medina in the Third Millennium AD. A Tribute to Jac. J. Jans-

27

tmA wieder in identischer Schreibweise.

193

sen, Leiden 2000, 129ff. Eine Matte in weisheitlichem Kontext wird in der Lehre eines Mannes für seinen Sohn erwähnt: jTj mnx Hr tmA27 „Ergreife Effizienz (o.ä.) auf der Matte!“ (§9, 9 nach O. DeM 1736); vgl. H.-W. FISCHER-ELFERT, Die Lehre eines Mannes für seinen Sohn, ÄgAbh 60, Wiesbaden 1999, 117 und 127 (i) und hieroglyphische Transkription im Tafelband; J.F. QUACK, BiOr 57, 2000, 540. Es sei auch an die Matte einnert, auf welcher der Zauberer Djedi ruht, als er vom Prinzen Hordjedef aufgesucht wird (P. Westcar, VII 15). mn-dj (kopt. mnte–) erscheint in der auch sonst in kursivhieratischen Texten üblichen Schreibweise. o

p

Das Bezugswort stand wahrscheinlich in der verlorenen Partie in Z. 3.

q

ip hat die volle Form des Schriftendeterminativs, wie es sich in derselben Form – nur besser erhalten und somit deutlicher zu erkennen – auch im hieratischen Text auf der Vorderseite in sbAj.t findet.

A SEAL IMPRESSED HANDLE IN THE COLLECTION OF THE ERETZ ISRAEL MUSEUM, TEL AVIV By Irit Ziffer

Cylinder seal sealings from Palestinian sites are rare. From the Middle Bronze Age three excavated cylinder-seal impressed jar handles, one bowl handle and one sealing are known. The dearth of cylinder seal impressed handles stands in contrast to the use of scarabs which was widespread: these we find on the upper part of jar handles, now over 120,1 jar stoppers, clay conoids and miscellaneous sealings.2 The present article adds yet another, though unprovenanced, cylinder-sealed jar handle to the list. The handle (Fig. 1) in the collection of the Ceramics Pavillion, Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv (reg. no. MHP 53.68) was purchased in Jerusalem in 1968 by Dr. Arie Kindler, at the time curator of the Kadman Numismatic Pavillion, in the period of the late Professor Pirhiya Beck’s tenure as curator of the Ceramics Pavillion. Petrographic analysis by Y. Goren proves that the jar was manufactured of soil of the central hill regions.

presentation, consisting of two figures approaching a seated figure. The enthroned male figure facing left wears a

DESCRIPTION The impression is located on the upper part of the broken handle, therefore there is no way to tell how many times the seal was rolled over it. However, it seems that the preserved impression, (measuring 16 × 25 mm) contains the entire seal design of the Old Syrian period (first half of the 18th century), showing a scene of an audience or a

1

2

O. KEEL, Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/ Israel, OBO SA 10, Freiburg and Göttingen 1995, 119; D. BEN-TOR, A Scarab Impression, in A. BEN-TOR, D. BEN-AMI and A. LIVNEH, Yoqnecam III: The Middle and Late Bronze Age, Qedem Reports 7, Jerusalem, 2005, 361–362; S.J. BOURKE and K.O. ERIKSSON, Pella in Jordan, Royal Name Scarabs and the Hyksos Empire: A View from the Margins, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN and A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak 2, OLA 149.3, Leuven-Paris-Dudley MA, 2006, 403–410. B. TEISSIER, Seals and Communication in Middle Bronze Age Palestine, in: A. CAUBET, (ed.), De Chypre à la Bactriane, les sceaux du Proche-Orient ancien, Actes du colloque international organisé au musée du Louvre par le Service culturel le 18 mars 1995, Paris, 1997, 233.

Fig. 1 Cylinder seal impressed jar handle, Collection Ceramics Pavilion, Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv MHP 53.68 (Photos: Leonid Padrul)

196

Irit Ziffer

long garment and a tight fitting cap. His extended right hand perhaps holds a cup. The seated figure receives two others wearing long robes and raising their left hands towards him. A vertically set fish is depicted between the two figures.3 In the field behind the throne there is a perched bird facing left above a crouched hare also facing left. The wedge shape in the field is the bird’s fan-spread tail typical of doves.4 The combination of bird and hare is fairly frequent on Syrian seals.5 The vertically extended fish is an abbreviated form of fish leaping along streams of water,6 symbolizing plenty. The overall shape of the fish is reminiscent of the fish in Collon’s North Syrian style cylinder seals.7 The throne is a version of the temple double portal popular in the šakkanakkus era at Mari (derived from Ur III thrones) – Old Syrian period,8 which may have rested on a platform.9 The robes

3

4

5

6

7 8

Vertically set fish between worshiping figures: Impressed jar handle from Shechem, see below; O.E. RAVN, Oriental Cylinder Seals and Seal Impressions in the Danish National Museum, Copenhagen 1960, no. 138, attributable to Collon’s North Syrian style. For a parallel, almost identically styled bird see B. TEISSIER, Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals from the Marcopoli Collection, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 1984, no. 462; also A. KEMPINSKI, A Syrian Cylinder Seal at Tel Kabri, in: M.E. MELLINK, E. PORADA, and T. ÖZGÜÇ (eds.), Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and Its Neighbors. Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç Ankara 1993, 333–337, nos. 3. (Jericho), 5 (Alalakh), 4 (Bruxelles). See below, the second Shechem handle, as well as, A. KEMPINSKI , note 4 above: nos. 3 (Jericho), 5 (Alalakh) with a separating guilloche. Leaping fish: N. ÖZGUÇ, Seals and Seal Impressions of Level Ib from Karum Kanish. Ankara 1968, pl. 11C; Louvre A. 914: P. AMIET, Bas-reliefs imaginaire de l’ancien orient d’après les cachets et les sceaux-cylindres, Paris 1973, no. 363 = M. DIJKSTRA, The Weather-God on Two Mountains. UF 23 (1991), pl. 2:3. Swimming fish – see Ugarit, RS 9.300: C.F.-A. SCHAEFFER-FORRER, Corpus I des Cylindres-Sceaux de Ras Shamra-Ugarit et d’Enkomi-Alasia, (Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations Synthese n° 13), Paris 1983, 30. North Syrian Style, see D. COLLON, A North Syrian Cylinder Seal Style: Evidence of NorthSouth Links with cAjjul, in: J.N. TUBB, (ed.), Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell, London 1985, 58–68. nos. 11, 13, 16 and below; G.A. EISEN, Ancient Oriental Cylinder and Other Seals Collection Mrs. William H. Moore, OIP 47, Chicago 1940, pl. 15:166. COLLON, note 6 above. M. METZGER, Königsthron und Gottesthron, AOAT 15, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1985, 154–155, 235–237; B. TEISSIER,

worn by the figures may have been fringed. The robe of the figure furthermost from the seated figure seems to have a swelling, which could be related to the fringed robe hems in Collon’s North Syrian style,10 which is related to Kültepe Ib, and therefore securely datable to the very end of the 19th and the first half of the18th centuries BCE.11 COMPARATIVE MATERIAL: CYLINDER SEAL IMPRESSIONS FROM PALESTINE One of the sealed jar handles from Shechem (Tell Balatah) was found by Sellin in the earliest Middle Bronze Age building phase of the SW Temenos area (Fig. 2). A Syrian cylinder seal was rolled five times over the jar handle and a 12th Dynasty scarab was stamped onto the upper part of the handle, close to where the handle joins to the body of the jar.12 It shows two figures with

9

10

11

12

A Shakkanakku Seal Impression from Kültepe, MARI 6 (1990), 649–653; T.M. SHARLACH, ‘Beyond Chronology: The Šakkanakkus of Mari and the Kings of Ur, in: W.W. HALLO and I.J. WINTER (eds.), Seals and Seal Impressions. Proceedings of the 45e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Bethesda 2001, fig. 2. As, for example, E. PORADA, Corpus of Ancient near Eastern Cylinder Seals in North American Collections: The Pierpont Morgan Library Collection, Bollingen Series 14, Washington D.C. 1948, no. 913E; B. TEISSIER 1984, note 4 above, nos. 456, 463, 470 (no platform). D. COLLON, note 6 above, no. 14 (Kültepe Ib), A. KEMPINSKI, note 4 above, fig. 1, seal from Kabri, Tomb 984, dated to the mid-18th century, N. SCHEFTELOWITZ, Stratigraphy and Architecture, in: A. KEMPINSKI, Tel Kabri 1986–1993 Seasons, Tel Aviv 2002, 32–33. ÖZGÜÇ note 6 above, pls. 20C, 20:1; P. BECK and U. ZEVULUN, Back to Square One, BASOR 304 (1996), 72–73. Level Ib started with the reign of Shamshi-Adad I. A text from an archive from Level Ib, found in 2001 (Kt.01/k 287) lists the names of 143-year eponyms, which means that the end of Ib is approximately 1723 BCE. See, N. ÖZGUÇ, More Cylinder Seals Found in Level Ib of Karum Kanish, in: J.G. DERCKSEN (ed.), Assyria and Beyond, Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, Leiden, 2004, 436. E. SELLIN, Die Ausgrabung von Sichem. Kurze vorläufige Mitteilung über die Arbeit im Sommer 1927, ZDPV 50 (1927), 266267, pl. 30; A. ROWE, A Catalogue of Egyptian Scarabs, Scaraboids, Seals and Amulets in the Palestine Archaeological Museum, Cairo 1936, pl. 26:S4; D. BENTOR, The Historical Implications of Middle Kingdom Scarabs Found in Palestine Bearing Private Names and Titles of Officials, BASOR 294 (1994), 10, Appendix A no. 10; KEEL, note 1 above, 119.

A Seal Impressed Handle in the Collection of the Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv 197

198

Irit Ziffer

raised hands, the outer one naked holding a leaf shape as they approach a third figure who stands behind an altar. Between the worshippers is a fish form. Two super-imposed hares with a separating guilloche band between them comprise the terminal of the scene. The scarab impression bears the name of the steward (Imy-ra pr) Amenemhat (Imn-m-HA.t). There is a steward by the same name known from the reign of Amenemhat II.13 Or, this steward could be identified as the Egyptian official of Shechem, who is associated with the events following Egyptian hostility in parts of Palestine during the time of Senusert III.14 The cylinder seal used to impress this handle is attributable to Collon’s North Syrian style15 and dates to the first half of the 18th century BCE. It could therefore coincide with the late 12th Dynasty.16 The other jar handle from Shechem was found by the American expedition.17 It is from the make-up of the first MB IIB building and therefore possibly dates from the MB IIA.18 The seal used to impress the second Shechem handle was also impressed on a jar handle discovered at Tell el-Farcah (N), several kilometers to the south of Shechem. The Tell el-Farcah (N) handle was found in a room constructed against the base debris of the Early Bronze Age rampart.19 It is most likely that the two handles originated from the same workshop. The design, collated from the two handles (Fig. 3), shows a group of three bare round-headed, elongated figures: a male

13 14

15 16

17

18

19

ROWE, note 12 above, 234–235. A. KEMPINSKI, The Middle Bronze Age in Northern Israel, Local and External Synchronisms, Ä&L 3 (1992), 71; note 4 above, 335. COLLON, note 6 above. Daphna Ben-Tor argues that the jar handle is of a MB IIB type, and that the scarab impressed was an heirloom and had no association with the particular official, see n. 12 above and D. BEN-TOR, S.J. ALLEN and J.P. ALLEN, Seals and Kings, BASOR 315 (1999), 54. It should, however, be noted that in order to demonstrate the approximate position of the sealings on the jar, Rowe used a drawing of a whole MB IIB storage jar from cAtlit. E.F. CAMPBELL JR. and J.F. ROSS, The Excavation of Shechem and the Biblical Tradition, BA 26 (1963), 4–5. P. AMIET, ‘Les sceaux et empreintes de sceaux de Tell el-Farcah’, in: P. AMIET, J. BRIEND, L. COURTOIS and J.-B. DUMORTIER, Tell el Farcah: Histoire, glyptique et céramologie, OBO SA 14, Fribourg and Göttingen 1996, 19. J. MALLET, ‘Tell el-Fârcah près de Naplouse l’empreinte de cylinders-sceau F 3863,’ RB 84 (1977), 108–112 = J.

wearing only a belt, holding a lance, kneels before a woman(?) holding a flask(?), while another figure, grasping an object with the right hand(?), stands behind the kneeling man and also pays homage to the woman. The terminal motifs include a hare and a perched bird separated by a guilloche band. The kneeling figure relates the seal to Collon’s North Syrian cylinder seal style, particularly to a cylinder seal from Kültepe Ib (Fig. 5), and therefore may be securely dated to the first half of the 18th century. The Kültepe seal depicts a male figure also wearing only a belt, holding a spear, kneeling before a longhaired female figure, while another male, holding a throw stick, stands behind him.20 The Kültepe seal figures are again gracefully elongated. A cylinder seal from Tell el-Farcah (N), found in a pit dug through Tomb A (attributed by the funerary goods in it to 1750 BCE) belongs to the same style (Fig. 4).21 The cylinder seal impressed bowl from Lachish (Fig. 6) was found in a MB IIA context, sealed by the MB II palace floor.22 Twice repeated in the impression, which covers the upper part of the handle from its join with the rim, the scene features a line of two striding caprids facing a scorpion to the right, with a star to the right of the scorpion.23 So far, the Lachish impression of animal group file, mostly known from LB I–LB II seals of a local Syro-Palestinian style,24 is the earliest of its kind. Petrographic analysis performed by

20

21 22

23

24

MALLET, Tell el-Fârcah: le Bronze Moyen, Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations 66, Paris 1987–1988, pl. 84:1; P. AMIET, n. 18 above, 18–20. COLLON, n. 6 above, no. 14, ÖZGÜÇ 1968, n. 6 above, 70 pl. 29:1. AMIET 1996, n. 18 above, F 140, 20–21. P. BECK, Imagery and Representation. Studies in the Art and Iconography of Ancient Palestine: Collected Articles, in: N. NA’AMAN, U. ZEVULUN, U., and I. ZIFFER, (eds.), Tel Aviv 2002, 297–300 = P. BECK, ‘Section B: Cylinder Seals,’ in: D. USSISHKIN, The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), Tel Aviv 2004, 1525–1527, fig. 23.33:1. The scorpion is the symbol of Išhara, the star – a symbol of Ištar. The two were goddesses of love, and equated in that aspect: W.G. LAMBERT, Išhara, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 5 (1976–1980), 177. Haas has suggested that Išhara was a Syrian form of Ištar (V. HAAS, Hethitische Berggötter und Hurritische Steindämonen, Mainz 1982, 102). P. AMIET, Corpus de cylinders de Ras Shamra-Ougarit II: Sceaux cylinders en hématite et pierres diverses, Ras Shamra – Ougarit 9, Paris 1992, 41–49.

A Seal Impressed Handle in the Collection of the Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv 199

Y. Goren shows that the jar was made of local clay from the southern Shephela.25 The Tel Aphek sealing (Fig. 7) was uncovered in a rubbish pit, which contained potsherds form the Iron Age as well as Late and Middle Bronze Ages in area A on the western slope of the mound.26 Fabric impression covers most of the upper surface of the sealing. The flat back bears the imprints of packed stalks of grain. The impression shows a kilted figure to the left raising right hand in a gesture of greeting, while the left arm is held against his body. Superimposed monkeys flank a staff from the left. Behind the kilted figure, covered by the fabric, are a vertical line, a bird(?) and a looped band. The fragmentary state of the sealing shows affinities with Collon’s Green Jasper Group (Teissier’s Levantine Group).27 Characteristic of this group are the vertical guilloche and the ‘segmented style’ of animals, Egyptianized motifs and hieroglyphs, some of which were intended to be read. Petrographic analysis indicates that the sealing was prepared from clay alluvium or clay soil identical to the clay used for some storage jars from Tel Gerisa on the Yarkon River, 14 kilometers west of Aphek. Consequently it was assumed that the package with the Aphek sealing was sent either from Tel Gerisa or from some other site near Aphek.28 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS All the jar handles were impressed with ‘Classical’ North Syrian seals, dating to the first half of the 18th century BCE. In subject matter, the seal used to impress the Eretz Israel Museum jar handle is closely related to the seals impressed on the Shechem/Tell el-Farcah (N) handles in that all three show audience/presentation scenes. Stylistically, the figures of these three seals are elongated. The terminal of hare and perched bird is also shared by the museum handle and the second Shechem/Tell el-Farcah (N) seal. Fish between

25 26 27

P. BECK 2002, n. 22 above 297. P. BECK 2002, n. 22 above, 288–290. D. COLLON, ‘The Green Jasper Cylinder Seal Workshop,’ in: M. KELLY-BUCCELLATI, P. MATTHIAE and M. VAN LOON (eds.), Insight Through Images: Papers in Honor of

the worshippers appear both on the Sellin Shechem sealing and the museum handle. Petrographic analysis of the museum handle indicates that it was made of central hill country clay, of which the Amarna Shechem tablets were prepared.29 The Shechem and Tell el-Farcah (N) handles have not been subjected to petrography. The fact that two handles, from Shechem and from Tell el Farcah (N) were impressed by the same seal indicates that the handles must have originated from the same workshop, which presumably operated somewhere in the vicinity of Shechem. In all likelihood, the Shechem Sellin handle also originated from the same workshop. Since the seals used to impress the three provenanced jar handles, as well as the unprovenanced – though analyzed museum handle – may all be ascribed to Collon’s North Syrian style, I suggest that the museum handle originated in the same workshop as well. This would mean that the workshop used (at least) three seals, all of North Syrian style (which, judging from the seal found in the pit, Fig. 4, could reflect the penchant of its governing authority for this style), to impress an output of storage jars with a mark of ownership. The impressed bowl handle from Lachish is the product of a local workshop, as it belonged to a vessel manufactured of local southern Shephela soil. The seal used to impress the bowl is of SyroPalestinian style. From the meager evidence of cylinder seal impressed handles, two pottery workshops that marked vessels with cylinder seals emerge – one operating in the central hill country, where North Syrian cylinder seals were popular, the other in the Shephela, where the Syro-Palestinian style was favoured. Other dispatched goods were packed and sealed, as evidenced by the Aphek sealing.

28 29

Edith Porada, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 21, Malibu 1985, 57–70; B. TEISSIER, n. 2 above. SHOVAL and GAFT in: P. BECK 2002, n. 22 above, 291. Y. Goren, personal communication, June 5, 2005.

EGYPT & TIME PROCEEDINGS OF A WORKSHOP ON PRECISION AND ACCURACY OF THE EGYPTIAN HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY Vienna, 30 June – 2 July 2005 organized by SCIEM 2000

WIE GUT FIXIERT IST DIE CHRONOLOGIE DES NEUEN REICHES WIRKLICH? Von Vera Müller

Allgemein gilt die ägyptische Chronologie ab der 2. Hälfte des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. neben der assyrischen als die am besten fixierte des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes. Nicht umsonst orientieren sich sämtliche anderen Kulturen aus diesem Raum an diesen beiden Chronologiesystemen. Dennoch liegen nach wie vor sowohl für die ägyptische als auch für die assyrische Chronologie unterschiedliche absolute Datierungsansätze vor, die entsprechend als hoch, mittel oder niedrig bezeichnet werden. Einzelne Forscher halten darüber hinaus eine ultrahohe oder ultraniedrige Chronologie für maßgeblich. Folge dieser unterschiedlichen Chronologiesysteme sind Divergenzen in Datierungsansätzen von bis zu 120 Jahren zwischen den zeitgleichen Kulturperioden Ägyptens und Mesopotamiens. Dies ist vor allem für die diesen Hochkulturen benachbarten Regionen problematisch, die mangels durchgehender Königslisten oder anderer für die Erstellung einer unabhängigen Chronologie notwendiger Quellen auf Datierungen anhand synchroner materieller Hinterlassenschaften angewiesen sind. Dies betrifft für das 2. Jahrtausend annähernd sämtliche Kulturräume außerhalb Ägyptens und Mesopotamiens. Neuere Versuche zur Überwindung dieser Problematik wurden seit den 80er Jahren des vergangenen Jahrhunderts zuerst in Göteborg (Schweden)2 und folgend in Hainburg (Österreich)3 mit den beiden Konferenzen „High, Middle or Low?“ in Angriff genommen, was schließlich in dem von Manfred Bietak ins Leben gerufenen und geleiteten, seit 1999 laufenden Spezialforschungsbereich (SFB)

SCIEM2000 der Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien kulminierte, in welchen eine internationale und interdisziplinäre Forschergruppe eingebunden ist.4 Wurden Lösungsansätze in den genannten Konferenzen vorwiegend in der Abwägung der bestehenden historischen Chronologien gesucht, so verlagerte sich das Gewicht mit dem SFB SCIEM2000 auf die Erstellung neuer Grundlagen, namentlich der Synchronisierung materieller Kulturen in der Levante von neuesten Ausgrabungen, aber auch älteren Materials, sowie verschiedener naturwissenschaftlicher Projekte, die zu unabhängigen Chronologien führen sollen (eine auf Zedern aufgebaute Dendrochronologie, umfangreiche 14C-Datenreihen von kurzlebigem Material aus stratigraphisch gut abgesicherten Kontexten, Analyse und stratigraphische Zuordnung von Bimssteinen und Asche vom Santorini-Ausbruch). Gleichzeitig wurden die historischen Chronologien Ägyptens und Mesopotamiens einer erneuten Überprüfung unterzogen, wobei auch der Astrochronologie ein bedeutsamer Platz eingeräumt wurde. Neue Brisanz erhielt das Projekt durch die Ergebnisse von 14C-Daten, die vor allem für das mittlere 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. bis zu 150 Jahre gegenüber den historischen Daten zu hoch liegen.5 Die Verfeinerung der Meßmethoden und die Überprüfung von etwaigen Labor- und Analysefehlern in den 14C-Labors erbrachten allerdings keine Lösung dieses Problems.6 Nun gilt es die historischen Chronologien einer erneuten Überprüfung zu unterziehen, um mögliche Annäherungsmöglichkeiten historischer Daten und den vorhandenen 14C-Daten zu erwirken. Da dieser Beitrag auch für nicht auf die ägypti-

1

5

EINLEITUNG1

2 3 4

Für zahlreiche Diskussionen danke ich Andreas Effland. ÅSTRÖM (ed.) (1987; 1989). BIETAK (ed.) (1992). BIETAK (ed.) (2000; 2002; 2003); KARAGEORGHIS (ed.) (2001); BERGOFFEN (2004); HUNGER & PRUSZINSKI (eds.) (2004); BIETAK & CZERNY (eds.) (2004).

6

MANNING (1999), darin zitiert die zuvor veröffentlichten Artikel zu diesem Thema, s. BIETAK (2003) und auch die Rezension von BIETAK (2004) mit jüngerer Literatur. Außerdem MANNING & BRONK RAMSEY (2003); HAMMER et al. (2003). MANNING, BRONK RAMSEY, KUTSCHERA, HIGHAM, KROMER, STEIER, WILD (2006).

204

Vera Müller

sche Chronologie spezialisierte Kollegen verständlich sein soll, wird im folgenden ein kurzer Überblick über die verschiedenen Quellen gegeben, die zur Erstellung der ägyptischen Chronologie maßgeblich sind. Zwar ist keine dieser Quellen für sich genommen zur Erstellung einer absoluten Chronologie ausreichend, in ihrer Kombination jedoch liefern sie ab der Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. ein recht dichtes Netz an Informationen. GRUNDLAGEN DER ÄGYPTISCHEN HISTORISCHEN CHRONOLOGIE7 Eine Geschichtsschreibung in unserem heutigen Sinne war im alten Ägypten nicht üblich, doch wurden Königslisten, Annalen und zeitweise auch Tagebücher geführt, die uns z.T. erhalten blieben und daher die grundlegenden Quellen für die Erstellung der Chronologie darstellen.8 Die erhaltenen Königslisten9 führen allerdings von den Beginnen nicht über das Neue Reich hinaus und beinhalten bis auf den stark verderbten Turiner Königspapyrus nur ausgewählte Königsnamen. Weggelassen wurden einerseits Namen, die in späterer Betrachtung als illegitim galten, wie weibliche Potentaten, die Hyksos sowie die Könige der AmarnaZeit oder die örtlich keine Verehrung genossen, wie die meisten Könige der sogenannten Zwischenzeiten, die vorwiegend nicht über das gesamte Land regiert hatten. In den meisten Königslisten sind die bloßen Königsnamen ohne weitere Angaben hintereinander aufgelistet, d.h. weder Regierungsantritt, Regierungslängen, Koregenzen oder zeitgleiche Herrschaften sind genannt. Einzige Ausnahmen hiervon bil-

7

8 9 10

Die folgende Darstellung fußt vorwiegend auf dem gut aufbereiteten und sehr verständlichen Werk von VON BECKERATH (1997). VON BECKERATH (1977). REDFORD (1986: 18–59); VON BECKERATH (1997: 23–27). Das 1865 erstmals in Palermo erwähnte und 1877 in das dortige Museum eingegangene Fragment ist das größte, weswegen auch für die weiteren sechs, erst später aufgetauchten Fragmente häufiger der Begriff Palermostein als pars-pro-toto verwendet wird. Fünf der Fragmente befinden sich heute im Museum Kairo, eines im University College London. Die Herkunft der Stücke, die ursprünglich zu einer 6,5 cm dicken, beidseitig beschrifteten Platte aus schwarzem Gestein gehörte, ist unbekannt. Umstritten ist bislang noch die Anordnung der vorhandenen Fragmente sowie die Rekonstruktion der fehlenden Stücke und damit auch die absolute

den die Annalensteine und der Turiner Königspapyrus, in denen zumindest die Regierungsjahre notiert waren. Beide Quellen sind unglücklicherweise stark zerstört. Auf den Annalensteinen (Palermostein),10 die nur in einzelnen Fragmenten überkommen sind, wurde jedes einzelne Jahr mit einem speziellen Ereignis verbunden (Rituale und religiöse Feste, Opferstiftungen, Besteuerung, Erstellen von Statuen, Errichten von Gebäuden, Bau von Schiffen, Beutezüge etc.).11 Unvollständige Regierungsjahre sind durch genaue Angaben von Monaten und Tagen verzeichnet. Die Regierungslängen sind somit durch einfaches Abzählen zu ermitteln. Die Annalensteine reichen von der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit, in der lediglich die Namen von unterägyptischen und gesamtägyptischen Königen genannt werden, bis zur 6. Dynastie (Abb. 1) und sind daher für die Chronologie des 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. nicht zu verwerten. Aufgrund ihrer sehr fragmentarischen Zustände sind aus ihnen für chronologische Zwecke zwar lediglich vereinzelte Informationen zu entnehmen, doch bieten sie in anderen Hinsichten sehr wichtige Einblikke. Darüber hinaus liefern sie den Beweis, daß in altägyptischen Archiven Annalen seit den Anfängen aufbewahrt und stetig erweitert wurden. Dies wird auch durch den Turiner Königspapyrus bestätigt, in welchem sämtliche Könige von den mythischen Anfängen (Götter, „Geister“) bis zum Ende der 2. Zwischenzeit aufgelistet sind, wobei neben der Anzahl der Regierungsjahre teilweise ebenfalls genaue Angaben zu den Monaten und Tagen vorliegen, für die ersten beiden Dynastien sogar das Lebensalter.12 Zusätzlich sind meh-

11 12

Größe der Platte, außerdem der Zeitpunkt der Herstellung. S. HELCK (1982); REDFORD (1986: 87-–90). Aufgrund der unterschiedlichen Plattendicken ist allerdings deutlich, daß es sich um mehr als einen Annalenstein handelte. Eine weitere Annalenliste, welche die Könige der 6. Dynastie nennt, wurde erst vor relativ kurzer Zeit im Museum Kairo auf einem Sarkophagdeckel aus Basalt entdeckt, BAUD & DOBREV (1995). Der Sarkophag gehörte der Königin Anchenespepi, der Mutter von Pepi II. aus dem Ende der 6. Dyn, und wurde bereits 1931–1932 von G. Jéquier in Saqqara-Süd ausgegraben; die weitgehend abgeschliffenen Inschriften wurden damals jedoch als unleserlich deklariert. VON BECKERATH (1997: 13–19). REDFORD (1986: 1–18); VON BECKERATH (1997: 19–23); RYHOLT (2004).

Wie gut fixiert ist die Chronologie des Neuen Reiches wirklich?

Abb. 1 Chronologie Ägyptens nach KITCHEN (2000)

205

206

Vera Müller

rere Herrscher zu Gruppen gefaßt und mit Überschriften und Summenzahlen versehen, die später in die jetzt gebräuchlichen Dynastien eingingen.13 Doch leider ist auch diese unschätzbare Quelle zu großen Teilen stark zerstört und zwar gerade in den Bereichen der Regierungsjahre am stärksten.14 Dennoch lassen sich auch aus diesem Papyrus vereinzelt sehr wertvolle Informationen gewinnen. Die Liste befindet sich auf der Rückseite einer Abrechnung aus der Zeit Ramses II. (19. Dyn.) und dürfte entweder ebenfalls zu dieser Zeit oder etwas später niedergeschrieben worden sein. Es handelt sich somit sicherlich um keine offizielle Archivalie. Die Gründe für die Niederschrift bleiben unklar, doch wird aus dieser Liste wiederum deutlich, daß genaue Aufzeichnungen nicht nur über die einzelnen Regierungsjahre archiviert waren, sondern schon in antiker Zeit in „Dynastien“ gedacht und gerechnet wurde. Da zudem auch ephemere und später verfemte Könige, wie z.B. solche der Zwischenzeiten, unter anderem die Hyksos, genannt sind, wird deutlich, daß es neben lokalen Traditionen, in denen diverse Könige weggelassen wurden, zentrale Archive gab, die unbenommen der Bedeutung der einzelnen Herrscher jeden von ihnen aufführte. Kleinere Fehler dürften durch das häufige Abschreiben entstanden sein, die auf die stetige Verlängerung der Liste im Laufe der Jahrhunderte zurückzuführen ist. Quellen dieser Art, neben vermutlich einigen anderen, müssen Manetho vorgelegen haben, der im 3. Jahrhundert v. Chr. eine Geschichte Ägyptens (Aegyptiaca) von ihren Anfängen bis zur zweiten Eroberung durch die Perser 342 v. Chr. in griechischer Sprache kompilierte.15 Das Originalwerk ging leider verloren, so daß heutzutage nur noch Exzerpte, die teilweise stark verändert und mit Geschichten erweitert wurden, erhalten sind. Die Veränderungen betreffen sowohl Namen als auch Regierungszahlen: die Namen sind gele-

13

14

15

Die Bezeichnung Dynastie wurde wohl erst von den Exzerptoren Manethos eingeführt, im Original dürften, wie bereits im Turiner Königspapyrus, die einzelnen Gruppen lediglich mit der formelhaften Überschrift „Könige von ...“ versehen gewesen sein, VON BECKERATH (1997: 35). Zur Geschichte des Papyrus s. RYHOLT (1997; 2004). Er konnte durch seine jüngsten Untersuchungen einige Fragmente neu anordnen. Manetho war ein ägyptischer Priester im 3. Jh. v. Chr. unter Ptolemaios I. oder II. Zur Vorlage des Textes und

gentlich innerhalb derselben Dynastie vertauscht,16 während die Regierungszahlen teilweise falsch abgeschrieben, teilweise wohl aber auch absichtlich (um 10er) erhöht worden sein dürften.17 Eine generelle Schwierigkeit stellt die Identifikation besonders solcher Königsnamen dar, die schwach belegt sind, da in Manethos Geschichtswerk ausschließlich die Geburtsnamen der Könige in gräzisierter Form verwendet wurden, die durch die zahlreichen Abschriften zudem korrumpiert sind. Der Geburtsname tritt in den zeitgenössischen Quellen zwar auch in Dokumenten des Alltags und bei verstorbenen Königen auf, nicht aber in den offiziellen, die Fülle der erhaltenen Inschriften bildenden Dokumente und Denkmäler, wo nahezu ausschließlich der Thronname verzeichnet ist. Nichtsdestotrotz bildet dieses Werk eine wichtige Stütze für die ägyptische Chronologie, vor allem für das 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., für welches keine Königslisten vorhanden sind; es sollte jedoch nicht unkritisch ohne einen Abgleich mit den zeitgenössischen Quellen herangezogen werden. Hauptstütze für die Erstellung der ägyptischen Chronologie bilden daher mit Königsnamen verbundene datierte Inschriften. Sie setzen sich aus einer Vielzahl von Quellen zusammen, die mit undatierten ergänzt, ein dichtes Datennetz ergeben. Hierzu zählen historische Inschriften, Tagebücher, prosopographische Daten von Beamten und Priestern, Familienstammbäume (vor allem solche von Priestern), etc. Entsprechend des altägyptischen Brauches wurde allerdings nicht nach einem unabhängigen, durchlaufenden Kalender datiert, wie wir es heute gewohnt sind, sondern die Zählung wurde mit jedem König neu begonnen. Selbst wenn daher für jeden König sämtliche dokumentierten Regierungsjahre erhalten wären – was leider nicht der Fall ist –, so könnte anhand dieser Quellen bestenfalls eine Liste erstellt werden, wie

16

17

einer Übersetzung s. WADDELL (1948); zur Rekonstruktion fehlerhafter Abschriften und der daraus resultierenden chronologischen Ansätze s. HELCK (1956); zu einer neueren kritischen Auseinandersetzung und der Rekonstruktion der Manetho zur Verfügung gestandenen Quellen s. REDFORD (1986: 231–332). Dies trifft leider im besonderen Maße auf die Könige des Neuen Reiches zu, s. zum Hintergrund z.B. VON BECKERATH (1997: 36). S. hierzu vor allem HELCK (1956).

Wie gut fixiert ist die Chronologie des Neuen Reiches wirklich?

207

sie im Turiner Königspapyrus niedergelegt ist, d.h. ohne Angaben gleichzeitiger Herrschaften für die Epochen in denen Ägypten nicht einheitlich regiert wurde oder Koregenzen von Vater und Sohn.18 Die Hinweise auf Koregenzen werden allerdings unterschiedlich bewertet; dies trifft auch auf die Art der Zählung zu. Während manche Autoren Koregenzen nur dann als gesichert ansehen, wenn beide Herrscher nebeneinander abgebildet oder genannt sind, ist dieses Kriterium für andere nicht so maßgeblich. Die Zählung betreffend nimmt von Beckerath z.B. an, daß in amtlichen Urkunden ausschließlich nach dem jüngeren Partner datiert wurde, der seine Regierungszeit ab der Krönung zum Mitregenten zählte.19 Andere hingegen gehen davon aus, daß der jüngere Partner erst vom Zeitpunkt seiner Alleinherrschaft an seine Regierungsjahre gezählt habe.20 Einen Sonderfall datierter Inschriften stellt die Erwähnung des Sed-Festes dar.21 Bei diesem Fest handelt es sich um ein Regierungsjubiläum, das idealerweise das 1. Mal nach 30 Regierungsjahren gefeiert wird. Weitere Sedfeste sind für die darauffolgende Zeit in 3–4-jährigen Abständen verbrieft.22 Ein großes Problem besteht darin, daß aus den Inschriften nicht immer klar ersichtlich wird, ob sich die Nennung des Sed-Festes auf ein tatsächlich stattgefunden habendes bezieht oder ob es sich dabei lediglich um den Wunsch, ein solches zu feiern, handelt.23 Es ist außerdem fraglich, ob das Ideal von 30 Regierungsjahren als Datum der Feier tatsächlich immer eingehalten

wurde.24 Sed-Fest-Jubiläen können daher nur dann zu Datierungszwecken herangezogen werden, wenn sie mit einem fixen Datum versehen sind. Allerdings gibt es auch unter diesen strittige Fälle, die es das Neue Reich betreffend im einzelnen unten zu erörtern gilt. Theoretisch sollten sich die Regierungslängen aus den erhaltenen Lebensaltern der Mumien bestimmen lassen, da doch von vielen Königen ihr Regierungsantritt bekannt ist. Doch leider hat sich trotz vielfältiger Versuche herausgestellt, daß Altersbestimmungen anhand von Röntgenbildern zu Fehlbestimmungen führen, da Wachstumsnähte im Röntgenbild länger sichtbar und die Knochen damit jünger scheinen als sie tatsächlich sind. Hinzu kommt, daß bei manchen Königsmumien der begründete Verdacht vorliegt, daß sie bei ihren teilweise mehrfachen Umbettungen im Altertum vertauscht und falsch beschriftet wurden.25 Astronomische Daten bilden in chronologischen Untersuchungen Ägyptens noch immer die Ankerpunkte für die absolute Chronologie Ägyptens. Für das Mittlere und Neue Reich liegen je ein Sothisdatum und mehrere Monddaten vor. Der ägyptische Kalender besteht aus 365 Tagen von 12 Monaten zu je 30 Tagen und fünf zusätzlichen Tagen (Epagomen); jeweils vier Monate werden den Jahreszeiten „Überschwemmung“, „Sprießen“ und „Hitze“ zugeordnet. Das ägyptische zivile Jahr ist somit um ca. 6 Std. gegenüber dem Sonnenjahr zu kurz, wodurch sich der ägyptische Kalender alle 4 Jahre um einen Tag ver-

18

24

19 20 21 22

23

Nach der ägyptischen Ideologie konnte es nur einen lebenden Horus (= König) auf dem Thron geben, dennoch liegen Evidenzen von einigen gesicherten Koregenzen vor, VON BECKERATH (1997: 74–75). Sämtliche theoretisch möglichen Koregenzen wurden von MURNANE (1977) zusammengetragen und kritisch untersucht. VON BECKERATH (1997: 75). Z.B. WENTE & VAN SICLEN (1976: 225 und passim). VON BECKERATH (1997: 73–74). Spätere Feiern sind nur für die beiden Pharaonen Amenophis III. (34. und 37. Jahr) und Ramses II. (40., 43., 46., 49., 52., 55., 58, 61. und 64. Jahr) bezeugt. Nach den Untersuchungen von HORNUNG & STAEHELIN (1974) handelt es sich bei den meisten Nennungen von Sed-Festen um den Wunsch auf eine lange Regierungszeit; anderer Auffassung waren hingegen WENTE & VAN SICLEN (1976: passim), die Angaben zum SedFest grundsätzlich wörtlich und damit für die Chronologie verwertbar finden.

25

Zwar wird auf dem dreisprachigen Stein von Rosette das Sed-Fest in der griechischen Version mit Triakontaëteris (= Dreißigjahrfest) wiedergegeben, doch bleibt die Frage, ob dies immer wörtlich genommen wurde. Ausnahmen von dieser Regel könnten für Mentuhotep III., für Hatschepsut (s. dazu unten) und für Osorkon II. vorliegen, HORNUNG & STAEHELIN (1974: 54–56), s. jedoch auch VON BECKERATH (1997: 73–74), der zumindest ab dem Mittleren Reich mit der Einhaltung der 30-Jahres-Regel rechnet. Dies wird besonders bei der Thutmosis III. zugeschriebenen Mumie deutlich, deren Lebensalter auf 35–40 Jahre geschätzt wird, HARRIS & WEEKS (eds.) (1980: 202, 210–211). Gerade für ihn sind jedoch nicht nur eine Fülle datierter Inschriften überliefert, sondern auch sein Todesdatum in seinem 54. Regierungsjahr. Eine Diskussion hierüber findet sich etwa bei WENTE & HARRIS (1992).

208

Vera Müller

schob. Er wird daher als Wandelkalender bezeichnet und bildet die Grundlage für die Angabe von Regierungsjahren. Für religiöse Feste, zu welchem auch das Erscheinen des Sothis-Sterns und damit das Neujahr gehören, wurde hingegen ein Mondkalender verwendet.26 Die Beobachtung des Aufgangs des Sternbildes Sothis (Sirius, a canis maioris) in den frühen Morgenstunden nach einer zweimonatigen Unsichtbarkeit wurde von den Ägyptern in Zusammenhang mit der ansteigenden Nilflut gebracht, die das Neujahr einleitete. Mit Königsnamen verbundene Sothis-Daten sind für das 7. Jahr Sesostris III. (12. Dyn.) und für das 9. Jahr Amenhoteps I. (18. Dyn.) überliefert. Berechnet werden die absoluten Daten dieser Ereignisse anhand der Angaben von Censorinus im Jahre 238 n. Chr., wonach der Neujahrstag in jenem Jahr auf den 25. Juli fiel und exakt 100 Jahre zuvor, unter dem 2. Konsulat von Antoninus Pius und Bruttius Praeses, eine Apokatastase (Zusammenfall von Sothisaufgang und Neujahr im Wandeljahr) am 20. Juli stattgefunden habe.27 Auch wenn die Regierungszeiten der beiden Konsuln mit den Angaben von Censorinus übereinstimmen, so fehlt doch die Angabe welches der 4 Jahre, in denen die Apokatastase beobachtet werden kann, anzunehmen ist, d.h., ob das Jahr 139 n. Chr. das erste, zweite, dritte oder vierte Jahr der Übereinstimmung darstellt. Da der Sothis-Zyklus etwas unregelmäßiger verlief, als von den Römern angenommen, die von einer Wiederkehr alle 1461 Jahre ausgingen, müssen für die Bestimmung der pharaonischen Daten umfangreiche astronomische Berechnungen vorgenommen werden.28 Hinzu kommen diverse unbekannte Faktoren, die einer exakten Jahreszuweisung entgegenstehen: abhängig vom Beobachtungsort (Memphis, Theben, Assuan), dem Sehungsbogen, ab welchem der Stern erkennbar war, und der Festsetzung des Tagesbeginns (Morgendämmerung oder Sonnenaufgang),29 der nicht überliefert ist, ergeben sich unterschiedliche Daten, die

26 27 28 29

30

VON BECKERATH (1997: 41–42). De die natali, c. 18, 10; c. 21, 10–11. KRAUSS (2003: 182). Für die Festsetzung des Tagesbeginns mit dem Sonnenaufgang setzt sich LUFT (1987) ein, für KRAUSS (2003: 182) hingegen scheint die Morgendämmerung eher wahrscheinlich. VON BECKERATH (1997: 44). Zwar berichtet ein weiteres Papyrus-Fragment über die Lieferungen zu dem Fest,

mehrere Jahrzehnte auseinanderliegen – auf diesen fußt letztlich die Festlegung auf eine hohe, mittlere oder niedrige Chronologie. Aber auch die Qualität der Sothis-Daten an sich ist umstritten: Bei der Angabe aus dem 7. Jahr Sesostris III. scheint es sehr wahrscheinlich, daß es sich nicht um ein beobachtetes Ereignis, sondern um ein vorherbestimmtes, aus vergangenen Jahren errechnetes handelt.30 Bei der mit dem Namen Amenhoteps I. überlieferten Angabe sind Zweifel aufgetreten, ob es sich tatsächlich um ein auf einen bestimmten Tag festgelegtes Datum handelt oder nicht vielmehr um eine generelle Bekanntgabe, daß in seinem 9. Regierungsjahr der Sothisaufgang irgendwann innerhalb der Zeitspanne vom 9. Tag des 3. Monats der Hitze und dem 8. Tag des 4. Monats der Hitze auftritt.31 Wird zumindest dem Sothis-Datum von Amenhotep I. weitgehend kein Gewicht mehr beigemessen, so dienen diverse Monddaten nach wie vor als das bestimmende Rückgrat für die Festlegung absoluter Daten des Neuen Reiches. Da der Mondkalender alle 25 Jahre auf dieselben Tage fällt, können Monddaten generell nur zur Eingrenzung von bestehenden Datierungsmöglichkeiten verwendet werden. Allerdings meldeten sich auch zu diesen in den vergangenen Jahren vermehrt kritische Stimmen. Unklarheiten bestehen in der Übersetzung, der Interpretation, vor allem aber in den Kontexten, in welchen die Daten in den Texten genannt sind. Aufgrund dieser Unwägbarkeiten verlegte man sich in den letzten Jahrzehnten daher eher auf die Rückrechnung von unstrittigen Daten aus dem 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. und benutzte die astronomischen Daten nur noch als Anhaltspunkte. Maßgeblich für die Rückrechnung sind bekannte Regierungslängen von Königen und prosopographische Angaben zeitgenössischer Beamter. Doch liegen hier leider teilweise empfindliche Lücken vor. Sehr wichtig sind darüber hinaus Briefwechsel

31

woraus geschlossen werden kann, daß der Sothisaufgang tatsächlich an diesem Tag stattfand, doch könnten die Lieferungen auch bereits 1–2 Tage vor dem Fest erfolgt sein. Diese Interpretation der Datumsangabe wurde zuerst von HELCK (1983: 49) aufgebracht, vor allem KRAUSS (2003: 187–190), aber auch andere, möchten weiterhin ein genaues Datum aus dem Papyrus Ebers (9. Jahr, 9. Tag des 3. Monats der Hitze) lesen.

Wie gut fixiert ist die Chronologie des Neuen Reiches wirklich?

und andere Quellen, die Hinweise auf Synchronismen mit benachbarten Völkern ergeben, vor allem Korrelationen mit der assyrischen Chronologie, die bis ins 15. Jahrhundert v. Chr. als sehr gut abgesichert gilt.32 Aus dem 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. gibt es nur wenige direkte Synchronismen zwischen Ägypten mit Assyrien, das sehr viel mehr Kontakt mit Babylonien hatte. Allerdings ist die babylonische Königsliste zumindest in der 2. Hälfte des 2. Jahrtausend mit der assyrischen weitestgehend synchronisiert und liefert daher ausgesprochen wichtige Anhaltspunkte zum gegenseitigen Abgleich absoluter Daten. ANKERPUNKTE DES 1. JAHRTAUSENDS V. CHR. Unzweifelhaft steht für Ägypten das Jahr 525 v. Chr. fest (Beginn der 27. Dynastie = 1. Perserherrschaft, Abb. 1): Entsprechend des Kanons von Ptolemaeus,33 in welchem die Daten der Per-

32

33

34 35

In Assyrien liegen sogenannte Eponymenlisten vor: jedes Jahr wurde nach einem jährlich wechselnden Beamten benannt, wobei auch Könige dieses Amt in der Regel zu Beginn ihrer Regierungszeit bekleideten. Mithilfe zeitgleicher Königslisten können so die Jahre auf einfache Weise abgezählt werden. Es liegen mehrere Königslisten sowie auch synchronistische Königslisten von Assyrien und Babylonien vor. Zur Unterstützung liegen außerdem Annalen und diverse Urkunden vor, s. zusammenfassend VON BECKERATH (1997: 59–68); zur assyrischen Chronologie s. BRINKMANN (1976) und zu neuesten Synchronismen zwischen der babylonischen und assyrischen Chronologie s. SASSMANNSHAUSEN (2004). Der Mathematiker und Astronom Ptolemaeus (ca. 100–178 n. Chr.) erstellte einen Kanon von Himmelserscheinungen (Megiste Syntaxis, arab. Almagest), die für die Zeit vor Alexander dem Großen auf die Angaben babylonischer Priester zurückgehen. Er rechnete diese Daten auf den ägyptischen Wandeljahrskalender um, MANITIUS & NEUGEBAUER (1962). VON BECKERATH (1997: 79–80). Herodot von Halikarnassos (ca. 484–425 v. Chr.) besuchte unter vielen anderen Ländern Ägypten um 450 v. Chr., d.h. noch in der Zeit der 1. Perserherrschaft, und schrieb in seinen Historien, dessen 2. Buch Ägypten gewidmet ist, alle ihm zugetragenen Informationen auf. Da er keinen Zugang zu Originalquellen hatte und diese als nicht der ägyptischen Sprache mächtig wohl auch nicht verstanden hätte, sind einige seiner Beschreibungen vor allem von religiösen Ritualen recht phantastisch. Andere Angaben wiederum, vor allem solche, die zeitlich nicht allzu weit zurücklagen, dürften hingegen recht zuverlässig sein, wie etwa die

209

serkönige festgelegt sind, bestieg Kambyses im Jahre 529 v. Chr. als Großkönig den Thron Persiens. Sämtliche Exzerptoren Manethos nennen sein 5. Regierungsjahr als dasjenige, in welchem er Ägypten eroberte, womit seine Regierungszeit in Ägypten 525 v. Chr. als gesichert gelten kann.34 Von hier ausgehend ist die 26. Dynastie (= Saitische Dynastie) mit Hilfe der Angaben Manethos, Herodots (Historien II, 151-182, III, 10)35 sowie den Daten auf zeitgenössischen Apis-Stelen36 sicher zu rekonstruieren und ihr Beginn auf 664 v. Chr. festzulegen.37 Die Periode, die zwischen dem Neuen Reich und der 26. Dynastie liegt, wird in der Ägyptologie als 3. Zwischenzeit bezeichnet und umfaßt die Dynastien 21 bis 25. Zeitweise ist in dieser Epoche Ägypten in Teilstaaten zerfallen, deren einzelne Längen und zeitliche Überlappungen noch nicht in allen Einzelheiten geklärt sind.38 Auch über die

36

37 38

Angaben zu den Königen der 26. Dynastie, die überwiegend recht gut mit den Angaben Manethos übereinstimmen. S. z.B. VON BECKERATH (1997: 32–33). Ab Amenophis III. (18. Dyn.) sind Begräbnisse sogenannter Apis-Stiere faßbar. Der Apis, ein Stier, der besondere körperliche Merkmale aufweisen mußte, wurde bereits seit der 1. Dyn. göttlich verehrt und erhielt spätestens ab der 18. Dynastie ein spezielles Begräbnis. Jeweils nur ein Apis-Stier wurde zu Lebzeiten inthronisiert und bis zu seinem natürlichen Tod im Ptah-Tempel von Memphis als heiliges Tier gehalten und etwa bei Prozessionsfeierlichkeiten durch die Straßen geführt. Die Bestattung der Apis-Stiere war sehr aufwendig: Sie wurden wie sozial hochstehende Menschen mumifiziert und in monolithen Steinsarkophagen mit zahlreichen Beigaben bestattet. Für jeden ApisStier wurde mindestens eine Stele verfaßt, auf der zumindest der Name des Königs hervorgeht, unter welchem er verstarb. Vor allem in der 26. Dynastie sind allerdings auch genaue Daten zur Geburt, zum Tod und zum Lebensalter festgehalten. Da diese Daten entsprechend den Regierungsjahren der Könige angegeben sind, lassen sich hieraus auf sehr einfache Art Regierungslängen errechnen und somit eine sehr sichere relative Chronologie erstellen. Leider sind nicht für alle Apis-Stiere Stelen erhalten, weswegen hier leider Lükken klaffen. Besonders groß ist die Lücke zwischen dem Ende der 20. Dynastie und der 22. Dynastie, wo annähernd 200 Jahre fehlen. Zum Apis allgemein s. etwa VERCOUTTER (1975), zur chronologischen Verwertung VON BECKERATH (1997: 75–76 und passim). VON BECKERATH (1997: 84–88). Zur letzten umfassenden Zusammenstellung für die Chronologie der 3. Zwischenzeit s. KITCHEN (1986).

210

Vera Müller

Anzahl von Königen herrscht in einzelnen Dynastien noch Unklarheit und jeder neue Fund bringt das wackelige System ins Wanken.39 Neben den allgemeinen Schwierigkeiten, daß in Ägypten kein allgemein gültiger Kalender vorherrschte, sondern jeder König die Zählung von neuem begann (für die 3. Zwischenzeit kann hier nur Manetho herangezogen werden), und in den vorhandenen Annalen zeitgleiche Herrschaften nicht notiert sind, ist hierfür vorrangig vor allem die in den Zwischenzeiten allgemein schlechte Quellenlage verantwortlich zu zeichnen. Daher gestaltet sich die Rekonstruktion der Epochen, die nicht durch ein einheitliches Königtum geprägt waren, als äußerst komplex. Hilfen liefern hierbei für die 3. Zwischenzeit vor allem Genealogien zeitgenössischer Beamter und Priester, deren Stammbäume über mehrere Generationen zu verfolgen sind (s. hierzu den Beitrag von Jansen-Winkeln). Synchronismen mit der assyrischen Chronologie sind für die Festlegung zumindest einiger Daten in Ägypten sehr hilfreich: So geht aus den Annalen Sargons hervor, daß Ägypten zwischen 715–712 von den Kuschiten (25. Dynastie) eingenommen wird.40 674 v. Chr. drang der assyrische König Aššur-ach-iddin (bibl. Esarhaddon) in Ägypten ein und vertrieb den Kuschiten Taharqa (672), der jedoch bereits ein Jahr später wieder zurückgeholt wurde. Bei einem erneuten assyrischen Eroberungsversuch 669 v. Chr. verstarb Aššur-ach-iddin; seinem Sohn Aššur-bân-apli gelang es jedoch zwei Jahre später (667 v. Chr.), Ägypten nochmals zu unterwerfen. Allerdings mußte er sich 664 v. Chr. erneut kriegerischen Auseinandersetzungen stellen: Taharqa verstarb in diesem Jahr, sein Nachfolger Tanot-amun war erfolglos und zog sich wieder in den Sudan zurück, stattdessen wurde von assyrischer Seite aus der Fürst von Sais, Psammetich I., in Ägypten eingesetzt. Dieser entzog sich jedoch alsbald der assyrischen Hegemonie und gründete noch im selben Jahr die 26. Dynastie. Psammetich I. und Taharqa sind durch eine Apis-Stele chronologisch miteinander verbunden, aus der hervorgeht, daß Taharqa in seinem 27. Jahre verstorben ist und

der Stier nach einem Alter von 21 Jahren im 20. Regierungsjahr Psammetichs I. verschied; Tanotamun kann daher nur wenige Monate regiert haben.41 Für die 3. Zwischenzeit liegen zwei Synchronismen mit Vorderasien vor. Erst vor wenigen Jahren ist eine Inschrift in Tang-i Var (Iran) bekannt geworden, aus der hervorgeht, daß Sargon II. (assyrischer König) und Shebitku/Shabataka (ägyptischer König der 25. Dyn.) Zeitgenossen waren (s. hierzu auch den Beitrag von Dan’el Kahn in diesem Band).42 Diese neue Inschrift wird nach wie vor heftig bezüglich ihrer chronologischen Auswirkungen diskutiert und könnte zu Verschiebungen der bisherigen Chronologie der 25. Dyn. von einigen Jahren führen. Während Kitchen dafür plädiert, daß Shebitku/Shabataka zur Zeit des erwähnten Synchronismus von Nubien aus agierte und lediglich als Vizekönig von Kusch und nicht als Ägyptens regierender König den Feldzug nach Ashdod führte, geht Kahn davon aus, daß Shebitku bereits als Nachfolger von Shabako eingesetzt war.43 Sargon II. verstarb 705 v. Chr., Kitchen möchte Shebitku erst 702 v. Chr. auf dem ägyptischen Thron wissen, während Kahn das Jahr 707/706 v. Chr. bevorzugt. Der ältere Synchronismus nennt einen König Scheschonq (22. Dynastie) und Rehabeam von Juda als zeitgenössisch.44 Nach der biblischen Überlieferung (1. Kg. 14, 25–26; 2. Chr. 12, 2–13) soll Shishak (= Scheschonq) Jerusalem im 5. Jahr Rehabeams beraubt haben. In der ägyptologischen Literatur wird allgemein hingenommen, daß die biblischen Könige über assyrische Synchronismen gut zu datieren seien, weswegen kaum bezweifelt wird, daß Rehabeam im Jahre 930 den Thron von Juda bestiegen habe.45 Aufgrund von Darstellungen im Tempel von Karnak (Theben) nimmt man an, daß es sich bei dem Shishak der Bibel um Scheschonq I. handelte und nicht um einen seiner namensgleichen Nachfolger. Da die Darstellungen im KarnakTempel nicht fertig gestellt wurden und zudem ein Datum in den Steinbrüchen von Gebel Silsila aus dem 21. Jahr 10. Monat in Bezug zu den Bauarbeiten im Karnak-Tempel stehen sollen,

39

42

40 41

So wurde erst kürzlich etwa in Bubastis ein Beleg für einen weiteren König Scheschonk entdeckt, LANGE (2004). VON BECKERATH (1997: 62, 92). KITCHEN (2002: 6); VON BECKERATH (1997: 91).

43 44 45

KAHN (2001; 2004; 2006); KITCHEN (2002: 6–7). Ebenda. VON BECKERATH (1997: 89). Z.B. KITCHEN (2002: 8); VON BECKERATH (1997: 69–70).

Wie gut fixiert ist die Chronologie des Neuen Reiches wirklich?

211

geht man desweiteren davon aus, daß Scheschonq I. bereits in seinem 22. Jahr verstarb.46 Durch den Synchronismus mit Palästina wird somit sein Regierungsantritt und damit der Beginn der 22. Dynastie mit 946 oder 945 v. Chr. angenommen. Bezweifelt man allerdings die Richtigkeit der biblischen Chronologie – Rekonstruktionen, wofür sich gerade für den Beginn der israelitischen Geschichte recht leicht Argumente finden lassen – und stellt zudem die assyrische Chronologie dieser Zeitspanne in Frage so gerät dieser scheinbar fixe Anker sehr leicht ins Wanken.47 Auch wenn an der Identifizierung des in der Bibel genannten Shishak mit Scheschonk I. wenig Zweifel bestehen, da nur für ihn massivere Aktivitäten in Palästina belegt sind,48 so stellt sich dennoch die Frage, ob die Datierung dieses Ereignisses ans Ende der Regierungszeit von Scheschonk I. zutrifft. Diese chronologische Ansetzung beruht allein auf der Annahme, die Reliefs im Karnak-Tempel seien unmittelbar nach dem in der Bibel genannten Palästina-Feldzug begonnen worden und die Steinbruchsinschrift, die allein eine Datumsangabe enthält, hinge direkt damit zusammen. Die Reliefs selbst sind nicht datiert, lediglich aufgrund ihres unfertigen Zustandes wird angenommen, der König wäre verstorben, ehe sie fertiggestellt werden konnten und sie müßten daher relativ kurz vor seinem Tod begonnen worden sein. Allerdings konnte festgestellt werden, daß die Reliefs nicht einen einmaligen Feldzug wiedergeben, sondern vielmehr die zur Zeit Scheschonks bekannten ausländischen Toponyme kompilieren und den König als Beherrscher der damals bekannten Welt propagieren.49 Darüber hinaus zeigte sich, daß manche Phrasen aus den benachbarten Triumpfszenen Sethos I. and Ramses III. entnommen sein dürften, während manche der Topony-

me zur Zeit Scheschonks schon gar nicht mehr existierten, wie etwa Mitanni.50 Abgesehen davon, besteht keinerlei Grund, das Datum der Steinbruch-Inschrift in irgendeinen Zusammenhang mit der Erstellung der Reliefs zu bringen.51 Es ist also mehr als fragwürdig, allein aus diesen Quellen ein fixes Datum ableiten zu wollen. Nach wie vor umstritten ist die Frage, wie die Dynastien 23 und 24 anzuordnen und chronologisch zu werten sind, darüber hinaus jedoch auch die Regierungslängen einzelner Könige. Deutlich ist lediglich, daß sie sich zeitlich zumindest teilweise mit der 22. Dynastie überschneiden.52 Während Kitchen davon ausgeht, daß sich beide Dynastien von der 22. Dynastie lösten, jedoch völlig zeitgleich zu ihr verliefen, und sich teilweise über beide Landesteile erstreckten,53 schlugen Leahy und Aston vor, daß die 23. Dynastie auf die 22. Dynastie folgte und sich nur auf das Delta beschränkte, wobei in Oberägypten eine bei Manetho nicht genannte eigene Herrscherlinie anzusetzen wäre.54 Die Länge der 21. Dynastie (= Taniten) beruht hingegen wiederum auf einem Netz von Informationen. Die Besonderheit dieser Dynastie liegt darin, daß zwar allseits anerkannte Könige in Tanis situiert waren, die Herrschaft über Oberägypten aber faktisch bei der Amunspriesterschaft des Karnak-Tempels in Theben lag,55 die sich sogar gelegentlich den Königstitel aneigneten.56 Dieser Umstand ist wohl dafür verantwortlich, daß ihre Dokumente in der datierten Einleitung nur selten den Namen des regierenden Königs in Tanis tragen (wie es vor ihnen und nach ihnen die Regel war), wohl aber die nach ihm gezählten Regierungsjahre und den Namen des amtierenden Hohepriesters. Anhand der Kombination diverser Dokumente lassen sich somit die Amtsjahre der Hohenpriester errechnen, die wiederum in Bezug zu den

46

48

47

KITCHEN (2001); VON BECKERATH (1997: 70). Nach neuesten 14C-Datierungen gehören die Salomo und David zugeschriebenen Schichten nicht mehr ins 10. Jh. v. Chr. sondern ins 9. Jh. v. Chr, FINKELSTEIN (1996; 1998; 2002); FINKELSTEIN & PIASETZKY (2003); FINKELSTEIN & SILBERMAN (2004: 159). Damit müßte die Chronologie des Neuen Reiches allerdings ebenfalls um rund 100 Jahre jünger datiert werden, will man nicht die 20. Dynastie und den Beginn der 3. Zwischenzeit um diese Zeitspanne verlängern, was aufgrund der prosopographischen Daten jedoch schwierig wird.

49 50 51 52 53 54

55

56

Z.B. KITCHEN (2002: 7). WILSON (2005: 48-65); anders etwa KITCHEN (2002: 7). WILSON (2005: 52–55). WILSON (2005: 66–67, 74, 97–99). VON BECKERATH (1997: 94–99). KITCHEN (1986). ASTON (1989); LEAHY ( 1990: 155–200); VON BECKERATH (1997: 94–99). Es wird daher auch häufiger vom ‘Thebanischen Gottesstaat’ gesprochen. VON BECKERATH (1997: 99).

212

Vera Müller

18. Dyn.

Ahmose Amenophis I. Thutmosis I. Thutmosis II. Hat./Thutmosis III. Amenophis II. Thutmosis IV. Amenophis III. Amenophis IV. Semenchkare Tutanchamun Eje Haremhab

Summe 19. Dyn.

min. zu verrechnende Jahre 22 21 4 1 54 26 7 37 12 1 9 3 13 221

Ramses I. Sethos I. Ramses II. Merneptah Amenmesse Sethos II. Siptah/Tausret

Summe 20. Dyn.

Sethnacht Ramses III. Ramses IV. Ramses V. Ramses VI. Ramses VII. Ramses VIII. Ramses IX. Ramses X. Ramses XI.

Summe

max. berechnete Jahre 25 21 15 14 54 31 12 38 17 5 10 6 31 279

1 10 66 9 0 6 5 97

2 15 67 10 5 6 8 113

2 31 6 3 6 6 1 18 3 29 105

3 31 7 5 8 8 3 18 8 34 125

Abb. 2 Minimale–maximale Regierungslängen des Neuen Reiches

teilweise genannten Königsnamen gesetzt werden können. Da diese recht gut mit den in Manetho (bei Africanus) genannten Daten übereinstimmen, wird von vielen Autoren lediglich bei Siamun aufgrund eines belegten 17. Jahres eine Verschreibung von 19 zu 9 angenommen.57 Die Summenangaben von 130 Jahren für die 21. Dynastie wurden von sämtlichen ManethoExzerptoren überliefert, auch wenn die Einzelregierungen teilweise sehr unterschiedlich ausfielen, weshalb davon ausgegangen wird, daß

diese Zahl vom Original korrekt übernommen worden sein dürfte. Allerdings dürften die Koregenzen, die sich wohl auf insgesamt 6 Jahre belaufen, nicht berücksichtigt, sondern summiert worden sein, weswegen nur 124 Jahre zu berechnen wären und demnach die 21. Dynastie 1070/1069 v. Chr. begonnen hätte – wenn man die Datierung des Synchronismus zwischen Scheschonk I. und Rehabeam 946/945 v. Chr. ernst nimmt und generell von der Richtigkeit der assyrischen Chronologie ausgeht.58

57

58

VON BECKERATH (1997: 101); s. auch KITCHEN (2002: 8) mit weiteren, nur um wenige Jahre unsicheren Daten.

KITCHEN (2002: 8); VON BECKERATH (1997: 102).

Wie gut fixiert ist die Chronologie des Neuen Reiches wirklich?

Abb. 3 Synchronismen zwischen Ägypten und dem Vorderen Orient

213

214

Vera Müller

die verschiedenen Regierungsjahre der einzelnen Herrscher nochmals dargelegt werden.

Die Daten des Neuen Reiches, das die Dynastien 18–20 umfaßt, wurden bislang einerseits durch die astronomischen Berechnungen, andererseits durch die Synchronismen mit der assyrischen Chronologie eingegrenzt (s. Abb. 1–3). Ohne diese Hilfsmittel wäre hingegen eine erhebliche Schwankungsbreite vorhanden. Durch das vorhandene dichte Datennetz und genealogische Vernetzungen ist die Zeit der Ramessiden (19. und 20. Dyn.) zwar relativ gut abgesichert, doch ließen sich auch hier noch einige Jahre als Puffer herausschlagen. Nimmt man ausschließlich die gesicherten belegten Regierungsjahre in dieser Periode zur Kenntnis so käme man auf 1261 v. Chr. als Antrittsjahr von Ramses II. Zieht man hingegen auch unsichere Daten und mögliche Schwankungsbreiten die Genealogien betreffend in die Berechnung mit ein, so wäre 1293 v. Chr. ein denkbares Jahr seines Regierungsbeginns. Größere Diskrepanzen treten dann jedoch in der 18. Dynastie auf. Am eklatantesten sind die Abweichungen von möglichen Regierungsjahren bei Haremhab (13–31 Jahre) und Thutmosis II. (3–14 Jahre), wobei auch bei etlichen anderen Königen differierende Jahresangaben in der Diskussion sind (Abb. 2). Nimmt man die Extreme, so wäre bei der Annahme, nur die absolut gesicherten Regierungsjahre seien zur Kenntnis zu nehmen, auf einen Beginn des Neuen Reiches 1493 v. Chr., geht man hingegen von den maximal bislang errechneten aus, so wäre mit einem Beginn 1589 v. Chr. zu rechnen – jeweils vorausgesetzt, das Ende des Neuen Reiches fiel tatsächlich auf die errechneten Daten 1070/1069. Die assyrische Chronologie aber vorerst als gesichert vorausgesetzt, so gilt es im folgenden vor allem auf die 18. Dynastie das Augenmerk zu legen, weswegen die Ramessidenzeit recht kursorisch abgehandelt wurde. Im folgenden sollen daher, die Argumente für

Ahmose: Sein höchstes belegtes Datum ist das Jahr 22,59 doch zweifelt niemand an der Angabe von Manetho, der ihm eine Regierungszeit von 25 Jahren und 4 Monaten zuschreibt.60 Die von Wente & van Siclen vorgeschlagene 6-jährige Koregentschaft mit seinem Sohn Amenhotep I. kann als gegenstandslos gewertet werden, da sie lediglich auf der Nennung von Ahmoses Frau, Ahmose-Nefertari, als Königsmutter beruht.61 Auf der betreffenden Stele ist der designierte Nachfolger Amenhotep I. jedoch weder abgebildet noch genannt. Der Titel Königsmutter, der in anderen Kontexten eindeutig nicht im Zusammenhang mit Koregentschaften steht, kann daher nicht als Indikator genommen werden, um eine bereits stattgefundene Inthronisation des Thronfolgers abzuleiten.62 Amenhotep I.: In seiner biographischen Inschrift berichtet der Astronom Amenemhet, daß er 21 Jahre unter Amenhotep I. verbracht habe, nachdem er 10 Jahre unter Ahmose und wohl noch einige Jahre unter Thutmosis I. lebte.63 In das 20. Jahr Amenhoteps I. ist außerdem eine Besucherinschrift im Djoserkomplex in Saqqara datiert. Belegt sind ansonsten nur sein 7.-10. Regierungsjahr. Bei Manetho werden ihm 20 Jahre und einige Monate zugewiesen.64 Auf die Nichtigkeit der von Wente & van Siclen vorgebrachten 6-jährigen Mitregentschaft wurde bereits unter Ahmose hingewiesen. Thutmosis I.: Für Thutmosis I. sind nur die ersten 3 Jahre zweifelsfrei gesichert.65 Ein heute im Louvre befindlicher Naos des Amenmose nennt ein 4. Jahr (Urk. IV, 91), doch wird von Krauss angezweifelt, daß dieses Objekt zeitgenössisch ist.66 Dennoch geht auch Krauss davon aus,

59

66

60 61 62 63 64

65

El-Mas’ara-Stelen (Urk. IV, 24–25). VON BECKERATH (1997: 119); KITCHEN (2000: 44). WENTE & VAN SICLEN (1976: 222). VON BECKERATH (1997: 119). BORCHARDT (1920: 60–63, Taf. 18). Die zugewiesenen Monate schwanken zwischen 5 und 8 Monate, je nach Epitome. Aus dem 3. Jahr sind Felsinschriften bei und südlich von Assuan angebracht, die seine siegreiche Rückkehr aus Nubien vermelden (Urk. IV, 88–90).

Regierungsjahre der 18. Dynastie

KRAUSS (1992: 86) geht aus paläographischen Gründen davon aus, daß der Naos möglicherweise erst im 19. Jhd. n. Chr. hergestellt wurde; bereits ERMAN (1904: 1063–1064) hielt eine Niederschrift erst in der 20. Dyn. für möglich. Gegen diese Deutung sprach sich allerdings ZIVIE (1976: 52–55) aus. Auch BALIGH (1997: 39) hegte keinerlei Zweifel an der Authentizität der Inschrift. Von den sonstigen Chronologie-Spezialisten wird dieses Monument übergangen, da aufgrund des Euphrat-Zuges an einer mind. 4-jährigen Regierung kein Zweifel besteht.

Wie gut fixiert ist die Chronologie des Neuen Reiches wirklich?

215

daß Thutmosis I. zumindest bis in sein 4. Jahr regiert haben muß, da er nach seinem Nubienfeldzug, der für das 2. und 3. Jahr belegt ist, noch bis zum Euphrat vorgestoßen ist.67 Ein sehr umstrittener Block aus Karnak nennt ein 8. und 9. Jahr von Thutmosis I.68 Die genaue Fundstelle des bereits im 19. Jhd. n. Chr. entdeckten Blokkes ist nicht verifizierbar: Nach Mariette befand sich der Block nahe der biographischen Inschrift von Thutmosis III., weswegen er ihm und nicht Thutmosis I. zuzuweisen wäre.69 Petrie hingegen meint, daß der Block zwischen dem 3. und 4. Pylon in Karnak gefunden worden sei, wo Thutmosis I. gebaut hatte und er somit in die Zeit Thutmosis I. datiere.70 Eine ähnliche Inschrift, die den Namen Thutmosis I. in Blättern mit weiteren änigmatischen Schriftzeichen eingeschrieben zeigt, wurde auf zwei vergleichbaren Blökken vor einiger Zeit in Karnak-Nord entdeckt.71 Die Inschrift bleibt änigmatisch, auch wenn nun weitere Zeugnisse dafür gefunden wurden. Diese Art von Blätter werden als solche des Isched-Baumes identifiziert, in welche die Götter in anderen Zusammenhängen den Namen des Königs einschrieben, damit er für alle Ewigkeit dauere. Eine Verbindung mit Jahreszahlen ist bislang unbekannt. Die Inschrift entspricht jedenfalls nicht dem üblichen Formular datierter Inschriften. Von den meisten Autoren wird dieser Block dennoch als Datierungshinweis für ein 8. und 9. Jahr ernst genommen. Zur Unterstützung wird Manetho herangezogen, der in diesem Bereich jedoch stark verderbt ist. So schreibt Manetho einem Mephres 12 Jahre und 9 Monate Regierungszeit zu. Mephres läßt sich hingegen nicht mit dem Thronnamen Thutmosis I., sondern nur mit demjenigen Thutmosis III. in Verbindung bringen. Helck, von Beckerath, Kitchen, u.a. gehen davon aus, daß der Name durch Manethos Exzerptoren versehentlich verdoppelt wurde, die Regierungszeit sich aber auf Thutmosis I.

beziehe.72 Krauss hingegen geht davon aus, daß Thutmosis I. ausgelassen wurde, während Baligh vorsichtig konstatiert, daß sich Manetho zwar kaum auswerten lasse, aber dennoch von einer Regierungszeit von ca. 12 Jahren auszugehen sei.73 Obwohl es etliche Beamte gibt, deren Laufbahn sich von Ahmose bis Thutmosis III. zog, lassen sich aufgrund der generellen Angaben keine Rückschlüsse auf die Regierungszeit Thutmosis I. ziehen. Versuche, anhand der Anzahl der erhaltenen Denkmäler auf die Regierungszeit zu schließen, können ebenfalls nicht überzeugen, wie von Beckerath deutlich herausstellt.74 Abgesehen vom Zufall des Erhaltungszustandes und der lückenhaften Kenntnis des ursprünglichen Baubestandes durch selektive Ausgrabungen, gibt es keine Kriterien anhand derer sich der Umfang von königlichen Bauvorhaben und der Produktion beschrifteter Objekte berechnen ließe. Im allgemeinen wird lediglich kursorisch vermerkt, daß der erhaltene Baubestand für mindestens 10 Regierungsjahre spräche. Krauss versuchte nach Gabolde vor einiger Zeit, diese Aussage auf eine bessere Basis zu stellen und die Skarabäenproduktion mitsamt den Anzahlen sonstiger Denkmäler in der Zeit Thutmosis I. und Thutmosis II. mit derjenigen von Hatschepsut und Thutmosis III. ins Verhältnis zu setzen. Zwar entsprechen die Ergebnisse den bisherigen Erwartungen (ca. 10 Jahre für Thutmosis I. und ca. 4 Jahre für Thutmosis II.), doch bleibt die Frage, ob die erhaltenen Objekte wirklich statistisch repräsentativ sind.75 Die Regierungslänge von Thutmosis I. bleibt daher bis auf weiteres spekulativ. Thutmosis II.: Die Beleglage für Thutmosis II. ist noch schlechter als die für seinen Vater. Sicher belegt ist nur sein 1. Regierungsjahr (Urk. IV, 137–141), während ein Jahr 18 mittlerweile Hatschepsut zugeschrieben wird.76 Diese letzte Inschrift befindet sich auf einem verloren gegangenen Statuenfragment, das nur aus dem Bericht

67

73

68 69 70 71

72

Dieses Argument wurde zuerst von BRADBURY (1985) angeführt, s. KRAUSS (1992: 86). KRAUSS (1992: 86–87 mit Abb. 3). MARIETTE (1875: Taf. 32f). PETRIE (1896: 67). JACQUET-GORDON (1988: 215–216, pl. LXIV–LXV); KRAUSS (1992: 87). HELCK (1956: 40), VON BECKERATH (1997: 120); KITCHEN (2000: 44).

74 75 76

BALIGH (1997: 39); KRAUSS (1992: 88). VON BECKERATH (1990). KRAUSS (1992: 88–90); GABOLDE (1987). VON BECKERATH (1990: 66) KITCHEN (2000: 44), während GABOLDE (1987: 65) von einer falschen Lesung Daressys ausgeht und den Namen Amenhoteps II. vermutet.

216

Vera Müller

von Daressy von 1900 bekannt ist und nicht weiter dokumentiert worden war.77 Da von Thutmosis II. ansonsten keine datierten Inschriften bekannt sind, müßte diese enorme Beleglücke erklärt werden. Außerdem gilt zu bedenken, daß viele von Hatschepsut geschaffene Objekte nach ihrem Tod von Thutmosis III. mit den Namen von Thutmosis I. oder Thutmosis II. beschriftet wurden, sodaß die Wahrscheinlichkeit einer nachträglichen Namensänderung relativ groß ist und die Anzahl der sicher Thutmosis II. zuzuschreibenden Objekte sehr unsicher ist.78 Manetho gibt einem Chebron 13 Jahre, der möglicherweise mit Thutmosis II. zu identifizieren ist.79 Kitchen schlägt vor, daß anstelle der 13 Jahre in Manethos Originalschrift ursprünglich nur 3 Jahre standen, hält 13 Jahre jedoch auch für möglich.80 Neben Manetho wird als Argument für eine längere Regierungszeit vor allem die in der Biographie des Ineni (Urk. IV, 58) gemachte Aussage herangezogen, Thutmosis II. sei bei Regierungsantritt noch ein ‘Falke im Nest’ gewesen, habe bei seinem Tod jedoch zwei Kinder hinterlassen (Thutmosis III. und Nofrure).81 Die Bezeichnung ‘Falke im Nest’ ist kein allgemein für Kinder gebräuchlicher Ausdruck,82 dürfte jedoch umschreiben, daß Thutmosis II. zu diesem Zeitpunkt noch als zu jung angesehen wurde, um ein eigenständiges Leben zu führen. Thutmosis II. muß sodann zumindest das zeugungsfähige Alter erreicht haben, auch wenn unbekannt bleibt, wie alt seine beiden Kinder bei seinem Tod waren. Die ihm zumeist zugeschriebenen 3 Jahre sind somit viel zu tief gegriffen. Wie bereits bei Thutmosis I. so reichen die Angaben der Beamten auch bei Thutmosis II. nicht für eine Altersbestimmung aus, da sowohl

längere als auch kürzere Regierungszeiten der beiden in den Beamtenbiographien unterzubringen sind, wenn man ihnen relativ hohe Lebensalter zuschreibt, was trotz der attestierten geringen durchschnittlichen Lebenserwartung in Ägypten für Einzelfälle durchaus belegt ist (s. dazu unten am Schluß des Beitrags).83 Die Annahme, das von Hatschepsut in ihrem 16./17. Jahr gefeierte Sed-Fest damit zu erklären, daß sie die Regierungszeit ihres Ehemannes Thutmosis II. mit einberechnet und somit ihre Regierungszeit ab dem Tod ihres Vaters gezählt habe – womit man auf eine Regierungszeit von Thutmosis II. von 13–14 Jahren kommt –, setzt voraus, daß Hatschepsut sich an die 30-Jahr-Regel für das Sed-Fest gehalten hat.84 Da jedoch insgesamt zu wenig Daten vorliegen, um mit Sicherheit festzulegen, daß eine derartige Regel eingehalten wurde und nicht nur ein Ideal darstellte, ist dieses Argument zu unsicher.85 Zur Zuverlässigkeit von Berechnungen der Regierungsjahre anhand der erhaltenen Denkmäler von Gabolde und Krauss sind dieselben Argumente geltend zu machen wie oben bei Thutmosis I.86 Man muß daher auch für Thutmosis II. konstatieren, daß die ägyptischen Quellen nicht ausreichen, um seine Regierungszeit festzulegen. Thutmosis III./Hatschepsut: Da Hatschepsut ihre Regierungsjahre nach denjenigen von Thutmosis III. ausrichtete, für den sie anfänglich die Regentschaft ausübte, kann sie vernachlässigt werden.87 Thutmosis III. wiederum ist der einzige Pharao dessen Todesdatum bekannt ist. Er regierte exakt 53 Jahre, 7 Monate und 29 Tage (Urk. IV, 895). Die meisten Autoren gehen von einer 1–2-jährigen Mitregentschaft seines Sohnes Amenhotep II. aus.88 Bildlich dokumentiert ist die Mitregent-

77

84

78 79

80 81 82

83

DARESSY (1900). DORMAN (2005: 267). Von den meisten Forschern wird diese Identifizierung nach der Rekonstruktion von HELCK (1956: 40) angenommen; sehr vorsichtig hierzu äußert sich etwa KRAUSS (1992: 88). KITCHEN (2000: 44). Unter vielen anderen etwa VON BECKERATH (1990: 70). In dem umfangreichen Werk von FEUCHT (1995) etwa taucht diese Bezeichnung nicht auf. VON BECKERATH (1990); KRAUSS (1992: 88). Sie zeigen außerdem diverse Fehler in den Berechnungen von GABOLDE (1987) auf, der die Beamtenbiographien als Beleg für eine 3-jährige Regentschaft heranzog.

85 86 87 88

Die Gültigkeit des nach 30 Jahren zelebrierten SedFestes von Hatschepsut wird etwa von VON BECKERATH (1997: 120–121) akzeptiert. S. hierzu HORNUNG & STAEHELIN (1974). GABOLDE (1987); KRAUSS (1992: 88–90). S. z.B. VON BECKERATH (1997: 108). VON BECKERATH (1997: 108-109) etwa nimmt aufgrund des Monddatums 2 ½ Jahre an, während HELCK (1987: 22–23) anhand der Angaben von Manetho 1 Jahr und 3 Monate Koregentschaft errechnet. S. auch MURNANE (1977: 44–57).

Wie gut fixiert ist die Chronologie des Neuen Reiches wirklich?

217

schaft in zwei Privatgräbern und auf einer Stele.89 Die Länge der Koregenz wird einerseits aufgrund eines Monddatums in Pap. St. Petersburg 1116 A bestimmt, andererseits anhand der Angaben bei Manetho, wo die Herrschaften von Hatschepsut (21 Jahre, 9 Monate) und Thutmosis III. (30 Jahre, 10 Monate) als unabhängige genannt werden. Die dort auf das belegte 54. Regierungsjahr fehlende Zeit wird als die Phase der Koregenz mit Amenhotep II. interpretiert, die von den aus den zeitgenössischen Quellen überlieferten Daten allerdings leicht divergieren. Wie Helck herausstellte, spricht auch das Datum für den 1. Asienfeldzug Amenhoteps II. in dessen 3. Regierungsjahr für eine 2-jährige Koregenz, da die ausländischen Fürsten normalerweise beim ersten Feldzug auf den neuen König vereinigt werden, was seiner Meinung nach im 1. Jahr stattfinden sollte90 – allerdings gibt es auch hierfür keinen eindeutigen Nachweis. Amenhotep II.: Das höchste belegte Regierungsjahr Amenhoteps II. ist mit Jahr 26 auf einem Weinkrug seines Totentempels belegt (Urk. IV, 1365). Da Weingefäße unmittelbar nach der Ernte beschriftet wurden, die in Ägypten in den August fiel, muß der König entsprechend seines Thronantrittes mindestens 25 Jahre und 10 Monate regiert haben.91 Dieses Datum kann jedoch nicht unmittelbar mit dem Zeitpunkt seines Todes gleichgesetzt werden, da etwa in das Grab des Tutanchamun bis zu 6 Jahre alte Weingefäße mitgegeben worden sind,92 sodaß eine längere Regierungszeit durchaus denkbar ist.93 Außerdem gilt zu bedenken, daß diese Gefäßaufschriften nie mit dem Namen des Königs verbunden sind, sondern lediglich seine Regierungsjahre nennen. Häufiger wird darüber hinaus das Weingut benannt, aus dem der Wein geliefert wurde und das vielfach eine mit dem König verbundene Bezeichnung erhielt. Doch waren diese

Weingüter auch noch über den Tod des Königs hinaus in Betrieb. Abgesehen davon waren auch die Millionenjahrhäuser, aus denen die meisten Weinkrugaufschriften stammen, teilweise noch über Generationen hinaus in Betrieb, so daß Datierungsangaben anhand von Weinkrugaufschriften allein nicht als hinreichendes Kriterium gelten können. Wenn man bei Manetho von einer Vertauschung der Namen von Thutmosis III. und Amenhotep II. ausgeht, so wären Amenhotep II. 25 Jahre, 10 Monate zuzuweisen.94 Wäre die bei Manetho angegebene Zahl (30 Jahre, 10 Monate) allerdings richtig, so könnte ein schlecht lesbares Datum in Pap. BM 10056, das als Jahr 30 identifiziert wurde, herangezogen werden.95 Dieses Datum ist allerdings sehr strittig und wird nicht allgemein anerkannt. Als Argument für eine längere Regierungszeit wird darüber hinaus der Lateranobelisk herangezogen (Urk. IV, 1550, 11.2–8): Dieser war von Thutmosis III. begonnen worden und sollte vermutlich zu einem weiteren Sed-Fest aufgerichtet werden, das wohl aufgrund seines Todes nicht mehr stattfand. Wie aus der Inschrift hervorgeht, ließ ihn Thutmosis IV. schließlich 35 Jahre später aufstellen. Geht man davon aus, daß Thutmosis III. tatsächlich kurz vor der Fertigstellung verstorben ist, der Obelisk also nicht schon längere Zeit unfertig herumlag, und Thutmosis IV. das Projekt der Fertigstellung unmittelbar nach Regierungsantritt anging, so könnten Amenhotep II. bis zu 35 Regierungsjahre zugesprochen werden.96 Dies setzt aber voraus, daß Thutmosis IV. tatsächlich unmittelbar nach der Thronbesteigung mit der Fertigstellung begann. Es gibt jedoch keinerlei Hinweise darauf. Wenigstens ist durch diese Inschrift eine maximale obere Grenze für die Regierungszeit Amenhoteps II. gegeben. Thutmosis IV.: Das höchste sicher belegte

89

90

Im Grab des Neferrenpet (TT 43) sind zwei Könige in einem Kiosk nebeneinander sitzend dargestellt, wobei nur die Kartusche des zweiten Königs beschriftet ist (Amenhotep II.), was HELCK (1961) dazu veranlaßte, hierin einen Nachweis für die Koregentschaft zwischen Thutmosis III. und Amenhotep II. zu sehen. HORNUNG (1964: 34) erwähnt eine Darstellung der beiden Könige im thebanischen Grab TT 200, KAMPP (1996: 485–487). Außerdem werden die beiden Könige gemeinsam auf der Stele Leiden V 11 dargestellt.

91

92 93 94 95

96

HELCK (1987: 22). VON BECKERATH (1997: 109); NICHOLSON & SHAW (2000: 585). CERNY (1965: 1–3). S. auch HELCK (1954: 196–197). HELCK (1956: 40). GLANVILLE (1931: 120 mit Anm. 3); WENTE & VAN SICLEN (1976: 227–229); VON BECKERATH (1997: 109–110). So WENTE & VAN SICLEN (1976: 227–229).

218

Vera Müller

Regierungsjahr von Thutmosis IV. stellt das 8. dar (Urk. IV, 1545, 1556). Zwei weitere Belege aus den Jahren 19 und 20 sind sehr umstritten und müssen daher außer Betracht gelassen werden.97 Bei Manetho sind für ihn 9 Jahre und 8 Monate belegt. Die von Wente & van Siclen vorgeschlagenen 33 Regierungsjahre aufgrund zweier SedFeste sind nicht stichhaltig, da in den Texten lediglich von wHm-sd (Wiederholung des SedFestes) gesprochen wird, das nach den Analysen von Hornung & Staehelin ohne Jahresangaben lediglich den Wunsch nach Sed-Festen nicht aber tatsächlich durchgeführte bezeichnet.98 Aufgrund von Manethos Angaben werden ihm von den meisten Autoren daher 10 Regierungsjahre zugeschrieben.99 Amenhotep III.: Die Regierungszeit für Amenhotep III. kann mit ziemlicher Sicherheit auf 37–38 Jahre festgesetzt werden. Die letzten für ihn belegten Daten stammen aus seinem 38. Regierungsjahr und waren auf Weingefäßen in Malqata verzeichnet.100 Ab seinem 24. Jahr sind für jedes Jahr derartige Aufschriften belegt, sodaß nicht mit Beleglücken zu rechnen ist.101 Da in Malqata auch Weingefäße des Jahres 1 gefunden wurden, die seinem Nachfolger Amenhotep IV./Achenaten zuzuschreiben sein dürften, wird er zwischen der Weinernte aus dem Jahr 38 und der des folgenden Jahres gestorben sein.102 Trotz der oben ausgeführten Vorbehalte Weinkrugaufschriften betreffend liegt mit Malqata, das nur in der Zeit Amenhoteps III. bewohnt war, ein Sonderfall vor. Diese lange Regierungszeit wird außerdem durch einen in das Jahr 36 datierten Amarna-Brief unterstützt.103

Bei Manetho werden ihm 36 Jahre und 5 Monate (Josephus) bzw. 38 Jahre und 7 Monate (Eusebius) zugewiesen, wovon das letztere gut zu den belegten Regierungsjahren paßt. Umstritten ist, ob es zwischen Amenhotep III. und seinem Sohn eine Koregenz gab. Die vorgeschlagenen 12 Jahre werden ausgeschlossen, 1–2 Jahre wären hingegen denkbar, wenn es auch kaum möglich scheint, dies zu beweisen.104 Amenhotep IV./Achenaten:105 Auch wenn die offiziellen datierten Inschriften nur bis zu seinem 12. Jahr reichen, ist auch Achenaten wie sein Vater durch Weingefäßaufschriften sehr gut faßbar. Die letzte Aufschrift stammt aus seinem Jahr 17, sodaß davon ausgegangen wird, daß er zwischen der Weinernte des genannten Jahres und dem darauf folgenden Jahr verschied.106 Wie für Malqata so gelten auch für Amarna besondere Bedingungen, da diese Stadt in den ersten Jahren Tutanchamuns verlassen wurde und somit sicherlich kein Wein mehr angeliefert wurde. Die in der Regel nicht datierten Amarna-Briefe liefern für die Regierungslänge Achenatens leider keine konkreten Hinweise.107 Während eine Koregentschaft zwischen Achenaten und seinem Vater Amenhotep III. nur am Rande diskutiert wird, da die chronologischen Auswirkungen minimal sind, so stehen für die letzten Jahre seiner Regierung mehrere Varianten von Koregentschaften zur Disposition, auch wenn es für keine von ihnen einen schlüssigen Beweis gibt (s.u.). Die Hauptschwierigkeit liegt in vermutlich mehreren Namensänderungen der Personen seiner unmittelbaren Umgebung und der richtigen Deutung mancher Titel.

97

99

98

Eine Gefäßaufschrift, die mit Jahr 19 und der Domäne von Thutmosis IV. datiert ist, KOENIG (1980: # 6337), kann nicht als eindeutiger Beweis für eine längere Regierungszeit genommen werden, da die Domäne Thutmosis IV. auch noch in der späten 18. Dynastie belegt ist. Da zudem die Gefäßaufschrift nicht im Original, sondern nur in einer Abschrift publiziert wurde, kann sie paläographisch nicht überprüft werden, s. BRYAN (1991: 6). Eine ins Jahr 20 datierte und schlecht zu lesende Inschrift in Tombos scheint eher von Thutmosis III. als Thutmosis IV. zu stammen; jedenfalls sind für ersteren mehrere Schreibungen belegt, in denen reichlich Platz neben dem xpr-Käfer gelassen wurde, BRYAN (1991: 6–7). WENTE & VAN SICLEN (1977: 229–230); HORNUNG & STAEHELIN (1974: 63–64).

100 101 102 103 104

105

106 107

BRYAN (1991: 5–31): 10–12 Jahre; HELCK (1987: 22): 10 Jahre; HORNUNG (1987: 31): 10 Jahre; KITCHEN (2000: 43): 10 Jahre; VON BECKERATH (1997: 110) ist mit 7–10 Jahren etwas zurückhaltender. HAYES (1951: 47, Fig. 7 [Nr. 61–62]). HELCK (1987: 21–22). VON BECKERATH (1997: 110). MORAN (1992: XXXIV). VON BECKERATH (1994: 45; 1997: 110); HELCK (1954); HORNUNG (1964: 71–78). Amenhotep IV. ändert seinen Geburtsnamen im 5. Jahr zu Achenaten. HORNUNG (1964: 82). MORAN (1992: XXXIV–XXXIX).

Wie gut fixiert ist die Chronologie des Neuen Reiches wirklich?

219

So wird seine Königsgemahlin Nofretete nach dem 13. Regierungsjahr nicht mehr erwähnt. Entweder ist sie verschwunden (gestorben, verbannt?) oder sie änderte ihren Namen zu Anchetchepru-re und agierte als Mitregentin.108 Falls die aus dem ‘Gut der Königsgemahlin’ angelieferten Weingefäße aus den Jahren 14–17 ihr zuzuschreiben sind, so wäre sie nach von Beckerath erst im 17. Jahr zur Mitregentin erhoben worden.109 Allerdings setzt diese Interpretation voraus, daß dieses Gut nach ihrer Ernennung zur Koregentin aufgehoben oder umbenannt wurde.110 Krauss hingegen hat vorgeschlagen, daß Meritaton nach dem Verschwinden von Nofretete zur Königsgemahlin erhoben wurde, nach dem Tod ihres Vaters weiterregierte und durch ihre Heirat mit Semenchkare diesen zum Thronfolger erhob.111 Semenchkare: Von allen Königen des Neuen Reiches ist Semenchkare der am schwersten faßbare, weswegen nach wie vor sehr divergierende Datierungskonzepte vorliegen. Sicher ist lediglich, daß er mit der ältesten Tochter Amenhoteps IV., Meritaton, verheiratet war und zumindest bis in sein 3. Jahr regierte (Urk. IV, 2024, 14).112 Unklar ist hingegen, ob er Mitregent von Achenaten war und wenn ja, für wie lange. Wegen der vermuteten Namensänderungen könnte eine Königin Anchet-chepru-re entweder mit Nofretete, Meritaton oder Kija (Nebenfrau von Achenaten) identifiziert werden. Das Auftreten dieser Königinnen-Kartusche wird als Hinweis gewertet, daß eine der drei Frauen entweder von Achenaten zur Mitregentin erhoben wurde oder aber nach seinem Tod eine Zeitlang allein regierte. Für letzteres wird die sogenannte Dachamanzu-Affäre herangezogen: Eine ägyptische Königin (Dachamanzu in Keilschrift aus tA-Hm.t nsw.t = die Königsgemahlin) läßt am hethitischen Königshof bei Suppiluliuma I. um einen Prinzen anfragen, den sie heiraten möchte, da in Ägypten kein männlicher Thronfolger zur Verfügung stehe. Der hethitische Prinz Zannanza wird allerdings noch vor Erreichen Ägyptens umgebracht. Da der

Name der Königin nicht genannt wird, ist es nach wie vor umstritten, um wen es sich gehandelt haben könnte. In der Diskussion stehen neben Nofretete und Meritaton nach dem Tode Achenatens, Meritaton nach dem Tode des Semenchkare, aber auch Kija, eine Nebenfrau Achenatens, sowie Anchesenamun, die Witwe Tutanchamuns. Es tritt nun darüber hinaus die männliche Variante des genannten Königinnen-Namens auf, Anch-chepru-re Nefer-nefru-aton, mit entsprechenden männlichen Titeln und Epitheta. Während kaum noch jemand diskutiert, daß sich Nofretete diese Form im Zuge einer Alleinherrschaft zulegte (wie dies etwa für Hatschepsut belegt ist), wird dieser Name stattdessen nahezu einhellig mit Semenchkare verbunden. Aufgrund der Namensgleichheit mit Nofretete, nimmt von Beckerath an, daß Semenchkare diesen Namen nach dem Tod von Nofretete übernommen hatte und sodann als Mitregent von Achenaten fungierte.113 Er geht des weiteren davon aus, daß Semenchkare entweder bereits im 14. Jahr Achenatens Mitregent wurde oder erst im 17. Jahre, je nach dem, wann das Verschwinden von Nofretete anzusetzen ist (s.o.), und sodann nach dessen Tod nur wenige Monate alleine regierte.114 Maßgeblich sind für ihn die Gefäßaufschriften in Amarna: Diejenigen aus dem 1. und 2. Jahr möchte er Tutanchamun zugeordnet wissen, Jahr 3 ist nicht belegt, und diejenigen ab dem 4. Jahr seien noch von Achenaten, da Amarna erst in dessen 5. Jahr gegründet wurde. Außerdem würde das Fehlen des 3. Jahres darauf verweisen, daß Tutanchamun Amarna bereits verlassen habe und Semenchkare somit noch vor der Lese seines 3. Jahres verstorben sei, während diejenigen aus den vorherigen Jahren, also auch der Zeit der Koregenz, noch nach Achenaten datiert worden seien. Hiergegen gibt es allerdings einzuwenden, daß Wein ja auch aus Altbeständen angeliefert worden sein kann und damit die ersten beiden Jahre ebenfalls Achenaten zuzuweisen wären. Oder aber, daß die Gefäße der ersten beiden Jahre aus Semenchkares Regierungszeiten stammen. Es

108

112

109 110

111

Letzteres wird von VON BECKERATH (1997: 111– 113) angenommen. VON BECKERATH (1997: 113). Zur Diskussion der Bedeutung dieses Gutes für die Chronologie s. KRAUSS (1997). KRAUSS (1978: 43–48).

113 114

Bei dem Datum handelt es sich um ein Graffito im Grab des Pairi (TT 139) mit einem Hymnus an Amun. VON BECKERATH (1997: 112). VON BECKERATH (1997: 112–114).

220

Vera Müller

ist außerdem unverständlich, warum von Beckerath, der ansonsten grundsätzlich annimmt, daß die Jahre der Koregenz dem jüngeren Herrscher zugeordnet werden, im Fall der Weingefäße aus Amarna davon ausgeht, daß sie allein nach Achenaten datiert seien. Kitchen geht von 1 Jahr Koregenz und 1 Jahr Alleinherrschaft des Semenchkare aus und nimmt dafür das anhand der Monddaten errechnete Thronbesteigungsjahr von Thutmosis III. in Anspruch.115 Helck schließt eine Koregentschaft aus und nimmt vielmehr an, daß Dachamanzu mit Kija, der Nebenfrau Achenatens zu identifizieren sei.116 Er rekonstruiert die Angaben Manethos, die außerdem mit den Daten für Tutanchamun vertauscht seien, als Zusammensetzung aus einem Jahr königslose Zeit und 5 Jahren Alleinherrschaft des Semenchkare als Nachfolger von Kija. Krauss wiederum geht davon aus, daß Meritaton 1 Jahr und 1 Monat allein regierte, bevor sie dann Semenchkare heiratete und ihm die Herrschaft übertrug, der jedoch bereits nach kurzer Zeit stirbt.117 Wente & van Siclen wiederum rechnen für Semenchkare überhaupt keine eigenen Regierungsjahre ein, sondern gehen aufgrund einer Stele, die Hinweise auf die Koregenz zwischen ihm und Amenhotep IV. ergeben, von seinem Tod noch vor dem Ableben Achenatens aus.118 Die vorgeschlagenen Regierungsjahre, die Semenchkare zugewiesen werden, divergieren also zwischen 0 und 5 Jahren. Außer dem Datum eines 3. Jahres gibt es ansonsten keine datierten Belege für ihn. Da auch die Angaben bei Manetho in diesem Fall sehr unzuverlässig sind, muß die Regierungszeit nach den zwei attestierten Jahren erst einmal offen bleiben. Auch die Frage der Koregenz scheint nach den bislang vorliegenden Quellen erst einmal nicht eindeutig geklärt werden zu können. Die von manchen propagierte königslose Zeit nach dem Tod von Achenaten läßt sich mit der ägyptischen Ideologie des Königtums

jedenfalls nicht in Einklang bringen, da eine solche Phase dem als bedrohlich empfundenen Urchaos gleichkäme. Tutanchamum: Der zuerst Tutanchaten genannte König nennt sich zu Beginn seines 3. Jahres zu Tutanchamun um und verläßt Amarna. Das höchste belegte Regierungsjahr ist sein 10. nach Weinkrugaufschriften in seinem Grab.119 Die bei seiner Mumie gefundenen Blumenkränze deuten auf Anfang Februar als Zeit seiner Bestattung, womit seine Regierungszeit auf 9 ½ Jahre festgelegt werden kann. Die mehrfach untersuchte Mumie weist auf ein Alter von maximal 20–22 Jahre hin, sodaß er bereits sehr jung den Thron bestiegen hat. Eje: Für den zuvor als Priester agierenden Eje, der auch die Bestattung von Tutanchamun ausrichtete, ist das 4. Jahr als höchstes belegt (Urk. IV, 2110). Wenn man von einer Vertauschung bei Manetho zwischen den Daten von Eje und Haremhab ausgeht, so hätte er 4 Jahre und 1 Monat regiert.120 Er zählt mit den Herrschern seit Achenaten zu den später verfemten Königen, die in offiziellen Königslisten nicht erwähnt werden. Haremhab: Für Haremhab sind zweifelsfrei 13 Jahre belegt.121 Zudem kann ein Inschrift-Fragment in London (UC 14391) entweder zu Jahr [1]5 oder [2]5 ergänzt werden.122 Sehr umstritten ist hingegen eine Notiz auf dem Bruchstück einer zerschlagenen Königsfigur aus dem Millionenjahrhaus des Haremhab.123 Sie ist in das Jahr 27 datiert und wurde wohl erst nach der Zerstörung der Statue angebracht. Von Beckerath möchte die Inschrift Haremhab zuweisen, andere Kollegen hingegen halten sie für eine nachträgliche Aufschrift aus der Zeit Ramses II., da in der Inschrift der Königstitel fehlt, was bei zeitgenössischen Inschriften nie der Fall ist, wie Helck betont.124 Besonders heiß diskutiert ist darüber hinaus die Inschrift im Grabe des Mes, das in der Zeit Ramses II. angelegt wurde und eine Urkunde vom Jahr 58 oder 59 des Haremhab wiedergibt.125

115

122

116 117 118 119 120 121

KITCHEN (2000: 43–44). Z.B. HELCK (1987: 21). KRAUSS (1986). WENTE & VAN SICLEN (1976: 230–231). Unter vielen anderen VON BECKERATH (1997: 114–115). VON BECKERATH (1997: 115). MARTIN (1979: 15, Taf. III, 2).

123 124

125

HARI (1964: 300–302, Taf. L, 82). HÖLSCHER (1939: 106–108, Fig. 88–90, Taf. 51c). VON BECKERATH (1997: 116); FAIRMAN in PENDLEBURY (1951: 157–158); HARRIS (1968: 95-99); HELCK (1973: 253–254). GARDINER (1905: 11 mit Anm. 72); GABALLA (1977: 25 und LXIII).

Wie gut fixiert ist die Chronologie des Neuen Reiches wirklich?

221

In dieser Urkunde geht es um einen Eigentumsprozeß, in welcher das Datum offensichtlich die angeblich alten Ansprüche des Grabbesitzers geltend machen sollen. Da Haremhab bereits unter Tutanchamun ein hochrangiger General war, wird ausgeschlossen, daß er solange regiert haben kann. Aus diesem Grund nehmen einige Forscher an, daß ihm nachträglich die Regierungsjahre der später verfemten Könige Achenaton (16–17 Jahre), Semenchkare (3 Jahre), Tutanchamun (9–10 Jahre) und Eje (4–5 Jahre) zugeschlagen wurden und er somit mindestens 25–26 Jahre selbst regiert habe.126 Als Unterstützung für diese hohe Regierungszeit werden einerseits die durch astronomische Berechnungen erhaltenen Regierungszeiten von Thutmosis III. und Ramses II. sowie Synchronismen mit der assyrischen Chronologie herangezogen (Abb. 3: der babylonische König Burnaburiash II. war Zeitgenosse von Amenhotep III., Achenaten und Tutanchamun; der assyrische König Aššur-ubalitt vermutlich bereits von Achenaten, aber auf jeden Fall von Tutanchamun). Von Beckerath hält auf dieser Basis sogar bis zu 31 Regierungsjahre für Haremhab für möglich.127 Helck hingegen möchte Haremhab maximal die belegten 12–13 Jahre zugestehen.128 Abgesehen von einer Angabe bei Manetho von 12 Jahren und 3 Monaten, bei dem er von einer Vertauschung der Regierungszeit zwischen Eje und Haremhab ausgeht, hält er es für diese Zeitepoche nicht mehr für denkbar, daß so viele Jahre unbelegt sind. Außerdem sprechen für ihn die geringe Anzahl von Haremhab zuweisbaren Denkmälern für eine kürzere Regierungszeit, da sie geringer vertreten sind als diejenigen von Tutanchamun und nachweislich etliche unter Tutanchamun geschaffene Werke nachträglich mit dem Namen Haremhabs versehen wurden. Hinzu kommen relativ wenige für diese Epoche belegte Beamte. Bei letzterem Punkt gilt allerdings zu bedenken, daß es gerade in Saqqara, wo auch Haremhab sein Grab anlegen ließ, bevor er zum König erhoben wurde, noch viele unausgegrabe-

ne bzw. unpublizierte Grabanlagen aus dieser Zeitepoche gibt.129 Wie bereits unter Thutmosis I. erwähnt (s.o.), ist es allerdings sehr fragwürdig, anhand der Anzahl von Denkmälern auf die Länge der Regierung zu schließen.

126

131

127 128 129

130

Unter vielen anderen VON BECKERATH (1997: 45); KITCHEN (2000: 43). VON BECKERATH (1997: 115–117). HELCK (1987: 19–20; 1983: 47–49). Zu Untersuchungen in dieser Nekropole s. vorerst MARTIN (1991). VON BECKERATH (1997: 103).

Regierungsjahre der 19. und 20. Dynastie Die Zeit der Ramessiden (19. und 20. Dyn.) gilt als die am dichtesten mit historischen Belegen ausgestattete Epoche im Alten Ägypten.130 Fast jedes Regierungsjahr von Ramses II. bis Ramses IX. ist dokumentiert. Diskrepanzen liegen bei Amenmesse (0–5 Jahre), Ramses X. (3–9 Jahre) und Ramses XI. (29–35 Jahre) vor. Darüber hinaus können bei Sethnacht (2–3 Jahre), Ramses V. (3–5 Jahre), Ramses VI. (7–8 Jahre), Ramses VII. (7–8 Jahre) und Ramses VIII. (1–3 Jahre) wenige Jahre als Schwankungsbreite verzeichnet werden. Ramses I.: Für ihn ist nur sein 2. Jahr belegt (KRI I, 2–3). Da diese Angabe mit denjenigen bei Manetho (1 Jahr, 4 Monate) übereinstimmen, wird kein Zweifel daran gehegt, daß er nur so kurz regiert hat. Des weiteren wird die Erwähnung derselben Opferstiftung auf einer Stele seines Sohnes Sethos I. aus dessen 1. Jahr als Beleg für eine nicht mehr als 2-jährige Regierungszeit Ramses I. gewertet.131 Dies korrespondiert auch mit der Größe seines Königsgrabes, das nur aus einem Raum besteht und damit nicht den Konzepten seiner Vorgänger und Nachfolger entspricht, sondern offensichtlich schnell fertig gestellt werden mußte.132 Lediglich Helck möchte ihm 2 Jahre und 3 Monate zubilligen, was er jedoch an den für Haremhab von Manetho überlieferten Daten aufhängt, die wie oben gezeigt äußerst fragwürdig sind.133 Sethos I.: Das höchste bekannte Regierungsdatum ist Jahr 11 (KRI I, 75), er hat also zumindest 10 volle Jahre regiert. Bierbrier plädiert aufgrund der biographischen Angaben auf der Statue des Bakenchons134 für mindestens 15 Jahre.135 Dagegen wandten sich jedoch Wente & van Siclen, da das mn-Zeichen nicht nur im Namen des Sethos I. vorkommt, sondern z.B. auch in demjenigen von

132 133 134

135

VON BECKERATH (1997: 117). REEVES (1990: 91–92). HELCK (1987: 19–20). München Glyptothek WAF 38, s. PLANTIKOW-MÜNSTER (1969). BIERBRIER (1972: 303).

222

Vera Müller

Sethos II.: Daß Sethos II. auf keinen Fall länger als 6 Jahre regiert hat, wird aus den vorhandenen Daten deutlich, da unter ihnen auch Belege sind, in denen sein Tod gemeldet wird.144 Siptah/Tausret: Da der designierte Nachfolger Sethi-Merneptah, der Sohn der großen königlichen Gemahlin Tausret und Sethos II. noch vor seinem Vater verstarb, wurde Siptah zum Nachfolger ernannt, der vermutlich der Sohn einer Nebenfrau Sethos II. war.145 Tausret scheint zusammen mit dem syrischen Kanzler Baj die Regentschaft für den unmündigen Stiefsohn übernommen zu haben, wobei allerdings nicht nach Tausret sondern nach Siptah datiert wurde, bevor er in seinem vermutlich 7. Jahr verstarb und Tausret sich zur Königin erheben ließ. Für Tausret, die anscheinend die Regierungsjahre ihres Stiefsohnes weiter zählte, ist ein 7. und 8. Jahr belegt.146 Unklar ist bislang noch der Übergang zur 20. Dynastie. Die meisten Forscher sind sich mittlerweile darin einig, daß sich nach dem Tode des Siptah im Süden des Landes Sethnacht erhob und als Gegenkönig eingesetzt wurde. Die Frage ist jedoch, ob seine Regierungsjahre unabhängig oder zeitgleich mit denjenigen von Tausret zu zählen sind.147 Des weiteren ist unklar, wie lange der Kanzler Baj seine Macht ausüben konnte: Drenkhahn vermutete, daß er erst nach dem Tod der Tausret die Macht ergriff, während Altenmüller davon ausgeht, daß er zusammen mit Siptah verschwand.148 Grandet geht davon aus, daß er die Herrschaft Sethnachts nicht mehr erlebte.149

Ramses I.136 Außerdem seien die Jahresangaben auf der Statue nicht wörtlich zu nehmen, da nicht erkennbar ist, ob sie eventuell auf- oder abgerundet worden sind. Die höhere Regierungszeit wird von einigen Autoren auch dazu herangezogen, um Lücken aus den astronomisch errechneten Daten und den belegten Regierungsdaten zu schließen.137 Ramses II.: Das für Ramses II. belegte höchste Regierungsjahr 67 trifft gut mit den Angaben Manethos zusammen, der für ihn 66 Jahre und 2 Monate notierte. Abgesehen davon sind ab seiner Zeit für sämtliche Herrscher bis zu Ramses IX. die Regierungsjahre fast annähernd durchgehend in der Arbeiterstadt Deir el-Medine belegt.138 Merneptah: Aufgrund der guten Beleglage wird nicht daran gezweifelt, daß Merneptah über sein 10. Regierungsjahr nicht hinausgekommen ist, auch wenn bei Manetho für ihn 19 Jahre und 6 Monate verzeichnet sind.139 Man geht hierbei von einer Verschreibung von 9 zu 19 aus. Dies scheint auch gut mit den Genealogien zusammenzupassen, die gegen eine längere Regierungszeit sprechen.140 Das Ende der 19. Dyn. wird dafür wieder weniger gut greifbar. Amenmesse: Das höchste belegte Regierungsjahr von Amenmesse ist sein 4., wobei das erhaltene Datum kurz nach seinem Thronbesteigungstag liegt und somit nur 3 Jahre gesichert sind.141 Bei Manetho werden ihm 5 Jahre zugemessen. Unklar ist allerdings, ob er das Land alleine regierte oder als Gegenkönig von Sethos II.142 Wäre letzteres der Fall, so wären seine Regierungsdaten chronologisch irrelevant. Die meisten halten jedoch eine Alleinherrschaft für wahrscheinlicher, allerdings vorwiegend aufgrund der astronomisch errechneten Daten für Ramses II. und Synchronismen mit der assyrischen Königsliste, da ansonsten die Regierungszeiten anderer Könige gelängt werden müssten.143

Sethnacht: Für ihn ist mit Sicherheit sein 2., vermutlich aber auch sein 3. Jahr belegt.150 Wie oben erwähnt ist umstritten, ob er seine Jahre vom Tode Siptahs an oder vom Tag seiner Erhebung an datierte.151 Kitchen geht von mindestens 3 Jahren aufgrund der Synchronismen zwischen

136

145

137 138 139 140 141 142 143

144

WENTE & VAN SICLEN (1976: 232–234). VON BECKERATH (1997: 118). U.a. KITCHEN (2000: 42); VON BECKERATH (1997: 104). U.a. KITCHEN (2000: 43); VON BECKERATH (1997: 104). BIERBRIER (1975: Kap. 1–2). VON BECKERATH (1997: 104–105). Für letzteres tritt KRAUSS (1976; 1977) ein. U.a. KITCHEN (2000: 42); VON BECKERATH (1997: 104–105). VON BECKERATH (1997: 105).

20. Dynastie

146 147

148 149 150 151

VON BECKERATH (1997: 105). VON BECKERATH (1997: 105–106). S. VON BECKERATH (1997: 105–106) mit weiterer Literatur. DRENKHAHN (1980); ALTENMÜLLER (1982; 1985; 1995). GRANDET (2000). VON BECKERATH (1997: 106). Für ersteres plädiert ALTENMÜLLER (1982; 1995), für letzteres VON BECKERATH (1992).

Wie gut fixiert ist die Chronologie des Neuen Reiches wirklich?

223

Kadashman-Turgu und Ramses II. aus, wobei jedoch eher 2 als 1 von der Regierung Tausrets unabhängiges Jahr zu verrechnen wären; auch von Beckerath geht in diese Richtung.152 Ramses III.: Für Ramses III. sind sämtliche 32 Regierungsjahre gut belegt und geben keinen Anlaß zur Diskussion, wobei nur 31 Jahre zu verrechnen sind, da anhand des bekannten Thronbesteigungsdatum deutlich wird, daß er sein 32. Jahr gerade erst begonnen hatte.153 Ramses IV.: Auch die Regierungszeit seines Sohnes Ramses IV. ist bestens belegt: Er verstarb zu Beginn seines 7. Jahres, womit ihm 6 volle Jahre anzurechnen sind.154 Ramses V.: Das höchste belegte Regierungsjahr von Ramses V. ist sein 4. (KRI VI, 253). Es ist allerdings nicht ganz klar, ob das letzte bekannte Ostrakon bereits postum verfaßt wurde, womit er nur 3 volle Jahre regiert hätte oder ob er noch bis in sein 5. Jahr lebte.155 Ramses VI.: Auch für Ramses VI. ist es trotz der guten Beleglage nicht möglich festzustellen, ob er nur 6 Jahre oder gar bis zu seinem 8. Jahr regierte. Unzweifelhaft ist ein belegtes 7. Jahr. Von Beckerath zieht jedoch auch noch ein Graffito aus dem 8. Jahr als Beleg für Ramses VI. heran und geht aufgrund der Thronbesteigungsdaten seines Nachfolgers von einem Tod zu Beginn des 9. Jahres aus.156 Die Zuweisung dieses Graffito zu Ramses VI. wird jedoch von Bierbrier und Wente & van Siclen abgelehnt.157 Kitchen weist ihm 7 Jahre zu.158 Ramses VII.: Auch für Ramses VII. wird eine kleine Diskrepanz diskutiert: Während Hornung von einer Regierungszeit von 6–7 Jahren ausgeht, stellt sich für von Beckerath die Frage, ob er sein 8. Jahr noch voll erlebt hat und er erst zu Beginn seines 9. Jahres verstarb, oder ob sein Nachfolger unmittelbar nach dem höchsten

belegten Datum bereits den Thron bestieg.159 Hintergrund bildet die Akzeptanz von Belegen aus dem 7. und 8. Jahr, deren Zuordnung nicht ganz eindeutig ist.160 Ramses VIII.: Über Ramses VIII. ist so gut wie nichts bekannt und es sind nur zwei datierte Belege aus seinem 1. Regierungsjahr überliefert. Während Kitchen bis zu 3 Jahre Regierungszeit für möglich hält, was aber vorwiegend auf allgemeinen Berechnungen der Länge des Neuen Reiches zurückgeht, bleibt von Beckerath vorsichtiger und billigt ihm ein mögliches zweites Jahr zu.161 Sein Argument ist wiederum das Thronbesteigungsdatum seines Nachfolgers, aufgrund dessen er zumindest ein Jahr, möglicherweise vielleicht auch ein zweites Jahr regiert haben könnte. Ramses IX.: Zweifelsfrei ist wiederum die Regierungszeit von Ramses IX., der zu Beginn seines 19. Regierungsjahres verstarb, womit er 18 volle Jahre regiert hat.162 Ramses X.: Für Ramses X. sind lediglich die ersten 3 Jahre gesichert (KRI VI, 699). Während von Beckerath und Hornung ihm lediglich 3–4 Jahre zusprechen wollen, geht Kitchen von bis zu 8 Jahren für ihn aus.163 Streitpunkt ist hierbei Graffito Theben-West 1860a, das nicht allseits anerkannt wird, von Kitchen aber nach wie vor für möglich gehalten wird.164 Ein aus astronomischen Gründen berechnetes 9. Jahr, das noch von Wente & van Siclen propagiert wurde, wird mittlerweile nicht mehr anerkannt.165 Ramses XI.: Die höchste belegte Regierungszeit von Ramses XI. ist sein 28. Jahr. Ab seinem 19. Regierungsjahr wird die neue Datierungsära „Erneuerung der Schöpfung“ einberufen, nach welcher die folgenden Jahre benannt sind.166 Der Übergang zur 21. Dynastie und damit zur 3. Zwischenzeit ist nach wie vor stark in der Diskussion. Hiervon abhängig können Ramses

152

160

153 154 155

156 157

158 159

KITCHEN (2000: 41); VON BECKERATH (1997: 105–106). KITCHEN (2000: 42); VON BECKERATH (1997: 106). KITCHEN (2000: 42); VON BECKERATH (1997: 106). VON BECKERATH (1997: 106); WENTE & VAN SICLEN (1976: 237–240). VON BECKERATH (1997: 106). BIERBRIER (1972); WENTE & VAN SICLEN (1976: 240–243). KITCHEN (2000: 42). HORNUNG (1964: 243–245); VON BECKERATH (1997: 107); KITCHEN (2000: 42) nimmt ohne weitere Begründung 7 Jahre an.

161 162 163

164

165

166

S. hierzu auch WENTE & VAN SICLEN (1976: 243–245). KITCHEN (2000: 41–42); VON BECKERATH (1997: 107). KITCHEN (2000: 42); VON BECKERATH (1997: 107). VON BECKERATH (1997: 107); HORNUNG (1987: 28); KITCHEN (2000: 98); s. hierzu auch T. Schneider in JENNI (Hg.) (2000: 81–82). KITCHEN (2000: 98); WENTE & VAN SICLEN (1976: 235); BIERBRIER (1975: 126 Anm. 119). WENTE & VAN SICLEN (1976: 235); dagegen: KRAUSS (1985: 151–154); VON BECKERATH (1984; 1994). VON BECKERATH (1997: 107–108).

224

Vera Müller

XI. auch noch weitere Jahre zugewiesen werden, wobei manche Autoren aufgrund der allgemeinen Berechnungen bis zu 34 Jahre vorschlagen.167 Es gibt jedoch auch Hinweise auf mögliche Koregenzen in der späten Ramessidenzeit und Parallelregierungen, die eher für Kürzungen sprechen würden.168 SCHLUSSFOLGERUNGEN Wie in der obigen Zusammenstellung deutlich wird, hängen die Argumente für die absoluten Regierungsjahre vor allem in der 18. Dynastie mit wenigen Ausnahmen an den Angaben von Manetho, dessen mangelnde Zuverlässigkeit bereits einführend dargelegt wurde. Ignoriert man diese jedoch und zusätzlich die astronomischen Daten, so bildet der einzige Fixpunkt für absolute Daten die assyrische Chronologie. Zwar wird diese in der Literatur gerne als recht stabil bis zum 14. Jhd. v. Chr. bezeichnet, doch sollte diese ebenfalls noch einmal kritisch beleuchtet und nach möglichen Schwachstellen untersucht werden, bevor man sich von ägyptischer Seite völlig auf sie stützt. Geht man als Arbeitshypothese jedoch vorerst von einer relativ gesicherten absoluten Chronologie Assyriens aus, so wäre die ägyptische Chronologie vom 1. Jahrtausend ausgehend zumindest bis Amenhotep III. ziemlich gut abgesichert. Dies scheint auch durch die bislang vorliegenden 14CDaten bestätigt zu werden, die für die AmarnaZeit relativ gut mit der bestehenden historischen Chronologie übereinstimmen.169 Allerdings wäre auch für diese Zeitepoche ein dichteres Datennetz anhand von 14C-Proben sehr wünschenswert. Unter dieser Voraussetzung wäre allein die erste Hälfte der 18. Dynastie und die 2. Zwischenzeit für die anhand der eingangs erwähnten Diskrepanz zwischen 14C-Daten und der historischen Chronologie verantwortlich zu zeichnen und einer näheren Untersuchung nach möglichen Verschiebemöglichkeiten zu unterziehen. Ausgerechnet hier stoßen wir aber auf gewisse Schwierigkeiten. Für die 2. Zwischenzeit liegen keine

167 168 169

VON BECKERATH (1997: 107–108). Zuletzt THIJS (2005). Neben den für Amarna selbst vorliegenden Daten: 1333 ± 50 BC – historisches Datum für Achenaton 1353–1337 v. Chr. (s. Abb. 1), s. hierzu HASSAN & ROBINSON (1987: 119); SWITSUR (1984) liegen auch 14C-

historisch verwertbaren Daten vor, außer der Angabe im Turiner Königspapyrus, daß die 15. Dyn. (Hyksos) 108 Jahre währte;170 offen ist hingegen die Frage nach der absoluten Anzahl von Herrschern und die Anordnung von zeitgleichen Herrschergruppen. Somit kann vorerst diese Epoche allein anhand der archäologischen Hinterlassenschaften zeitlich erfaßt werden. Was nun die 18. Dynastie angeht, so ist lediglich für Thutmosis III. eine exakte Regierungszeit bekannt. Die relativ hohen Regierungszeiten von Ahmose, Amenhotep I. und Amenhotep II. dürften nicht weit weg von der Realität sein, lassen sich jedoch nicht genauer fassen. Da sie mit Manetho relativ gut übereinstimmen, gibt es recht wenig Zweifel, daß seine Angaben in diesen Fällen einigermaßen zuverlässig sein könnten. Dennoch sollte bedacht werden, daß Manetho keinesfalls als allein maßgebliche Quelle angesehen werden kann und manche Regierungszeiten nur dadurch als stimmig erscheinen, weil man von Vertauschungen mit nachfolgenden Königen ausgeht. Gravierende Schwachstellen bilden hingegen die Regierungszeiten von Thutmosis I., Thutmosis II. und Thutmosis IV. Die von vielen Autoren vertretenen 3 Regierungsjahre für Thutmosis II. dürften auf jeden Fall zu niedrig gegriffen sein, wenn die Interpretation des ‘Falken im Nest’ als Umschreibung für einen Unmündigen stimmt. Da er, wie oben erwähnt, zwei Kinder zeugte, muß er auf jeden Fall noch das zeugungsfähige Alter erreicht haben. Die Versuche, anhand der erhaltenen Denkmäler auf die Regierungszeit zu schließen, kranken an den vielen damit verbundenen Unsicherheiten, wie bereits oben dargelegt wurde (s. unter Thutmosis I.). Leider führen die wenigen erhaltenen Beamtenbiographien, die mehrere Könige überspannen, ebenfalls nur zu recht groben Eingrenzungen, da bis auf eine Ausnahme (Astronom Amenemhet aus der Zeit Amenhoteps I., s.o.) keine Angaben zu den Regierungslängen gegeben, sondern nur die Königsnamen aufgezählt werden, unter denen die Beamten dienten.

170

Daten für das mit der Amarna-Zeit verbundene Uluburun-Schiffswrack vor, das einen Skarabäus mit dem Namen der Nofretete enthielt: 1364 +15/–26 im 2sBereich, s. NEWTON et al. (2005). VON BECKERATH (1997: 136); RYHOLT (1997: 118).

Wie gut fixiert ist die Chronologie des Neuen Reiches wirklich?

Senj (Urk. IV, 39– 41) Grabkegel o. Name Berlin 8755 Ahmose Pennechbet (Urk. IV, 32– 34)

Ahmose Pa-n-jati (Urk. IV, 51– 52)

Ineni (Urk. IV, 56– 62)

Nebamun (Urk. IV, 145– 154)

Senimes (Urk. IV, 1065–1070)

225

Hatscheput / Thutmosis III. 22/54

Lebensalter der Beamten

+ x

? Sänger und Priester

54+x

+ Soldat

+ Hofbeamter, erreicht „hohes Alter“

36+x

+

+

+

1+x Hofbeamter bis in Beginn Hatschepsut, Erzieher von Tochter Nofrure, als „sie noch an den Brüsten lag“, H. noch nicht gekrönt 2–7 J.?

Bauleiter

Bauleiter

Bauleiter

20-25+x Bauleiter

+ Bauleiter

+ Bauleiter

beim Tod A. I. mind. 25 J.

+

+

Beamter

Beamter

ca. 20+x Erzieher von Wadjmose (Sohn von Thut. I.) 15–20+x

+

Ahmose

Amenophis I.

Thutmosis I.

Thutmosis II.

25 Jahre Beamter

21 Jahre Beamter

10+x Vizekönig von Nubien

3+x Vizekönig von Nubien?

20+x x

+ x

+ x

1+x Soldat beim letzten Feldzug

+ Soldat

15–20 J. beim Tod von A.

+

Bauleiter unter Hatschepsut, bis sie Königstitel annahm (Jahr 2–7) 2-7 Bauleiter unter Hatschepsut, bis sie Königstitel annahm (Jahr 2– 7) + 2–7 Beamter und Güterverwalter der Königin Nebti (ca. 30. J. Thut. III.) ca. 30 Stele aus 22. Jahr Thut. III.

22+x

51–61+x

x+35–45+x

40–47+x

50–60+x

40–45+x

Tabelle 1

Zwar darf man auch für das alte Ägypten von vereinzelt sehr hohen Lebensaltern ausgehen, doch war dies sicher nicht die Regel wie vielfältige anthropologische Untersuchungen zeigen. Generell jedoch von niedrigen Alterserwartungen auszugehen, würde ebenso fehlgehen. Grundsätzlich können diese Beamtenbiographien als grobe Anhaltspunkte herangezogen werden, die einer allzu großen Erhöhung von Regierungszeiten der maßgeblichen Könige Einhalt gebieten.

Neben den unbekannten absoluten Lebensaltern der Beamten, ist vor allem fraglich, ab welchem Alter in Ägypten Beamte oder Soldaten ihre Berufslaufbahn angingen. Da grundsätzlich nur erwähnt wird, daß ein Beamter seine Laufbahn unter einem bestimmten König begann, aber leider nicht, wieviele Jahre er in dieser Position verbrachte, sind auch in diesem Punkt deutliche Unsicherheitsfaktoren vorhanden. Dasselbe trifft auf das Ende der Laufbahn zu. Lediglich in

Vera Müller

226

der Zeit von Hatschepsut kann aufgrund ihrer Titel erschlossen werden, daß ein Beamter entweder vor oder nach ihrer Krönung seine Laufbahn beendete. Allerdings ist noch immer nicht geklärt, ob diese bereits im 2. Jahr erfolgte oder erst später.171 Sicher ist lediglich, daß sie beim Baubeginn des Tempels in Deir el-Bahari (Luxor), der auf das 7. Jahr datiert ist, bereits die Königstitel trug. Wie aus obiger Tabelle hervorgeht, sind längere Regierungsjahre von Thutmosis I. und Thutmosis II. durchaus im Rahmen des möglichen. Es wird aber auch deutlich, daß die Regierungszeiten dieser beiden Könige um kaum mehr als 20 Jahre verlängert werden können, will man nicht ungemäß hohe Lebensalter für die Beamten (etwa Senj, Ahmose Pennechbet oder Nebamun) annehmen. Des weiteren könnten für Amenhotep II. bis zu 10 Jahre mehr veranschlagt werden und auch Thutmosis IV. könnte länger als die bislang angenommenen 10 Regierungsjahre erlebt haben. Man käme bei der angenommenen Richtigkeit der Daten für Amenhotep III. und IV. damit aber maximal bis

1580/1590 v. Chr. als Zeitpunkt des Beginns des Neuen Reiches. Diese Daten beruhen auf der angenommenen Richtigkeit des Thronbesteigungsdatums Ramses II. im Jahre 1279 v. Chr. und den zur Zeit verwendeten absoluten Daten der babylonischen und assyrischen Chronologie nach BRINKMAN (1976). Berücksichtigt man jedoch Unsicherheiten in der babylonischen Chronologie und ihrer Synchronisierung mit der assyrischen, so müßten infolgedessen nicht nur die Unwägbarkeiten in der zweiten Hälfte der 18. Dynastie stärker ins Blickfeld rücken.172 Als besonders neuralgisch für absolute Zahlen würde sodann das Ende der 19. Dyn., einige Könige der 20. Dyn., vor allem aber die sehr diffuse 3. Zwischenzeit neuerlich untersucht werden müssen. Auch wenn man von Unsicherheiten in der assyrischen Chronologie ausgeht, so ist es kaum wahrscheinlich, daß sich hierbei Lücken von bis zu 150 Jahren auftun werden. Dasselbe gilt für die ägyptische Chronologie: Trotz Unsicherheiten in der 3. Zwischenzeit ist es kaum wahrscheinlich, diese große Zeitspanne überbrücken zu können.

Bibliographie ALTENMÜLLER, H. 1982

Tausret und Sethnacht, JEA 68, 107–115.

1985

Das Grab der Königin Tausret (KV 14): Bericht über eine archäologische Unternehmung, GM 84, 7–17.

1995

Die verspätete Beisetzung Siptahs, GM 145, 29–36.

quium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th–22nd August 1987, Part I–II, Gothenburg. 1989

High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th–22nd August 1987, Part III, Gothenburg.

ASTON, D.A.

BALIGH, R.O.K.

1989

Takeloth II – A King of the ‘Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty’?, JEA 75, 139–153.

1997

2003

New Kingdom Pottery Phases as Revealed Through Well-Dated Tomb Contexts, 135–162, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Proceedings of the SCIEM2000 – EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of November 2001, CChEM 4, Vienna.

ÅSTRÖM, P. (ed.), 1987

171

BAUD, M. & DOBREV, V. 1995

VON

De nouvelles annales de l’Ancien Empire égyptien: une ‘Pierre de Palerme’ pour la VIe dynastie, BIFAO 95, 23–92.

BECKERATH, J.

1977

Geschichtsschreibung, Lexikon der Ägyptologie I, 566–567.

1984

Drei Thronbesteigungsdaten der XX. Dynastie, GM 79, 7–9.

High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Collo-

S. VON BECKERATH (1997: 108–109) mit weiterer Literatur.

Thutmosis I, Ph. D. Thesis, Yale University.

172

S. hierzu MANNING (1999: 380–393).

Wie gut fixiert ist die Chronologie des Neuen Reiches wirklich?

1990

Nochmals zur Regierung Thutmosis’ II., SAK 17, 65–74.

1992

Zur Regierung Sethnachtes, in: U. LUFT (ed.), The Intellectual Heritage of Egypt. Studies presented to Lászlo Kákosy by Friends and Colleagues on the occassion of his 60th birthday, Studia Aegyptiaca 14, 63–67.

1994

Chronologie des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches, HÄB 39, Hildesheim.

1997

Chronologie des Pharaonischen Ägypten. Die Zeitbestimmung der ägyptischen Geschichte von der Vorzeit bis 332 v.Chr., MÄS 46, Mainz.

BERGOFFEN, C.J. 2004

The Cypriot Bronze Age Pottery from Sir Leonard Woolley’s Excavations at Alalakh (Tell Atchana), CChEM 5, Vienna.

BIETAK, M. & CZERNY, E. (eds.) 2004

The Late New Kingdom in Egypt, Warminster.

Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications, Papers of a Symposium, Vienna 10th–13th of January 2002, CChEM 3, Vienna.

BORCHARDT, L. 1920

Geschichte der altägyptischen Zeitmessung. Geschichte der Zeitmessung und der Uhren, hrsg. von E. v. Bassermann-Jordan, Bd. I, Berlin / Leipzig.

BRADBURY, L. 1985

The Tombos Inscription: A New Interpretation, Serapis 8, 1–20.

BRINKMAN, J. A. 1976

BIERBRIER, M.L. 1975

Materials and Studies for Kassite History, Vol. I, Chicago.

BRYAN, B.

BIETAK, M.

1991

1991

CERNÝ, J.

1996

2002

2003

2004

Egypt and Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age, BASOR 281, 27–71. Avaris. The Capital of the Hyksos. Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dabca, The First Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation Distinguished Lecture in Egyptology, London. Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Middle Bronze Age: Comments on the Present State of Research, 29–42, 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, Vienna. Science versus Archaeology: Problems and Consequences of High Aegean Chronology, 23–33, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Proceedings of the SCIEM2000 – EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of November 2001, CChEM 4, Vienna.

227

1965

The Reign of Thutmosis IV, Baltimore, Chicago. Hieratic Inscriptions from the Tomb of Tutcankhamun, Oxford.

DARESSY, G. 1900

La Chapelle d’Uaumès, ASAE 1, 99.

DORMAN, P.F. 2005

The Proscription of Hatshepsut, 267–276, in: C.H. ROEHRIG (ed.), Hatshepsut – from Queen to Pharaoh, New York.

DRENKHAHN, R. 1980

Die Elephantine-Stele des Sethnacht und ihr historischer Hintergrund, ÄA 36.

ERMAN, A. 1904

Die Sphinxstele, SBPAW, 1063–1064.

FEUCHT, E. 1995

Rezension: Sturt W. Manning, A Test of Time, Oxford 1999, BiOr 61, 199–222.

Das Kind im Alten Ägypten. Die Stellung des Kindes in Familie und Gesellschaft nach altägyptischen Texten und Darstellungen. Frankfurt & New York.

BIETAK, M. (ed.)

FINKELSTEIN, I.

1992

High, Middle or Low? Akten des Zweiten Internationalen Kolloquiums über Absolute Chronologie, Ä&L 3.

1996

The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View, Levant 28, 177–187.

2000

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, Vienna.

1998

Bible Archaeology or Archaeology of Palestine in the Iron Age? A Rejoinder, Levant 30, 167–174.

2002

The Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I in Palestine – A Guide to the 10th Century BCE Polity, ZDPV 118, 109–135.

2002

The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant, Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001, CChEM 3, Vienna.

2003

The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Proceedings of the SCIEM2000 – EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of November 2001, CChEM 4, Vienna.

FINKELSTEIN, I.L & PIASETZKY, E. (eds.) 2003

Comment on the 14C-Dates from Tel Rehov: IronAge Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings, Science 302, 568.

FINKELSTEIN, I. & SILBERMAN, N.A. 2004

Keine Posaunen vor Jericho. Die archäologische Wahrheit über die Bibel. dtv 34151.

228

Vera Müller

GABALLA, A.G. 1977

1987

The Memphite Tomb Chapel of Mose, Warminster 1977.

GABOLDE, L. 1987

La chronologie du règne de Thotmosis II., ses conséquences sur la a datation des momies royales et leur répercutions sur l’histoire du développement de la Vallée des Rois, SAK 14, 61–81.

GARDINER, A.H. 1905

The Inscription of Mes, UGAÄ 4.3.

GLANVILLE, S.R.K. 1931

Records of a Royal Dockyard of the Time of Thutmosis III: Papyrus British Museum 10056, ZÄS 66, 105–121.

HÖLSCHER, U. 1939

The Excavation of Medinet Habu II: The Temples of the Eighteenth Dynasty, OIP 41.

HORNUNG, E. 1964

Untersuchungen zu Chronologie und Geschichte des Neuen Reiches. ÄA 11.

1987

„Lang oder kurz?“– das Mittlere und Neue Reich Ägyptens als Prüfstein, 27–36, in: P. ÅSTRÖM (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th–22nd August 1987, Part I, Gothenburg.

GRANDET, P. 2000

„Was kann die Ägyptologie wirklich zum Problem der absoluten Chronologie in der Bronzezeit beitragen?“ Chronologische Annäherungswerte in der 18. Dynastie, 18–26, in: P. ÅSTRÖM (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th–22nd August 1987, Part I, Gothenburg.

L’exécution du chancelier Bay - O. IFAO 1864, BIFAO 100, 339–345.

HAMMER, C.U., KURAT, G., HOPPE, P., GRUM, W., CLAUSEN, H.B.

HORNUNG, E. & STAEHELIN, E.

2003

1974

Thera Eruption Date 1645 BC Confirmed by New Ice Core Data?, 87–94, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Proceedings of the SCIEM2000 – EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of November 2001, CChEM 4, Vienna.

HUBER, P. J. 1987

HARI, R. 1964

Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet, ou la fin d’une dynastie, thesis Geneva.

HARRIS, J.E. & WEEKS, K.R. (eds.) 1980

2000

An X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, Chicago & London. How long was the reign of Horemheb?, JEA 54, 95–99.

HASSAN, F.A. & ROBINSON, S.W. 1987

High-Precision Radiocarbon Chronometry of Ancient Egypt, and Comparisons with Nubia, Palestine and Mesopotamia, Antiquity 61, 119–135.

Inscriptions from the Palace of Amenhotep III, JNES 10, 35–40 (16 Abb.); 82–111 (7 Abb.); 156–183.

The Current State of Research on Mesopotamian Chronology (Absolute Chronology III), 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, Vienna.

HUNGER, H. & PRUZSINSKY, R. (eds.) 2004

HAYES, W.C. 1951

Astronomical Evidence for the Long and against the Middle and Short Chronologies, 5–17, in: P. ÅSTRÖM (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th–22nd August 1987, Part I, Gothenburg.

HUNGER, H.

HARRIS, J.R. 1968

Studien zum Sedfest. Aegyptiaca Helvetica 1.

Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited, Proceedings of an International Conference of SCIEM2000 (Vienna 8th–9th November 2002), CChEM 6, Vienna.

JACQUET-GORDON, H. 1988

Karnak-Nord VI. Le trésor de Thoutmosis Ier, Tome I. FIFAO 32/1–2.

HELCK, W.

JENNI, H. (Hg.)

1954

Die Sinai-Inschrift des Amenmose, MIO 2, 196–202.

2000

1956

Untersuchungen zu Manetho und den ägyptischen Königslisten, UGAÄ 18.

2001

1961

Das thebanische Grab 43, MDAIK 17, 99–110.

The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var and the Chronology of Dynasty 25, Or 70, 1–18.

1973

Probleme der Zeit Haremhabs, CdE 48, 271–265.

2004

2004 Taharqa, King of Kush and the Assyrians, JSSEA 31, 109–128.

1982

Palermostein, Lexikon der Ägyptologie 4, 652–654.

2006

1983

Schwachstellen der Chronologie-Diskussion, GM 67, 43–49.

The Assyrian Invasions of Egypt (673–663 B.C.) and the Final Expulsion of the Kushites, SAK 34, 251–267.

Das Grab Ramses’ X. (KV 18), Basel.

KAHN, D.

Wie gut fixiert ist die Chronologie des Neuen Reiches wirklich?

KAMPP, F.

LANGE, E.R.

1996

2004

Die Thebanische Nekropole. Zum Wandel des Grabgedankens von der XVIII. bis zur XX. Dynastie, Theben 13.

Ein neuer König Schoschenk in Bubastis, GM 203, 65–72.

KARAGEORGHIS, V. (ed.)

LEAHY, A.

2001

1990

The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus, Proceedings of an International Conference organized by the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, in Honour of Malcolm Wiener, Nicosia 29th–30th October 1998, CChEM 2, Vienna.

KENYON, K. 1960

Archaeology in the Holy Land, London.

The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC), Warminster, 2. verbesserte Auflage.

1987

The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in relation to the Bronze Age, 37–55, in: P. ÅSTRÖM (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th–22nd August 1987, Part I, Gothenburg.

2000

2001 2002

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 the Austrian Academy, Vienna, 11th–12th of May 1998, CChEM 1, Vienna. The Shoshenqs of Egypt and Palestine, JSOT 93, 3–12. Ancient Egyptian chronology for Aegeanists, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry Vol. 2(2), 5–12.

KOENIG, I. 1980

Catalogue des Etiquettes des Jarres hiératiques de Deir elMédineh/2: Nr. 6242–6497, DFIFAO 21, Paris.

Abydos in the Libyan Period (with appendix: The Twenty-third Dynasty), 155–200, in: A. LEAHY (ed.), Libya and Egypt: c 1300–750 B.C., A publication of the SOAS, Centre of Near and Middle Eastern Studies and the Society for Libyan Studies, 1990.

LUFT, U. 1987

KITCHEN, K.A. 1986

Der Tagesbeginn im Alten Ägypten, in: Altorientalische Forschungen 14, 3–11.

MANITIUS, K. & NEUGEBAUER, O. 1962

Des Klaudius Ptolemaios Handbuch der Astronomie, Leipzig.

MANNING, S.W. 1999

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 & Oakville.

MANNING, S.W. & BRONK RAMSEY, CH. 2003

A Late Minoan I–II Absolute Chronology for the Aegean – Combining Archaeology with Radiocarbon, 111–133, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Proceedings of the SCIEM2000 – EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May – 7th of November 2001, CChEM 4, Vienna.

MANNING, S.W., BRONK RAMSEY, CH., KUTSCHERA, W., HIGHT., KROMER, B., STEIER, P., WILD, E,

AM,

2006

Chronology for the Aegean Late Bronze Age 1700–1400 B.C., Science 312, 565–569.

MARIETTE, A. 1875

Karnak, Leipzig.

MARTIN, G.T. 1979

Excavations at the Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 1978: Preliminary Report, JEA 65, 13–16.

1991

The Hidden Tombs of Memphis, London.

KRAUSS, R. 1976

Untersuchungen zu König Amenmesse (Teil 1), SAK 4, 161–169.

1977

Untersuchungen zu König Amenmesse (Teil 2), SAK 5, 131–174.

MORAN, W.L.

1978

Das Ende der Amarnazeit, HÄB 57, Hildesheim.

MURNANE, W. J.

1986

Kija – ursprüngliche Besitzerin der Kanopen aus KV 55, MDAIK 42, 67–80.

1977

1992

Das Kalendarium des Papyrus Ebers und seine chronologische Verwertbarkeit, Ä&L 3, 75–96.

1997

Nefretitis Ende, MDAIK 53, 209–219.

2003

Arguments in Favor of a Low Chronology for the Middle and New Kingdom in Egypt, 175–197, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – EuroConference, Haindorf 2nd of May – 7th of May 2001, CChEM 4, Vienna.

229

1992

The Amarna Letters, Baltimore & London. Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, SAOC 40, Chicago.

NEWTON, M.W., TALAMO, S., PULAK, C., KROMER, B., KUNIHOLM, P. 2005

Die Datierung des Schiffswracks von Uluburun, 115–116, in: Ü. YALÇIN, C. PULAK, R. SLOTTA (eds.), Das Schiff von Uluburun: Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren. Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen BergbauMuseums Bochum vom 15. Juli 2005 bis 16. Juli 2006, Bochum.

NICHOLSON, P.T. & SHAW, I. (eds.) 2000

Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge.

230

Vera Müller

PENDLEBURY, J.D.S.

THIJS, A.

1951

2005

The City of Akhenaton III: The Central City and the Official Quarters 1926/27 and 1931/36, EEF 44.

In Search of King Herihor and the Penultimate Ruler of the 20th Dynasty, ZÄS 132, 73–91.

PETRIE, W.M.F.

VERCOUTTER, J.

1896

1975

History of Egypt II, London.

PLANTIKOW-MÜNSTER, M. 1969

Die Inschrift des bAk-n-xnsw in München, ZÄS 95, 117–139.

Apis, Lexikon der Ägyptologie 1, 338–350.

WADDELL, W.G. 1948

Manetho – Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, London & Cambridge, Massachusetts.

REDFORD, D.B.

WENTE, E.F. & HARRIS, J.E.

1986

1992

Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books. A Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History, SSEA Publications IV, Mississauga.

REEVES, C.N. 1990

Valley of the Kings - The Decline of a Royal Necropolis, London & New York.

RYHOLT, K. 1997

2004

The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800–1550 B.C., CNIP, Copenhagen. The Turin King-List, Ä&L 14, 135–155.

WENTE, E.F. & VAN SICLEN III, CH. 1976

Babylonian Chronology of the 2nd Half of the 2nd Millennium B.C., 61–70, in: H. HUNGER & R. PRUZSINKSKY (eds.), Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited. Proceedings of an International Conference of SCIEM 2000, Vienna 8th–9th November 2002, CChEM 4, Vienna.

1987

Radiocarbon dates, 165–188, in: B.J. KEMP (ed.), Amarna Reports I.

Absolute Chronologie und die hethitische Geschichte des 15. und 14. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., 74–117, in: P. ÅSTRÖM (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th–22nd August 1987, Part I, Gothenburg.

WILSON, K.A. 2005

SWITSUR, V.R. 1984

A Chronology of the New Kingdom, 217–261, in: Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes, January 12, 1977, SAOC 39, Chicago.

WILHELM, G. & BOESE, J.

SASSMANNSHAUSEN, L. 2004

Royal Mummies of the Eighteenth Dynasty: A Biologic and Egyptological Approach, 2–20, in: C.N. REEVES (ed.), After Tutankhamun: Research and Excavation in the Royal Necropolis at Thebes (= Studies in Egyptology), New York.

The Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I in Palestine, Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe 9, Tübingen.

ZIVIE, CH.M. 1976

Giza au deuxième millénaire, BdE 70.

GENEALOGY AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD By Chris Bennett

INTRODUCTION The study of the internal chronology of the Second Intermediate Period (hereafter SIP) has long been dominated by analysis of the Turin kinglist. However, there are some fundamental limits to the accuracy that can be achieved by reconstructions based on this approach, particularly in the latter part of the period, where the list is extremely fragmentary. As a result, models of SIP chronology are in practice constructed within constraints set by different models for the Middle and New Kingdom. The proposed durations of the dynastic groupings of the SIP are lengthened or shortened according to whether one accepts high or low chronologies for the Middle and New Kingdoms (e.g. FRANKE 1988, KITCHEN 1987). The internal chronology of the SIP is of great interest in its own right, since it is key to understanding important historical problems such as the reasons for the collapse of the 13th dynasty and the rise of the Theban state that created the New Kingdom. However, it is also important to resolving wider issues of Egyptian chronology. To the extent it can be determined independently of the chronologies of the Middle and New Kingdoms, SIP chronology acts as a cross-check on proposed absolute chronologies for those periods. A minimum chronology for the SIP sets a minimum possible distance between the Middle and New Kingdoms. It is therefore desirable to find ways to construct such a chronology from items of contemporary evidence that can be placed in a defined sequence of measurable length. An approach is suggested by work on the chronology of the Third Intermediate Period (TIP). For the last several decades, TIP chronological studies have been dominated by prosopographical and genealogical analyses. These analyses have greatly clarified the identities and sequences of kings, and the temporal relationships of the various groups of kings in the TIP. Even where they have not resolved these chronological issues, they have helped to delineate clearly the available alternatives. Although the prosopographical and genealogical data available for the SIP does not yet compare

in quantity or quality to that available for the TIP, there is still a considerable database. In particular, the genealogy of the governors of El-Kab, while not by any means fully determined, is now known in enough detail to provide a minimum number of generations between several SIP kings – Sebekhotep IV, Merhetepre (Iny or Sebekhotep VI) and Nebiriau I – and the early 18th dynasty ruler Amenhotep I. This allows us to estimate the minimum distances between these kings as a count of human generations in a succession controlled by primogeniture, which in turn can be converted to an approximate estimate of elapsed time. In this paper, I survey the limits of the chronological data available from the Turin kinglist for the late SIP, examining the difficulties of recovering dynastic structure and the temporal relationships of the dynasties from it. I next review the results of the study of the El-Kab line published in BENNETT 2002, discussing the chronological implications of the study for establishing the minimum length of the SIP. THE LIMITS OF THE TURIN KINGLIST As is well known, the Turin kinglist is a Ramesside papyrus which in its original state gave a reign by reign listing of the names and lengths of reign of the kings of Egypt from the beginning of time to an uncertain point in or after the SIP. It is the only connected account we have of the individual kings of the SIP. Although the papyrus was discovered nearly 200 years ago and has been the object of numerous studies, to this day it has not been adequately published. Fortunately, RYHOLT 2004:135 n. 1 has announced that a new publication is expected shortly. To date, however, most scholars have been obliged to work from reconstructions made by the few who have been able to examine the papyrus personally. The most widely available and most influential publication of the original is still GARDINER 1959, which gives the tracings of the fragment boundaries completed by hieroglyphic transcriptions of the original hieratic text. The published reconstructions diverge widely, particularly on those sections of the papyrus which cover

232

Chris Bennett

the later part of the SIP. Many important divergences result from differing judgements about the fibre alignments of various fragments, judgements which are impossible to assess independently since no photographs of sufficient quality exist in the published literature. The first chronological question is to decide how the kings in the list are organised into dynastic groupings. This has been approached by comparing it to the only other ancient account we have of the history of the period, the dynasties listed in the epitomes of Manetho made by Africanus and Eusebius as transmitted by Syncellus (WADDELL 1940), which still form the basic chronological divisions of pharaonic time. The underlying assumption behind this approach is that Manetho and the Turin list reflect a common historiographical tradition, and specifically, a common definition of the Egyptian dynasties for the period following the Old Kingdom (REDFORD 1986:13). However, determining the relationship between the Manethonian dynasties and those of the Turin kinglist in the SIP is not a trivial problem. This is not only because of the fragmentary condition of the kinglist, but because the surviving epitomes of Manetho are corrupt and differ significantly in their accounts of this particular period. Africanus and Eusebius agree that the 13th dynasty consisted of 60 kings, the 14th dynasty consisted of 76 kings, and there were three other dynasties in the period. However, they treat these three dynasties quite differently. According to Africanus, the 15th dynasty consisted of 6 Hyksos kings, while Eusebius knows of an unspecified number of Theban kings for 250 years. According to Africanus, the 16th dynasty consisted of 32 Hyksos kings, while Eusebius knows a 16th dynasty of 5 Theban kings. Africanus’ statement of the 17th dynasty has been conflated by Syncellus with a summary of dynasties 15–17, but if his 15th and 16th dynasties are extracted from the total we are left with a Theban dynasty of 5 kings, evidently corresponding to Eusebius’ 16th dynasty. Eusebius’ 17th dynasty, however, consists of 4 Hyksos kings who reigned for 103 years – at best a partial match for Africanus’ 15th dynasty. Manetho’s 13th dynasty is clearly the group of about 50 kings, covering two columns in the Turin list, who “followed the kings of Itj-tawi”. The following columns reasonably cover Manetho’s 14th dynasty. Following this group of kings, all reconstructions place a group which survives only in its dynastic summary, naming 6 kings

who reigned for 108 years, or, according to Ryholt’s recent collation (RYHOLT 2005), 140 years. This surely corresponds to Africanus’ 15th dynasty and Eusebius’ 17th, the dynasty of the Great Hyksos, but its position in the dynastic sequence and the number of kings is aligned with Africanus’ account. The traditional reading of 108 years is also close to Eusebius’ report of 103. The real difficulties come with the last surviving column of the papyrus, column 11. The major fragment names a group of 9 kings. This is followed at a short but uncertain distance by two closely linked fragments. These gave 5 kings whose names are lost, followed by a line that mentions “5 kings”, and then by a couple of partly-preserved names who are not certainly identifiable in contemporary data. Finally, after a large gap, a fragment which is always placed at the bottom of the same column contains a few additional names that cannot yet be identified. RYHOLT 1997:9–10 has advanced structural arguments that the papyrus originally contained one more column, of which no fragments survive. STOCK 1942:79 identified the first group of kings as Theban from the last surviving name on the list, Sekhemre-shedwast. He proposed to identify him with Sekhemre-shedtawi Sebekemsaf, known from the Abbott papyrus. Sebekemsaf’s tomb is associated therein with those of several other kings, including two – Seqenenre Ta’o and Kamose – who are known to have immediately preceded king Ahmose. Accordingly, he identified this group of kings as Africanus’ 17th dynasty, and the kings of the Abbott papyrus as supplying the missing 5 names following Sekhemre-“shedwast”. BECKERATH 1964:168 adopted this solution. He proposed that “shedtawi” – saviour of the Two Lands – was changed to “shedwast” – saviour of Thebes – because the list had passed through a Memphite editor, and Sebekemsaf had only been a Theban king, possibly subordinate to the Hyksos. BECKERATH 1964:29 also argued that the “5 kings” was a summary which should be amended to “<1>5 kings”. In support of this, fragment 134, introducing a new dynastic grouping, which was then regarded as the last fragment of the previous column, could be placed 15 lines before the line of “5 kings”. However, this arrangement appeared to require placing Nubkheperre Inyotef, who otherwise seemed to be a later king on art-historical grounds, at the head of the dynasty. This arrangement was generally, if not universally, accepted for several decades, but in the early

Genealogy and the Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period 233

1990s it became clear that there were problems with it. DODSON 1991 stressed that the Inyotefs had to be grouped together on stylistic grounds, which in turn implied that the last 17th dynasty kings had to be displaced below the “summary” line of <1>5 kings; he proposed to reinterpret this line as a heading for a group of 5 kings rather than a summary. BENNETT 1995b noted that too many SIP Theban kings had been identified to be covered by a dynasty of <1>5 kings, and also proposed to resolve the problem by allowing the excess to be placed below the line. At the time I was nevertheless inclined to accept Beckerath’s interpretation of the number, for want of a better solution, in view of the then-prevailing placement of fragments in the kinglist. RYHOLT 1997:151–152 took a more radical approach. He retained Beckerath’s <1>5 kings, but as a Theban “16th dynasty”, reviving an earlier proposal of Winlock. He suggested that this was in fact Manetho’s original definition, reflected in Eusebius’ “15th dynasty”, and that Africanus’ assignment of this dynasty to the Hyksos was a copying error by him or by Syncellus (which, if correct, would also eliminate the textual argument for concluding that Africanus’ 17th dynasty was Theban). He denied Stock’s identification of Sekhemre-shedwast with Sekhemre-shedtawi, and moved Sekhemre-shedtawi and the other kings named with him in the Abbott papyrus, together with a few other kings who could be associated with them, to a new column beyond the surviving sections of the papyrus, as the Theban “17th dynasty”. He identified Sekhemre-shedwast as a different and otherwise unknown king who was now followed by at least 5 unknown kings, for whom he suggested several candidates, most of which were previously regarded as late 13th dynasty kings. He proposed that kings of the “16th” and “17th” Theban dynasties could be assigned according to whether their tombs were known to have survived till later times. He supposed that the tombs of the “16th” dynasty had been destroyed in a Hyksos sack of Thebes. He also suggested that the “16th” dynasty was coterminous with a local dynasty ruling at Abydos, so that Theban kings who are documented at Abydos must belong to the “17th” dynasty. On the limited evidence available, such a reconstruction is not impossible, but it is far from certain. In the absence of stronger evidence than RYHOLT has adduced, it can only be regarded as the latest of a long line of conjectures. There are,

in my view, several difficulties with it which make it rather unlikely. The first is king Sekhemre-shedwast. RYHOLT 1997:156 rejects Beckerath’s argument for identifying him with Sekhemre-shedtawi Sebekemsaf by arguing that the king list appears intended to be an objective record and that there is no other detectable deliberate alteration of names. The objectivity of the list is perhaps debatable: REDFORD 1986:14–16 argued that the list does contain deliberate omissions, reflected in wsf entries, and it seems difficult to explain all of them as simple lacunae in source texts. Moreover, Ryholt’s argument implicitly assumes that the list’s compiler was working from equally accurate and objective sources. BENNETT 2002:131 noted that reignlengths were accounted by whole years in column 11 even though there was space for month and day entries if needed, except for one reign associated with a wsf entry, and another which appears to have lasted less than a year. One explanation for this is that this column is derived from a different source from that used to compile the 13th dynasty. Hence, we can only safely assume the limited evidence of the column itself to assess its objectivity and accuracy. In fact the entries have one provable error: the two kings Nebiriau are named “Nebiriau-re” as though they were prenomina. This is almost certainly a simple error, of a type that is seen elsewhere in the list, but it does suggest that the source is not necessarily completely accurate. Ryholt suggested that the prenomen Sekhemre-shedwast reflects an acceptance that the Theban kings were only provincial rulers. However, to date there is not a single attestation of a “Sekhemre-shedwast” to support his existence. To the contrary, we have at least one clear indication, from other royal titulary, that the Theban kings of the period considered themselves to be fully legitimate kings of the Two Lands: the Horus Sewadjtawi (Nebiriau I). If BENNETT 1994 and RYHOLT 1997:152 have correctly identified any of the first three kings of column 11, we also have the evidence of their prenomina: Sekhemre[sementawi] (Djehuti), Sekhemre-[seusertawi] (Sebekhotep VIII), and Sekhemre-se[ankhtawi] (Neferhotep III). The Nebti Seankhtawi (Senusert IV) has also been proposed as a Theban king of this time, though placed in the sequence in several different ways (DAUTZENBURG 1992, BENNETT 1995b, RYHOLT 1997:157, BECKERATH 2000). In light of these facts, Stock’s pro-

234

Chris Bennett

posal to identify “Sekhemre-shedwast” with Sekhemre-shedtawi Sebekemsaf, while certainly conjectural, remains reasonable and viable. Ryholt’s proposed criteria for distinguishing “16th” and “17th” dynasty kings are also doubtful. The evidence for the Abydene dynasty is extremely weak (BENNETT 2002:130), still more so in the light of seal impressions from Abydos of Nebiriau I, a king of Ryholt’s “16th” dynasty (WEGNER 1998:40 fig. 20). The proposal that the dynastic division is marked by a sack of Thebes and the plunder of the royal tombs of the “16th dynasty” kings also seems flawed. Even accepting, for the sake of argument, that such a sack would have led to a dynastic division in the Egyptian historiographical tradition, the argument is circular, since the only evidence for it is precisely the absence of royal tombs. Moreover, the proposed “17th dynasty” includes Rahotep, the doubtful king Nebmaatre, and king Senakhtenre, even though at least two of them, and, if VANDERSLEYEN 1983 is correct, all three, do not have documented tombs. If the absence of some royal tombs is not due to the supposed sack, it is unclear why we should suppose that any of them were so destroyed. Returning to the kinglist, the specific arguments advanced for reconstructing the “5 kings” as an error for “<1>5 kings” have now been eliminated. As noted above, the proposal was originally made to accommodate the 15 Theban kings then known as a single dynasty, but at least 17 Theban kings are now known from the period. At the time Beckerath made the proposal, the 5 kings preceding the number in the fragment were held to follow immediately after the large fragment giving 9 kings at the head of the column, but the distance between the fragments is in fact uncertain (BENNETT 2002:155 n. 124). Also, the fragment of a header line that was previously supposed to introduce these kings as a dynastic grouping is now placed at a point where it can be seen as introducing the 14th dynasty (BEN-TOR, ALLEN and ALLEN 1999:67 n. 3), so we can no longer point to a possible header for the reconstruction of <1>5 kings. Finally, whether or not we amend the line, it seems hard to dissociate it from the 5 Theban kings of Africanus and Eusebius. If it is indeed an error for <1>5 kings, we must suppose a remarkable coincidence or the prolonged and faithful transmission of an egregious error. That being said, the significance of a mention of “5 kings” at this point is unclear. If we accept the number at face value as the size of a dynasty,

it does not seem possible to reconcile the Turin list’s account of Theban kings with either Africanus or with Ryholt’s proposed reorganisation. It might be reconcilable with Eusebius if we could accept DODSON 1991’s proposal that the “5 kings” comes from a header line, making the succeeding kings Eusebius’ 16th dynasty. BENNETT 1995a:19 n. 5 noted that the remaining traces do not display the characteristics of other header lines. Nevertheless, it seems we must at least suppose that the Turin compiler knew of a dynastic group of 5 kings who were almost certainly Theban, and that the first 9 kings of column 11 were also Theban. But if, with Ryholt, we also suppose that there was a further group of Theban kings at a later time, then we are looking at not less than three Theban dynasties. Further, while the kings immediately following the “5 kings” may or may not be Theban, the kings currently placed at the bottom of the column remain completely unidentified, and have not been located in a Manethonian dynasty under any existing proposal. Ryholt’s reconstruction has won remarkably rapid acceptance and his Theban “16th dynasty” is now displacing Africanus’ Hyksos 16th dynasty from the canon (e.g. DODSON and HILTON 2004:106). However, this reconstruction seems to me to be very insecure, and the evidence we have is still best explained by supposing that all the Theban kings were listed together in column 11. While I agree with Ryholt that the compiler of the Turin list very probably considered that there was more than one group of Theban kings, I do not think we can yet be sure what those dynastic groupings were, nor even that they were shared with Manetho, except, probably, for the “5 kings”. In the current state of our knowledge, it seems to me to be both premature and ill-advised to reassign Manetho’s “16th dynasty” to a particular group of Theban kings. For better or worse, Egyptological dynastic convention is Manetho’s, as transmitted by Africanus via Syncellus. We cannot be certain that Syncellus’ statement of Africanus’ definition of the “16th dynasty” is in fact wrong, since we still have many unexplained kings in column 11 of the Turin list. Even if, as seems likely, this convention is not the one used by the Turin compiler, it is not at all clear that the proposed replacement is any closer, nor that it is more helpful in understanding the internal chronology of the period. Egyptologists have occasionally recognised a need to depart from the Manethonian tradition. They have usually done so by augmenting it, e.g.

Genealogy and the Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period 235

the “Taosids” or “Thutmosids” of the 18th dynasty, or Aston’s “Theban 23rd dynasty”, rather than by arrogating a Manethonian dynasty to another purpose. HAYES 1973 took a similar approach with the Theban kings of the SIP. While accepting that the Turin list contained two Theban dynasties, he considered them to be the “First group” and “Second group” of the 17th dynasty. This hierarchical approach to dynastic terminology allowed him to retain Africanus’ definition of the “17th dynasty”, as a well-established and Manethonian convention, for use in discussing the Theban kings as a whole, while permitting conjectural restructurings of the internal organization of that “dynasty”, reflected in the Turin list and other data, to be discussed and accepted, rejected or refined, on their merits. In my opinion it is still the more judicious approach. Since the dynastic structure of the SIP sections of the Turin kinglist is so uncertain, the inferences we can make from it about the chronological relationships between its dynastic groups are necessarily limited. First, the list tells us that the 13th dynasty kings “followed the kings of Itj-tawi”, that is, the 12th and 13th dynasties were consecutive. So far as we can tell from contemporary data, the list of 13th dynasty kings and their reigns is generally, though not perfectly, historically accurate. However, the list of reign lengths is incomplete, so we have some floating blocks of time even within the 13th dynasty. 82 years are assigned to 14 kings, at least 8 are known for Sebekhotep IV, and an additional 33 kings or more reigned for an uncertain amount of time. The 14th dynasty is just a list of names, with almost no reign lengths preserved. We have the beginning, at least as it was recognised by the Turin tradition, but we are not told how it relates to the 13th, and we have still not found out very much about it. Only one or two kings are even documented. Fortunately, it also has no links to later dynasties, so we may safely ignore it for present purposes. The 15th dynasty, the dynasty of the Great Hyksos, barely survives in the Turin list, but what does survive includes a summary of the length of the dynasty, 6 kings for 108, or 140, years (RYHOLT 2005). Whether or not this number (whichever it is) is precisely correct, both values are reasonable for a dynasty of 6 powerful kings. Since we know Avaris fell between years 11 and 22 of Ahmose (VANDERSLEYEN 1995:216), we have an approximate distance between the rise of the 15th dynasty and the end of the SIP.

This leaves one substantial block of kings in the Turin list – the 9 Theban kings of column 11, 6 of whom are given a total of 59 years. To these, we can add the three kings who were certainly Ahmose’ immediate predecessors (Kamose, Seqenenre and Senakhtenre), and other kings such as the Inyotefs, Rahotep and Sejhemre-wadjkhau Sebekemsaf, who must almost certainly be placed between these two groups. We have to account for at least 17 Theban kings, and quite possibly several more. While, as we have seen, the internal structure of this sequence of kings is uncertain, the fact that they are all Theban ensures that they may be treated as consecutive groups of kings who were ultimately followed by the 18th dynasty. Thus, the Turin list allows us to relate the kings of the 13th dynasty to the Middle Kingdom, and we can loosely relate both the 15th and the 17th dynasty to the start of the 18th dynasty from New Kingdom data. However, we have no direct indication of how the 15th and 17th dynasties relate to the 13th dynasty, and the length of the 17th dynasty in particular is very elastic. We have traces of around half a dozen unplaced Theban kings who cannot be certainly placed in the Turin list, some of whom, such as Nubkheperre Inyotef and Sekhemre-wadjkhau Sebekemsaf, were certainly quite important. While further examination of the Turin list fragments will undoubtedly clarify some of the outstanding questions, it seems very unlikely that this approach will, by itself, reduce the elasticity very much. For chronological purposes, these fault-lines have traditionally been resolved by supposing that the 15th and 17th dynasties both arose with the fall of the 13th under the onslaught of the Hyksos. On the usual reading of 108 years for the 15th dynasty, one consequence of this model is that the distance between king Sekhemre-“shedwast”, the last Theban king whose name survives in the Turin list, and king Ahmose must be very short, around 30 years, yet it must cover at least 8 kings, one of whom (Sekhemre-wadjkhau) certainly reached his 7th year, and at least two of whom (Nubkheperre and Seqenenre Ta’o) also appear to have had fairly long reigns. If Ryholt’s new reading of 140 years for the 15th dynasty is correct, some 30 extra years could be added to this. While this reading relieves the chronological pressure on the 17th dynasty, it does not prove that the 15th and 17th dynasties arose simultaneously with the fall of the 13th. To convert this picture into an absolute chronology, it is tied to relatively fixed points in the

236

Chris Bennett

New and Middle Kingdoms. For the New Kingdom, we have the accession of Ahmose, usually dated between 1570 and 1539 BC. This date can be derived from the Sothic data in the Ebers Papyrus for year 9 of Amenhotep I. The validity of this interpretation has been questioned, but the conclusion is supported by a network of synchronisms that tie it to the remainder of pharaonic history and the wider chronology of the Near East. For the Middle Kingdom, we have the astronomical data of the Lahun papyri, and in particular a Sothic date for Senusert III which has been dated between 1872 and 1830 BC (KRAUSS 1985; LUFT 1992; PARKER 1950). If we allow the dates to be associated freely, the distance between year 7 of Senusert III and year 1 of Ahmose is between 260 and 333 years. A third astronomical fixed point may exist within the SIP which is more precise than either of these, but it is currently of very limited value. DARNELL and DARNELL 2002:49–52 interpret iGebel Tjauti 11 as giving another Sothic date, corresponding to year 11 of an unnamed king. Since its location is isolated and fixed, this date would be restricted to the years 1593–1590 BC. Although this interpretation was reached after detailed consideration of alternative readings, it is not universally accepted (e.g. RYHOLT 2005), though to date no other interpretation has been offered. However, even if Darnell and Darnell are correct, the date is still a weak constraint on SIP chronology since the king is not named. It only allows us to improve the precision of dates assigned to a king whose placement in the 1590s has been determined by other means. BENNETT 2002:144–151 identified several candidates, some perhaps more likely than others. If we assume that the reign-length figures in the Turin list, while not perfectly accurate (RYHOLT 2004:151–153), are sufficiently accurate to be usable for estimating purposes, the minimum distance between year 7 of Senusert III and year 1 of Ahmose, can be calculated by dead reckoning as follows: Distance

Minimum Length

Remainder of 12th dynasty

72

If 19 years for Senusert III

Known 13th dynasty reigns

90

From Turin list

Other 13th dynasty kings

33

Assuming 1 year per king

Length of 15th dynasty

108

From Turin list

(Ahmose before fall of Avaris)

(22)

Highest date for fall of Avaris

Minimum Distance

281

Notes

This minimal model is sufficient to rule out the low Middle Kingdom chronology if it is coupled with a high date for the accession of Ahmose. It is otherwise compatible with all the proposed dates for year 7 of Senusert III and year 1 of Ahmose. However, if 32 years are added, per Ryholt’s proposed new reading for the length of the 15th dynasty, then the minimum distance becomes 313 years, which requires a high date for year 7 of Senusert III and a low date for year 1 of Ahmose. This model is very tight, since it gives a minimum distance which only 20 years shorter than the maximum distance allowed by the external constraints. If the average reign length of the 13th dynasty kings whose reigns are lost is over 2 years, or if it was as low as 18 months but Avaris fell in year 11 of Ahmose, or if Senusert III reigned over 30 years, then the minimum distance calculated by dead reckoning would be too long. This highlights an important problem with basing the dead reckoning primarily on the evidence of the Turin list: the unproven assumption that 15th and 17th dynasties arose at the end of the 13 th dynasty. If this assumption is removed, it becomes possible to compress SIP chronology below the numbers derived above. But the effect of doing this is that the dead reckoning ceases to be an effective cross-check on proposed dates for Senusert III and Ahmose. Thus, both in order to resolve internal chronology of the SIP and in order to test the constraints that the SIP places on the dates of the Middle and New Kingdoms, it is necessary to find an alternative approach to deriving an SIP chronology. In short, we need a substantial injection of contemporary SIP data. THE EL-KAB AND YAUYEBI GENEALOGIES Figure 1 shows outline genealogies of the governors of El-Kab, as reconstructed in BENNETT 2002, and the vizieral family of Yauyebi reconstructed in HABACHI 1984, synchronised with certain kings of the 13th, 17th and 18th dynasties. The focus of this discussion is on the chronometric aspects of these genealogies, in particular what they tell us about the minimum chronological distance between the kings involved. The detailed arguments in support of this particular reconstruction are presented in BENNETT 2002; some issues raised since that article was written which have chronometric implications are also discussed here (Fig. 1).

Genealogy and the Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period 237

Fig. 1 Minimal-Length Reconstructions of El-Kab and Yauyebi Vizieral Genealogies

From Sebekhotep IV to Merhetepre This section of the El-Kab genealogy is based on a genealogy of queen Nubkhas (SPALINGER 1980) derived from a dossier of documents centered on Louvre stele C13, together with the genealogy of Rensonb from El-Kab tomb T9 and the Cairo

Juridical Stele. From this dossier, we learn that Nubkhas, niece of a prominent official of Neferhotep I and Sebekhotep IV, was the mother of Khonsu, wife of Ay, vizier and governor of El-Kab. Ay’s floruit is therefore two generations after Sebekhotep IV. From the Cairo Juridical Stele, Ay, governor of El-Kab and vizier in year 1 of king

238

Chris Bennett

Merhetepre, was the ancestor of at least two generations of governors of El-Kab by his wife, the king’s daughter Reditenes. An Ay, governor of ElKab and vizier, is also mentioned as an ancestor of the governor Sebeknakht II in the latter’s tomb, El-Kab tomb T10. The chronologically important points of uncertainty in this genealogy are the number of Ays and their relationship to each other. This reconstruction follows SPALINGER 1980 in identifying all of them, a solution that minimizes the amount of time between the two kings, at two generations. It requires Merhetepre to be identified as the immediate successor of king Merneferre Ay. While the reign-length of Sebekhotep IV is lost from the Turin kinglist, and he may have had a successor who is lost from the list, his three certain successors, kings Sebekhotep V, Yauyebi and Ay, reigned for 37 years. RYHOLT 1997:240, arguing against the identity of the Ays, did not propose any alternate relationship, either chronological or genealogical. Two have been proposed that distinguish them. HARTMANN 1989:296 suggested that Ay, husband of Khonsu, was the son of Ay husband of Reditenes. This is certainly wrong (BENNETT 2002:138). DODSON and HILTON 2004:107 have proposed the opposite solution: to make the vizier Ay, husband of Khonsu, the father of the vizier Ay husband of Reditenes. Although in my view unlikely, it is not impossible. The chronometric effect would be to lengthen the distance from Sebekhotep IV to Merhetepre by a generation, most likely implying that the king Merhetepre of the Juridical Stele is not the Merhetepre of the kinglist, and should be placed instead near the end of the 13th dynasty. From Yauyebi to Djehuti HABACHI 1984 developed a genealogy of the family of the late 13th dynasty vizier Yauyebi. This genealogy gave a distance of two generations between king Yauyebi, the second or third successor of Sebekhotep IV, and king Djehuti, whose canopic chest was given to a queen Mentuhotep. Habachi held that Yauyebi, Overseer of the Compound, who gave himself equal status with king Yauyebi in stele BM EA 1374, was the same man as the vizier of that name at an earlier stage of his career. He supposed that one of the sons of the vizier, both called Senebhanef, followed a similar career, becoming, as vizier, the father of queen Mentuhotep, wife of king Djehuti.

Habachi’s reconstruction has two chronometric implications. The first concerns the earliest date at which the vizier Ay of the Juridical Stele could have taken office (RYHOLT 1997:234). King Yauyebi reigned for 10 years. If Habachi is correct, Yauyebi’s vizierate most likely occurred late in that reign or in the reign of Yauyebi’s successor king Ay, who reigned for 23 years, and he was succeeded as vizier by his son Senebhanef. Senebhanef’s vizierate must then be dated to the reign of king Ay. On the minimal-length reconstruction of queen Nubkhas’ genealogy, the vizier Ay must then have become vizier late in king Ay’s reign, possibly even as late as year 1 of his successor, king Merhetepre. GRAJETZKI 2000:159 and 2004 has challenged Habachi’s reconstruction on this point, noting that the names Yauyebi and Senebhanef are relatively common, and that there is no positive proof that either of the Overseers of the Compound was the same man as the homonymous vizier. These are valid concerns, but they do not amount to a disproof, and they overlook some important circumstantial points. First, the overseer Yauyebi, while holding a middle-ranking office, was nevertheless able to place himself at the same level of status as the king, which indicates a degree of influence far exceeding his rank. Thus it is very likely that he did reach higher office. Second, the overseer Senebhanef was certainly son of the vizier Yauyebi, which suggests that the lower office was in the vizier’s gift, and that the vizier and his son both regarded it as a step on the path of advancing the son’s career. The El-Kab genealogies show the governorship playing a similar role in that family in the late 13th dynasty. Finally, RYHOLT 1997:260 pointed to seals of a certain Sobka-Bebi, who also apparently held both offices. The second chronometric datum implied by the genealogy is the maximum distance between kings Yauyebi and Djehuti. Habachi, along with most other commentators, considered that king Djehuti’s canopic chest was given to queen Mentuhotep by the king himself, that he was therefore her husband, and that she predeceased him during his reign. If correct, it follows that Djehuti lived two generations after king Yauyebi, and three generations after Sebekhotep IV. RYHOLT 2005, noting that the chest does not explicitly name the king who gave the gift, argued that its use as a storage chest for a toiletry set rather than as a canopic chest suggests that it was

Genealogy and the Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period 239

a gift taken from storage, not a personal gift from Djehuti. He concluded that Djehuti had predeceased queen Mentuhotep (presumably in circumstances precluding a royal burial), and that he was not necessarily her husband. This argument establishes that Djehuti reigned at most two generations after king Yauyebi. We have very little comparative evidence to estimate the maximum amount of time that royal funerary goods would be held in storage if they could not be used for their original purpose. However, examples such as the apparent use of Neferneferuaten’s grave goods by Tutankhamun suggests that it was not long, so it still seems to me most likely that Djehuti was a contemporary of queen Mentuhotep. Be that as it may, the chronological value of the result depends on whether Djehuti was a late 13th dynasty king or an early 17th dynasty king. In the former case the bound is not very useful. In the latter case, we have a maximum distance from king Yauyebi to the start of the 17th dynasty. Djehuti is usually regarded as a 17th dynasty king, because his prenomen, Sekhemre-sementawi, matches the surviving traces of the prenomina in the first three positions of column 11 of the Turin papyrus. STOCK 1942:79, followed by BECKERATH 1964:168, proposed the third position; BENNETT 1994 and RYHOLT 1997:152 proposed the first, 20 years earlier. This dynastic assignment has recently been questioned. VANDERSLEYEN 1993 advocated a late 13th dynasty placement based on Habachi’s genealogy, but his argument is only an argument against placing Djehuti in the third line of column 11. It is not valid if he is in the first line. More recently, GEISEN 2004 has argued on art historical grounds that the surviving material related to queen Mentuhotep (and therefore to Djehuti) must date to the late 13th dynasty. However, it is doubtful that the very limited material available is sufficient to allow such a precise determination; it is in any case moot if the 13th and 17th dynasties overlapped. RYHOLT 2005 has stressed that the evidence for Djehuti’s dynastic placement is not conclusive, and this is certainly so. However, the consequence of placing him in the late 13th dynasty is to open up a position at the beginning of column 11 of the Turin list. While not impossible, it is difficult to replace him with a known candidate. Occam’s Razor suggests that additional evidence should be found before requiring such a move.

From Merhetepre to Nebiriau I This section of the El-Kab genealogy is given by the Cairo Juridical Stele (LACAU 1949). The chronometric data provided by this document is well known. It states that the vizier Ay transferred the governorship to his son Ay “the younger” in year 1 of king Merhetepre, but after the latter’s early death without heirs he transferred it to his younger son Aymeru, who later became vizier in turn. Aymeru’s son Kebsi sold the governorship to a certain Sebeknakht in year 1 of king Sewadjenre Nebiriau, who was the fifth king listed in the surviving section for the 17th dynasty in the Turin king list. At that time, the vizier was no longer Aymeru but another Sebeknakht. The Juridical Stele does not indicate where year 1 of Merhetepre falls in Ay’s vizierate. However, if Habachi’s analysis of the family of the vizier Yauyebi is correct, and if king Merhetepre is the successor of king Ay, then it must be early in the vizierate, if not at its beginning. Since neither Ay nor Aymeru were still vizier in year 1 of Nebiriau I, it then follows that the distance from year 1 of Merhetepre to year 1 of Nebiriau I is some time in the third generation. Since Nebiriau I reigned for 26 years (RYHOLT 1997:159), his reign can be regarded as the floruit for this generation. From Nebiriau I to Amenhotep I This section of the genealogy comes from El-Kab tomb T10 (the ancestry of the governor Sebeknakht II and his family), Turin 3068 (a statuette of the governor Reni son of Sebek(nakht)), tomb T7 at El-Kab (the family of the governor Renni), and graffiti 4051 and 4052 from a grotto above the temple of Deir el-Bâhri (the descendants of Renni); for sources see BENNETT 2002:141 nn. 72–74. The principal bases for integrating these documents into a single line of descent are the rule of hereditary patrilineal succession to the governorship of El-Kab enunciated in the Juridical Stele, “from son to son, from heir to heir”, and the clear onomastic relationships between the names. The governor Sebeknakht I, father of Sebeknakht II, is almost certainly the Sebeknakht of the Cairo Juridical Stele, regardless of the number of Ays who were governor of El-Kab (BENNETT 2002:140–141). This anchors the genealogy of tomb T10 in the reign of Nebiriau I. At the other end, Renni is explicitly identified as a contemporary of Amenhotep I. Consideration of the available data for his son and grandson from the time

240

Chris Bennett

of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III strongly suggests he was a senior contemporary of Amenhotep I (BENNETT 2002:143–144). The descent line shown gives the minimum number of generations between them, unless there was a collateral succession involved at some point. There is, however, some uncertainty as to whether Renni’s grandfather was unnamed in his tomb or whether he is a second Sebekhotep. In the latter case, an extra generation must be added to the genealogy. Since we also cannot verify that Reni’s father Sebeknakht was Sebeknakht III, nor that Reni was the father of Sebekhotep, there may be even more generations involved. CHRONOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS The El-Kab genealogy therefore gives a minimum of 8 generations from the accession of king Merhetepre of the 13th dynasty, and 6 generations from the accession of Sebeknakht I in year 1 of Nebiriau I of the 17th dynasty, to the death of Renni, most probably some time in the reign of Amenhotep I. BENNETT 2002:151 concluded that this genealogy implied that the early 17th dynasty overlapped the later 13th dynasty for a few decades, and that there is a gap of two generations between the Theban kings of the Turin kinglist and the 17th dynasty kings we know from the New Kingdom record. To the extent that other evidence is available for these periods, these conclusions are consistent with that evidence. To the extent that other interpretations of that evidence are possible, their general effect is to lengthen the intervals of time involved. The two proposals are largely independent of each other. If, for example, there were two generations of Ays, as DODSON and HILTON 2004 has proposed, this lengthens the time between Sebekhotep IV and Merhetepre by a generation, but does not affect the generational distance between Merhetepre and Amenhotep I. Similarly, if Renni’s father and grandfather were both named Sebekhotep, the minimum distance between Merhetepre and Amenhotep I is increased by a generation, but the distance between Sebekhotep IV and Merhetepre is unchanged. The result that the time from year 1 of Merhetepre to the death of Renni under Amenhotep I covers at least 8 generations is valuable in two other respects. First, it is a direct association between the 13th dynasty and the 18th, independ-

ent of the relationship between the 13th dynasty and the 15th and 17th dynasties. Second, the measurement is independent of the final and least-known kings of the 13th dynasty. That is, the minimalist interpretation of the measurement overcomes the major structural problem in using the Turin kinglist to establish a chronology of the SIP by dead reckoning, and substantially mitigates the uncertainties in using the Turin kinglist to establish 13th dynasty chronology. On the other hand, a generational count is inherently an imprecise measure of time. In order to convert it into a useable estimate of elapsed years, we need to know the average length of an Egyptian generation in the upper classes. To my knowledge, there has been very little research into this question. The estimate usually used is 25±5 years, based on BIERBRIER 1975:xvi, 112. However, based on a cross-cultural study, HENIGE 1986 suggested that the figure could well be higher. A study of data from the securely-dated Saite or Ptolemaic periods would be a useful calibration exercise, and might well support this: the average length of a generation in the family of the Ptolemaic High Priests of Memphis, well-documented over eight generations, is almost exactly 30 years (QUAEGEBEUR 1980). For present purposes, however, we may use Bierbrier’s figure, giving us around 200 years from the accession of Ay-the-younger to the death of Renni. If we suppose that Renni died around the end of the reign of Amenhotep I, i.e. about 45 years after the accession of Ahmose, then the distance from year 1 of Merhetepre to year 1 of Ahmose is around 155 years. We may therefore derive a new estimate of the minimum distance from year 7 of Senusert III to year 1 of Ahmose as follows: Minimum Length

Notes

Remainder of 12th dynasty

72

If 19 years for Senusert III

Known 13th dynasty to Merhetepre

74

From Turin list

Other 13th dynasty kings

14

Assuming 1 year per king

Merhetepre to Ahmose

155

Estimate from genealogies

Minimum Distance

315

Distance

This estimate is very close to the estimate derived above based on Ryholt’s new reading of 140 years for the 15th dynasty, but it no longer depends on assumptions about the relationship between the 13th and 15th dynasties or the date of

Genealogy and the Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period 241

the fall of Avaris. Moreover, through use of contemporary genealogical data, the contribution of the Turin kinglist is now restricted to a section that is relatively intact, and concerns about the unreliability of reign-lengths from the list are now limited to the late 12th and early 13th dynasties. As with the earlier model, the estimate supports a high chronology for the Middle Kingdom (year 7 of Senusert III = 1872 or 1866) and a low chronology for the New Kingdom (year 1 of Ahmose = 1539). It seems difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile this result with a low Middle Kingdom chronology (year 7 of Senusert III = 1830), except by lowering the start date of the New Kingdom. The agreement with the estimate derived from Ryholt’s model suggests that the 15th and 17th dynasties arose at about the same time. We can derive the length of the 17th dynasty independently. The genealogical estimate for the distance between year 1 of Nebiriau I and year 1 of Ahmose is 6 generations less 45 years, i.e. about 105 years, to which another 20 years must be added to account for Nebiriau I’s four known predecessors, giving a total length of about 125 years for the 17th dynasty. This agrees very well with Ryholt’s new reading of 140 years for the 15th dynasty, since that number includes at least a decade of Ahmose’ reign, but does not depend on it. This agreement does not imply, however, that the 13th dynasty ended at the same time that the 15th and 17th dynasties began. In order to achieve this result, we must follow Dodson and Hilton’s proposal to distinguish two viziers Ay, making one a generation later than the other, thereby creating a second Merhetepre reigning a generation after the first, who becomes the Merhetepre of the Juridical Stele (and most probably forcing Djehuti to be a 13th dynasty king). But this extends the overall minimum length of the SIP by a generation, to a point where it exceeds the bounds permitted by the constraints on year 7 of Senusert III and year 1 of Ahmose. Rather, if Ryholt’s reading is correct, it implies that the 15th and 17th dynasties both began as the result of a catastrophic event that seriously weakened the 13th dynasty but did not end it for another generation. CONCLUDING REMARKS RYHOLT 2005 has correctly emphasised that many of the interpretations made in BENNETT 2002 and in this paper are disputable, that the data from this period requires careful analysis, and that his-

torical conclusions should be drawn with great caution. However, the value of synthesised genealogies, based on reasonable if uncertain interpretations of the data, does not only lie in the degree of certainty to which they are an accurate representation of the historical past. The process of constructing a chronological model using different techniques than have hitherto been used can highlight unexamined assumptions in earlier models, and suggest new questions to investigate. The chronological properties of the genealogical models, if selected carefully, can also test the feasibility of chronologies arrived at by other means. The genealogies discussed here are certainly not complete and may well not be correct in significant respects. Nevertheless, because they make chronologically minimal interpretations of the data, they have led to a new minimum estimate for the length of the SIP that challenges the low chronology of the Middle Kingdom. Alternate interpretations that add generations can only extend that challenge. The genealogies also suggest the hypothesis that the 17th dynasty rose before the fall of the 13th, a possibility that had not previously been considered, and which allows us to find time for Theban kings who are otherwise difficult to place. It is clear that existing prosopographical data from the SIP, while sparse compared to that from the TIP, is nevertheless sufficient to allow at least some genealogies to be constructed that have chronometrically useful characteristics. The challenge to researchers is to find additional data to improve the number, reliability and utility of these genealogies. We may hope that the data from El-Kab considered in this paper and in BENNETT 2002 will be refined and corrected through the continuing work in the tombs of the governors of El-Kab (DAVIES 2003). But the best opportunity for extending the genealogical networks is through the publication of additional genealogical databases, such as a database of about 130 unpublished stelae from Edfu (VERNUS 1988), the home of a queen Sebekemsaf, who has known family connections to other individuals from this city. If such databases are analysed with an eye to synthesising the results into a genealogical network that can be correlated with other chronological data, it may be that the internal chronology of the SIP can eventually be placed onto a foundation comparable to that of the TIP.

242

Chris Bennett

Bibliography BECKERATH, J. VON

GRAJETZKI, W.

1964

Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Ägypten, ÄgFo 23, Glückstadt.

2004

2000

Theban Seventeenth Dynasty, 21–25, in: E. TEETER and J.A. LARSON (eds.), Gold of Praise: Studies in Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente, SAOC 58, Chicago.

HABACHI, L. 1984

BEN-TOR, D., ALLEN, S.J. and ALLEN, J.P. 1999

EEF: re: Coffin of Queen Mentuhotep, email of 31 May 2004, available online at http://www. geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/4482/May04.zip as of November, 2004.

Seals and Kings, BASOR 315 (1999), 47–74.

The Family of the Vizier Ibia and His Place among the Viziers of the Thirteenth Dynasty, SAK 11, 113–126.

BENNETT, C.J.,

HARTMANN, H.

1994

The First Three Sekhemre Kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty, GM 143, 21–28.

1989

1995

The Date of Nubkheperre Inyotef, GM 147, 19–27.

HENIGE, D.

1997

The Structure of the Seventeenth Dynasty, GM 149, 25–32.

1982

2002

A Genealogical Chronology of the Seventeenth Dynasty, JARCE 39 (2002) 123–155. The Late New Kingdom in Egypt: a genealogical and chronological investigation, Warminster.

DARNELL, J.C., and DARNELL, D. 2002

Generation-counting and New Kingdom Chronology, JEA 68, 182–184.

HAYES, W.C. 1973

BIERBRIER, M.L. 1975

Necheb und Nechbet: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kultortes Elkab (Ph.D. thesis), Mainz.

Egypt. From the Death of Ammenemes III to Seqenenre II, 44–76, in: Cambridge Ancient History (3rd ed.) II.1, Cambridge.

KITCHEN, K. A. 1987

Theban Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian Western Desert, Volume 1: Gebel Tjauti Rock Inscriptions 1–45 and Wadi el-Hôl Rock Inscriptions 1–45, OIP 119, Chicago.

The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in Relation to the Bronze Age, 37–55, in: P. ÅSTRÖM (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology held at the University of Gothenburg, 20th-22nd August, 1987, Part 1, Gothenburg.

DAVIES, W.V.

KRAUSS, R.

2003

1985

Sobeknakht’s Hidden Treasure, BMM 46, 18–19.

DAUTZENBURG, N. 1992

SeneferibRe Sesostris IV. – ein König der 17. Dynastie?, GM 129, 43–48.

DODSON, A.M. 1991

On the Internal Chronology of the Seventeenth Dynasty, GM 120, 33–38.

DODSON, A.M. and HILTON, D. 2004

Sothis- und Monddaten: Studien zur astronomischen und technischen Chronologie Altägyptens, HÄB 20, Hildesheim.

LACAU, P. 1949

Une stèle juridique de Karnak, Supplément aux ASAE 13, Cairo.

LUFT, U. 1992

The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt, London.

Die chronologische Fixierung des ägyptischen Mittleren Reiches nach dem Tempelarchiv von Illahun, Veröffentlichungen der Ägyptischen Kommission 2, Vienna.

FRANKE, D.

PARKER, R.A.

1988

1950

Zur Chronologie des Mittleren Reiches. Teil II: Die sogenannte “Zweite Zwischenzeit” Altägyptens, Or 57, 245–274.

GARDINER, A.H. 1959

1980

Royal Canon of Turin, Oxford.

GEISEN, C. 2004

Zur zeitlichen Einordnung des Königs Djehuti an das Ende der 13. Dynastie, SAK 32, 149–157.

1

Die höchsten Beamten der ägyptischen Zentralverwaltung zur Zeit des Mittleren Reiches (Ph.D. thesis), Berlin.1

The Genealogy of the Memphite High Priest Family in the Hellenistic Period, 43–82, in: D.J. CRAWFORD, J. QUAEGEBEUR and W. CLARYSSE, Studies on Ptolemaic Memphis, Stud. Hell. 24, Louvain.

REDFORD, D. B. 1986

GRAJETZKI, W. 2000

The Calendars of Ancient Egypt, SAOC 26, Chicago.

QUAEGEBEUR, J.

Pharaonic King-lists, Annals and Day-books, SSEA Publication 4, Mississauga.

RYHOLT, K.S.B. 1997

Non vid. I am grateful to Wolfram Grajetzki for the citation.

The Political Situation in Egypt During the Second Intermediate Period, CNIP 20, Copenhagen.

Genealogy and the Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period 243

2004

The Turin King-list, Ä&L 14, 135–155.

2005

The Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period, presentation to: SCIEM2000 Workshop on Precision and Accuracy of the Egyptian Historical Chronology, Vienna.

SPALINGER, A.J. 1980

Remarks on the Family of Queen #a.s-nbw and the Problem of Kingship in Dynasty XIII, RdÉ 32, 95–116.

STOCK, H. 1942

Studien zur Geschichte und Archäologie der 13. bis 17. Dynastie Ägyptens, ÄgFo 12, Glückstadt.

VANDERSLEYEN, C. 1983

Un seul roi Taa sous le 17e dynastie, GM 63, 67–70.

1993

Rahotep, Sébekemsaf Ier et Djéhouty, rois de la 13e dynastie, RdÉ 44, 189–191.

1995

L’Égypte et la vallée du Nil II: De la fin de l’Ancien Empire à la fin du Nouvel Empire, Paris.

VERNUS, P. 1988

Les inscriptions d’Edfou de début de la XIIe dynastie au début de la XVIIIe dynastie, L’Information Historique 50, 14–19.

WADDELL, W.G. 1940

Manetho, Loeb Classical Library 350, London.

WEGNER, J. 1998

Excavations at the Town of Enduring-are-thePlaces-of-Khakaure-Maa-Kheru-in-Abydos: A Preliminary Report on the 1994 and 1997 Seasons, JARCE 35, 1–44.

ONCE AGAIN THE REIGN OF TAKELOTH II; ANOTHER VIEW ON THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE MID 22nd DYNASTY By Gerard P.F. Broekman

The chronological position and the dynastic affiliation of king Takeloth II was once again at issue at the Egypt & Time Workshop by SCIEM 2000, on June 30 to July 2, 2005, in Vienna. Regrettably, I could not personally attend this conference and, instead, I sent in my paper “The Reign of Takeloth II, a Controversial Matter”, published in June 2005.1 Kitchen, who also was invited to participate in the “Egypt & Time” Workshop and, just like me, could not personally attend it, sent in a paper, to be discussed at the workshop, entitled “The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology – an Abrégé”, and most kindly sent me a copy of it. In my paper I presented an abstract of the theories of K.A. Kitchen and D.A. Aston about the reign of Takeloth II and of the arguments on which their views were based. In the first edition of his monumental work ‘The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt’,2 issued in 1973, KITCHEN argued, notably on the ground of the “Chronicle of Prince Osorkon”, that Takeloth II belonged to the 22nd Dynasty and that he must have reigned between Osorkon II and Shoshenq III. In his genealogical work “The Late New Kingdom in Egypt (c. 1300 – 664 B.C.)”, issued in 1975, BIERBRIER followed in general Kitchen’s chronology, though he repeatedly brought Takeloth II’s chronological position up for discussion, as well as the space of time between Takeloth’s reign and that of Osorkon III.3 Bierbrier’s suggestion that year 21 referred to on a stela from Mendes should

be attributed to Iuput II instead of Iuput I, was adopted by Kitchen, the reign of Iuput I was reduced to a few years coregency alongside Pedubast I, and the reigns of the latter’s successors were raised by ten years. In 1989 Aston published his article “Takeloth II – A King of the “Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty”?”,4 in which he explained his theory that Takeloth II was not a Tanite king who succeeded his father Osorkon II but that he was a Theban king who reigned for the most part contemporarily with Shoshenq III, thus challenging Kitchen’s broadly accepted position for the composition and dating of the 22nd Dynasty. In the following years others adopted Aston’s view, for instance DODSON in a paper entitled “A New King Shoshenq Confirmed?”, in which he proposed to insert a new king Shoshenq in the 22nd Dynasty between Shoshenq III and Pimay.5 Von Beckerath endorsed Aston’s opinion6 and so did JANSEN-WINKELN in his article “Historische Probleme der 3. Zwischenzeit”.7 In this paper he further elaborated Aston’s theory, advancing new ideas concerning the parentage of Takeloth II, the position of the High Priest Harsiese B and the character of the “Theban 23rd Dynasty”. Kitchen rejected Aston’s new chronology completely as well as his proposition to remove Takeloth II from the 22nd Dynasty’s kingly line and to make him a Theban king.8 The following tables may be presented as chronological representations of the conceptions of Kitchen (Chronology K) and Aston (Chronology A) respectively (Table 1):9

1

7

A. INTRODUCTION

2 3 4 5 6

BROEKMAN 2005. KITCHEN 1973/96. BIERBRIER 1975, 76–77, 83-84, 85 end, 100. ASTON 1989, 139–153 DODSON 1993. VON BECKERATH 1995.

8 9

JANSEN-WINKELN 1995. KITCHEN 1973/96, revised 2nd ed., xxiii–xxv. Both chronologies have been adjusted on the basis of more recent views, referred to in BROEKMAN 2005, 24 & notes 21, 22, 23 , 24 and 25.

246

Gerard P.F. Broekman

Chronology K Dynasty 22 Shoshenq I 945–924 Osorkon I 924–889 Takeloth I 889–874 Osorkon II 874–850 Takeloth II 850–825 Shoshenq III 825–786 Shoshenq IV 786–773 Pimay 773–767 Shoshenq V 767–730 Osorkon IV 730–715?/713?

Chronology A Dynasty 22 Shoshenq I 945–924 Osorkon I 924–889 Takeloth I 889–874 Osorkon II 874–840 Shoshenq III 840–801 Shoshenq IV 801–788 Pimay 788–782 Shoshenq V 782–745 Pedubast II 745–735 Osorkon IV 735–720/715

Dynasty 23

(Upper Egyptian) Dynasty 23 (A + B)

Pedubast I Iuput I Shoshenq VI Osorkon III Takeloth III Rudamon Shoshenq VII Iuput II

818–793 804–803? 793–787 787–759 764–757 757–755 755–736 736–715

Takeloth II Pedubast I Iuput I Shoshenq VI Osorkon III Takeloth III Rudamon Shoshenq VII

843–818 832–807 817– ? 807–801 801–773 778–771 771–759 759–741/735

Table 1

Further examination of Theban monumental evidence might confirm that Chronology A is preferable to Chronology K.

The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, engraved on the Bubastide Portal at Karnak, records the actions of Osorkon B, the eldest son of Takeloth II, from the latter’s 11th regnal year until year 29 of Shoshenq III. From this text it is clear that Osorkon B was in Thebes in his capacity of High Priest of Amun in Takeloth II’s 11th and 12th regnal years and that in regnal year 15 a rebellion broke out (A. 18, B. 1, B. 7). Further on in the text it says that a compilation should be made of the benefactions performed by Prince Osorkon “beginning with the regnal year 11 under the Majesty of my (Prince Osorkon’s) august father, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, son of Re, [Takeloth] beloved of Amun [son of Isis] until the regnal year 28 under the Majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Usermaatre Setepenre, son of Re, Shoshenq beloved of Amun, son

of Bastet, given life for ever” (C, 6–7). In the first part of the list of offerings (C. 8–11) Takeloth II’s year 24 is explicitly mentioned. The second part of the list is preceded by the heading “Compilation of items instituted as (something) new by the first prophet of Amun-Re, king of the gods, the leader Osorkon, beginning with the regnal year 22 until the regnal year 28” (C. 11–12). The years 23, 24 and 25, explicitly mentioned in this part of the list (C. 12–20), obviously refer to Shoshenq III. The highest date referred to in the Chronicle is regnal year 29, recording new offerings to Amun-Re. Starting from the first king of the 22nd Dynasty, Shoshenq I, until the first king of the 26th Dynasty, Psammetik I, almost all kings who were recognized in Thebes, are represented in the series of Nile Level Records on the quay wall at Karnak. Only Takeloth II, who reigned as long as 25 years, is not represented amongst the kings referred to in the Nile Level Records. Consequently, in Chronology K we have a gap of over twenty-five years in the series of Nile texts. According to this chronology Osorkon II would have reigned for 24 years and Nile level

10

12

B. THE CHRONICLE OF PRINCE OSORKON,10 11 THE NILE LEVEL TEXTS, THE KARNAK PRIESTLY 12 ANNALS AND OTHER THEBAN SOURCES

11

CAMINOS 1958. LEGRAIN 1896; VON BECKERATH 1966; BROEKMAN 2002.

KRUCHTEN 1989.

Once Again the Reign of Takeloth II; Another View on the Chronology of the Mid 22nd Dynasty

247

text no. 12, mentioning his 22nd regnal year would have been the last Nile text referring to him. The next Nile text, in chronological order, is no. 23, referring to the 6th year of Shoshenq III. So, between these two texts we have a gap of 2+25+5=32 years. In Chronology A, on the contrary, a reign of 34 years is assigned to Osorkon II and Nile level text no. 14 is here the last one referring to him, mentioning his 29th regnal year.13 As in this chronology Takeloth II’s 25 years reign is totally overlapped by the reigns of Osorkon II and Shoshenq III (by 3 years and 22 years respectively), there is only a space of 5+5=10 years between the Nile texts nos. 14 and 23. In the Karnak Priestly Annals we may find just a few references to Takeloth II. Fragment no. 26/27 refers to year 11 of a king Takeloth who might be Takeloth II.14 Kruchten also attributes fragment no. 5.d, referring to a year 11, to Takeloth II, as it chronologically follows fragment 5.c, that might refer to Osorkon II’s 23rd regnal year.15 However, this is quite uncertain. In Fragment no. 7, referring to regnal year 39 of Shoshenq III, it says that the High Priest of Amun, governor of Upper Egypt, the commander Osorkon (B), son of king Meriamun Takeloth (II), has come to Thebes together with his brother, the general of Heracleopolis Bakenptah, after they had overcome those who had rebelled against them.16 Prince Osorkon’s presence in Thebes in that year in his capacity of High Priest is confirmed by Nile level record No. 22. Besides the references to Takeloth II’s reign mentioned above we have two further Theban references: a graffito on a bloc from the Akh-menu temple at Karnak (Paris E 3336) referring to Takeloth’s year 11, and a donation stela (Cairo JE 36159) in favour of his daughter Karomat E, dated to year 25 of Takeloth (II) in the time of the High Priest Osorkon (B).17 All dated references on Theban monuments for the Dynasties 22 and 23 concerning the period from the start of Takeloth II’s reign until the end of the reign of Shoshenq III are recorded in two diagrams: Table 2 applicable to Chronology K, and Table 3, relative to Chronology A.

From this monumental evidence we learn that Table 2, applicable to Chronology K, does not only show a gap in the “Chronicle of Prince Osorkon” – referred to by Aston – spanning the initial 22 regnal years of Shoshenq III, but also reveals a gap in the series of Nile level records, spanning the entire 25-years reign of Takeloth II. In Table 3 however, showing Chronology A, both gaps are closed by telescoping the reign of Takeloth II into that of Shoshenq III and, as a result, the dated references are much more equally spread over the whole period at issue in comparison with Table 2. I would not claim, as Kitchen suggests,18 that the gap in the series of Nile texts would make a sole reign of Takeloth II illusory. It only confirms in addition to the gap in the “Chronicle”, that the chronology rendered in Table 3 is preferable to the one shown in Table 2. As I concluded in my paper (BROEKMAN 2005), the preference for Chronology A to Chronology K, appearing from the monumental and genealogical evidence, might be invigorated by a new interpretation of Nile level record no. 14, which in my opinion should be considered to furnish compelling evidence for a long reign of Osorkon II. Formerly this Nile text, referring to the 29th regnal year of a king Usermaatre Setepenamun, was attributed to Shoshenq III by von Beckerath19 and to Osorkon III by Kitchen.20 However, von Beckerath as well as Kitchen started from a wrong assumption when dating the text. The former unjustly started from a short reign (a decade at the most) of Osorkon III and, consequently, in his opinion the text must refer to either Osorkon II or Shoshenq III. He assumed that text no. 14 should refer rather to Shoshenq III, as a dating to a sole reign of Osorkon II seems difficult to accept after the double dating of his year 28, recorded in text no. 13, which in von Beckerath’s conception referred to Osorkon II. Kitchen, implicitly rejecting the possibility that Nile level record no. 14 might refer to Osorkon II, supposed that this text might better be attributed to Osorkon III than to Shoshenq III because, as Kitchen says, “Shoshenq III is qualified as Setepenre in one such text of year 29 already clearly

13

17

14 15 16

See below. KRUCHTEN 1989, 121–122. KRUCHTEN 1989, 55. KRUCHTEN 1989, 59–63.

18 19 20

KITCHEN 1973/96, 329 & n. 474. KITCHEN 2006, 298–299. VON BECKERATH 1966, 45–46. KITCHEN 1973/96, 353, n. 627.

248

Gerard P.F. Broekman

So the evidence from Nile level record no. 14, in particular its orthographic aspect, unmistakable points to the fact that Osorkon II reigned for at least 29 years.

dated to him (no. 22), whereas the king of no. 14 is Setepenamun, the invariable epithet of Osorkon III”. However, Kitchen erroneously attributed Nile level record no. 22 to Shoshenq III’s year 29 instead of his 39th year. 21 On the ground of the orthography of the word Hapj, “Nile flood”, used in text no. 14, this text can not possibly be attributed to Osorkon III.22 Besides, one would not expect to find a text like this in Osorkon III’s twenty-ninth year, following the double dated text no. 13 of his year 28 (see above von Beckerath’s argumentation against attributing this text to Osorkon II!). Attribution of the text to Shoshenq III might be possible, as it appears from the Chronicle of prince Osorkon, that the latter was in Thebes in his capacity of High Priest of Amun in year 29 of Shoshenq III, by whose regnal years he dated after the death of Takeloth II. This text, then, would chronologically follow text no. 27, referring to year 19 of Pedubast I, and precede text no. 29, referring to the latter’s 23rd year. However, as Pedubast’s prenomen was also Usermaatre Setepenamun, Shoshenq III’s nomen undoubtedly would have been mentioned in text no. 14 and not only his prenomen, homonymous to the one of his colleague Pedubast I. Moreover, during the reign of Shoshenq III almost all Nile texts mention the officiating High Priest of Amun and as it appears from the Chronicle of prince Osorkon, that in Shoshenq III’s years 28 and 29 the High Priest Harsiese was expelled from Thebes, whereas Osorkon B occupied that post in those years, it would be highly improbable that the latter would not have been mentioned in a text dated to Shoshenq III’s year 29. That means that Nile level record no. 14 to all probability should be attributed to Osorkon II, because there is no further king belonging to Dynasty 22 or 23 named Usermaatre Setepenamun, who might have reigned for 29 years or more during the period the orthography of the word Hapj used in text no. 14 was the vogue. Moreover, Osorkon II was the first king of the 22nd Dynasty to use the prenomen Usermaatre Setepenamun and, though as a rule also his nomen was mentioned, the mere recording of the prenomen was sufficient to distinguish him from other kings.

In § 10 of KITCHEN 2006 it says that “it is only proper (however briefly) to do two things. (i) To show – again – why the normal scheme is perfectly sufficient, and the contrary “reasons” are needless. But (ii) to explore whether, in fact, adjustments are feasible in the mid 22nd Dynasty to eliminate the supposed problems in a positive fashion.” As to the arguments for attempting to overlap Takeloth II with Shoshenq III (and in consequence, lengthening the reign of Osorkon II), Kitchen admits, that generation jumps occurring simultaneously in three different families,23 might be considered to be a weak point in his chronological framework. After having challenged all other arguments that had been proffered for changing the royal succession from Osorkon II to at least early Shoshenq III, and concluding that his basic chronology with a 25-years’ reign for Takeloth II between Osorkon II and Shoshenq III is perfectly OK, he continues with an investigation “if an adjustment can profitably be made to the dating of the 22nd/23rd Dynasties…..”.24 He starts from the principle that we need to be able to say why one king overlapped with another at any particular juncture, and that we need real political situations to justify the choices considered. It has been established that Pedubast I began his reign in year 8 of Shoshenq III, and Kitchen assumes that he took royal style following the death of Takeloth II in his 25th regnal year, and that he might have been entitled to do so from his participation in the funeral of the latter. Consequently, the reign of Shoshenq III must have started in Takeloth II’s 18 th regnal year. 25 Shoshenq III’s motive for seeking to become king at that time might have been, according to Kitchen, the cataclysm in the 15th regnal year of Takeloth II, referred to in the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon. “In this crisis”, thus Kitchen, “the

21

24

22 23

KITCHEN,1973/96, 339, n. 531; 353, n. 627. BROEKMAN 2002, 88, 174. BROEKMAN 2005, 26–27.

C. ANOTHER VIEW CONCERNING TAKELOTH II’S POSITION

25

KITCHEN 2006, 300. KITCHEN 2006, 301.

Once Again the Reign of Takeloth II; Another View on the Chronology of the Mid 22nd Dynasty

249

younger man Shoshenq seized control of the armed forces, pushed his father (?Takeloth II) and brother (?Prince Osorkon) aside, and took two forms of action: (i) stopped the opposition in their tracks, and (ii) negotiated a peace, to the satisfaction of the Thebans. Little wonder that Prince Osorkon was in limbo for some years, while Harsiese B took control in the South. Having saved the day, Shoshenq (III) then assumed the kingship as full coregent of Takeloth II – an arrangement that then lasted nearly 8 years, quite a good overlap.”26 As for the reign of Osorkon II, Kitchen is obviously willing to accept my thesis on the different versions of the spelling of Hapj and the attribution of Nile level record no. 14 to the 29th regnal year of Osorkon II. In that connection he suggests that the dateline of year 22 in the jubileereliefs of Osorkon II from Bubastis is a slip in transcribing from the hieratic, resulting in “22” for “30”, the normal year for a sed-festival. This suggestion would confirm a 30-year reign for Osorkon II, who might have died in his 31st year.27 Kitchen’s thus revised chronology (New Chronology K) is rendered in Table 4. Obviously Kitchen persists to his opinion that Takeloth II was Osorkon II’s immediate successor in the main line of the 22nd Dynasty and that Prince Osorkon (B) and king Osorkon III were two distinct individuals. However, Kitchen’s arguments are not convincing, as may appear from the following: Even though there are no burials of Shoshenq I, Osorkon I, Pimay,28 Shoshenq V and Osorkon IV known in Tanis, these kings are clearly attested as rulers in Lower-Egypt, in contrast to Takeloth II, who did not leave any monuments there, despite his 25 years reign. From the Chronicle of prince Osorkon it is evident that Takeloth II died before the 22nd regnal year of Shoshenq III. However it does not give any indication whatsoever, that they would belong to the same (branch of the 22nd) Dynasty. The fact that Takeloth II was linked by marriage with the line of Osorkon II as the husband

of the latter’s granddaughter does not mean that he was his successor. Kitchen’s statement that Takeloth II’s son prince Osorkon “absolutely shunned the 23rd Dynasty, dating always by the 22nd”, creates the impression that there were just two rivalling dynasties. However, that is only the case if Takeloth II did belong to the 22nd Dynasty, and that is the very thing Kitchen wants to prove. In Chronology A, on the contrary, there was one mainline, the 22nd Dynasty (Osorkon II–Shoshenq III), from which sprang two Upper-Egyptian collateral branches, one of them founded by Takeloth II and the other by Pedubast I.29 Prince Osorkon dated to the line of Takeloth II and after his death to the Dynastic mainline (Shoshenq III), and it was only the dynastic branch of Pedubast that he shunned. In Kitchen’s opinion it is a near-impossible scenario that the same Thebans, who for many years had opposed Prince Osorkon and had been suppressed by him, would have welcomed “this very same man once he took cartouches as king Osorkon (III)”.30 However, the civil war recorded in the “Chronicle” was not a war made by Prince Osorkon against the Thebans, but was a struggle for power being fought out between Prince Osorkon and Harsiese B (later Takeloth E), in which the Theban people played but an inferior part. Anyhow, their feelings did not matter.31 Therefore nothing prohibits us from identifying Prince Osorkon with king Osorkon III, all the more as the mother of each of them is named Ka(ro)mama. Further, there remain some points of weakness adhering to Kitchen’s previous chronology (Chronology K) that have not been eliminated in his New Chronology K: (1) According to the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, the parties involved in the civil war reconciled in Takeloth II’s 24th year, and Egypt was in peace for some time (B. 8 – C. 1). But then again, a rebellion broke out and so it happened that Prince Osorkon was there quite alone, there was not a friend (C.2). According to Kitchen, this new (third) rebellion would correspond with Pedubast

26

29

27 28

KITCHEN 2006, 301. KITCHEN 2006, 301. There are some indications, that Pimay might have been buried in Tanis in tomb NRT II. See YOYOTTE 1988.

30 31

These collateral lines are designated by JansenWinkeln as Dynasties 23 (A) and 23 (B); see JANSENWINKELN 1995, 149. KITCHEN 2006, 298. JANSEN-WINKELN 2006, 243.

250

Gerard P.F. Broekman

Dynasty 22 Regnal years Osorkon II 22 24 Takeloth II 1 11 12 15 24 25 Shoshenq III 1 6 7 8 12 14 15 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 32 33 38 39

Dynasty 23 Regnal years

Nile level records

Karnak Priestly Chronicle Other Theban Annals Prince Osorkon Sources

– –

– –

12 –

– –

– –

– –

– – – – – –

– – – – – –

– – – – – –

– 5.d/26–27(?) – – – –

– X X X X –

– X – – – X

– – Pedubast I 1 5 7 8 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 25 Shoshenq VI 1 6 ?

– – – – – – – Iuput I 1 2 3 ? – – – – –

– 23 – – 24 – – – – 26 – 28 27 – – 29 –

– – – – – 1.b 1.c/2 – – – – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – – X X X X – X X – –

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – –

– 25 22

– – 7

– – –

– – –

Table 2 Chronology K. Dates for Dynasties 22 and 23 from the final years of Osorkon II until the end of the reign of Shoshenq III according to Kitchen’s old chronology: KITCHEN 1973/96

I’s years 2–14 (Shoshenq III’s years 9–21). The next event recorded in the Chronicle (C. 2–7) is Prince Osorkon’s returning to Thebes after he was told: “Be happy, you have no enemies”. According to Kitchen this return would have occurred in Year 15 of Pedubast 1, equalling year 1 of Iuput I (Shoshenq III’s year 22), but in that year Osorkon’s main antagonist, Harsiese B, was still alive, as he reappeared later on in Nile level records 28 and 27, dating to Pedubast I’s years 18 and 19. (2) As Harsiese B was obviously back in Thebes as High Priest during both last mentioned years (Shoshenq III’s years 25 and 26), it

seems that a fourth rebellion had broken out and that Prince Osorkon was again driven out of Thebes. However, this is in contradiction with the Chronicle, recording only three rebellions: the first one in Takeloth II’s year 11 (A. 22–23), the second one in his 15th regnal year (B. 7) and the third one some time after his year 24 (C. 2). After this third rebellion Osorkon returned to Thebes and no further opposition against him is recorded in the Chronicle, ending by year 29 of Shoshenq III (C. 22). Kitchen’s ‘adjusted’ chronology presents another point of weakness, resulting from his

Once Again the Reign of Takeloth II; Another View on the Chronology of the Mid 22nd Dynasty

Dynasty 22 Regnal years Osorkon II 29 30 32 34 Shoshenq III 1 6 7 8 9 12 14 15 21 22

Dynasty 23 A Regnal years

Dynasty 23 B Regnal years

Nile level records

– Takeloth II 1 3

– – – –

14 – – –

– – – –

– – – –

–

– – Pedubast I 1 2 5 7 8 14 15

– 23 – – – 24 – – – –

– – – 5.d/26–27(?) – – 1.b 1.c/2 – –

– – – X X X – – X –

– – – X – – – – – X

22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 32

4 9 10 11 12 15 17 18 24 25 Iuput I 1 2 3 4 ? – – – –

– 26 – 28 27 – – 29 –

– – – – – – – – –

X X X X – X X – –

– – – – – – – – –

33 38 39

– – –

15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 25 Shoshenq VI 1 6 ?

– 25 22

– – 7

– – –

– – –

251

Karnak Chronicle Other Theban Priestly Annals Prince Osorkon Sources

– –

Table 3 Chronology A. Dates for Dynasties 22 and 23 (A + B) from the final years of Osorkon II until the end of the reign of Shoshenq III according to Aston's chronology

assumption that Pedubast I was the successor of Takeloth II. (3) Takeloth II died in his 25th year and it appears from Nile level text no. 24 that Pedubast’s year 1 equalled year 8 of Shoshenq III. From that derive the quite arbitrary year 18 of Takeloth II for the year of accession of Shoshenq III and the even more arbitrary year of accession of Iuput I alongside Pedubast I in de latter’s 15th regnal year (equalling year 22 of Shoshenq III). In Kitchen’s view prince Shoshenq (the later king Shoshenq III) made an end to the rebellion

32

that broke out in year 15 of Takeloth II. Thereupon he would have assumed kingship as the latter’s full coregent in Year 18. If this is what really happened, it is likely, indeed, that some time elapsed from the outbreak of the rebellion until the moment Shoshenq became king, however it is not clear why this happened in that very year 18. As to the accession of Iuput I, there is, to my opinion, not any explanation to be devised why in New Chronology K Iuput I would have become king alongside Pedubast I in the latter’s year 15.32

It should be noticed that Iuput I was not ephemeral. His years 9 and 12 are attested in graffiti on the roof of the temple of Khonsu at Karnak; see JACQUET-GORDON 2003, 84, 85.

252

Gerard P.F. Broekman

Dynasty 22 Regnal years Osorkon II 29 31 Takeloth II 1 11 12

– – – – – Shoshenq III (c/r.)

15 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 32

– – –

33 38 39

Dynasty 23 Regnal years

Nile level records

Karnak Priestly Annals

Chronicle Prince Osorkon

Other Theban Sources

– – – – –

– – – – –

14 – – – –

– – – – 5.d/26–27(?)

– – – – X

– – – – X

–

–

–

–

X

–

– – – – – – 23 – – – – – 24 – – – – – 26 – 28 27 – – 29 –

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1.b 1.c/2 – – – – – – – – – –

X – – – – – – X – – – – – – – – – X X X X – X X – –

–

– 25 22

– – 7

– – –

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – Pedubast I – 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 – 14 Iuput I (c/r.) 15 1 16 2 17 – 18 – 19 – 21 – 22 – 23 – 24 – 25 Shoshenq VI 1 – 6 – – –

– – – – – – X – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – –

Table 4 New Chronology K. Dates for Dynasties 22 and 23 from the final years of Osorkon II until the end of the reign of Shoshenq III according to Kitchen’s new chronology: SCIEM 2000 Vienna Conference 2005 “Egypt & Time”

D. CHRONOLOGY A AGAINST NEW CHRONOLOGY K Only a chronology based on Iuput I succeeding Takeloth II, is fully in accordance with the monumental evidence, notably the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon.33 33

See also JANSEN-WINKELN 1995, 139–142.

To all probability Takeloth II died in his 25th regnal year, and as it appears from Nile level text no. 26 that Iuput I’s 2nd year equals year 16 of Pedubast I, the latter’s year 15 (equal to year 22 of Shoshenq III) coincides with Takeloth year 25. Iuput I may have been accepted by Prince

Once Again the Reign of Takeloth II; Another View on the Chronology of the Mid 22nd Dynasty

253

Osorkon as well as by his adversaries as a suitable candidate to succeed Takeloth II, and this may have led to the (temporary) reconciliation of both parties, resulting in the return of Prince Osorkon as High Priest of Amun in Thebes. However, some years later, in Pedubast I’s years 18 and 19, Harsiese B was back in Thebes again as High Priest and that might be reflected by the rebellion referred to in Part C. 2 of the Chronicle. After the last-mentioned year nothing is heard any more about Harsiese B: he may have died. So, Prince Osorkon had indeed no enemies (for the time being) and reappeared in Thebes as High Priest, making offerings for Amun in the years 28 and 29 of Shoshenq III. With this the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon ends. From Nile level text no. 29, recording year 23 of Pedubast I (equal to year 30 of Shoshenq III), it appears that in that year a new man, Takeloth E, was High Priest in Thebes. This High Priest is also mentioned in Nile text 25, referring to year 6 of a king Shoshenq (VI) Meriamun Usermaatre Meriamun, obviously the successor of Pedubast. This year 6 probably coincides with the 37th or 38th year of Shoshenq III. Finally, Nile level text no. 22 mentions Prince Osorkon as High Priest in Shoshenq III’s year 39, and fragment 7 of the Karnak Priestly annals of that same year enunciates Prince Osorkon’s victory over all his adversaries.34 As said before, Takeloth II died after a 25 years reign in year 15 of Pedubast I, equal to year 22 of Shoshenq III. Consequently the latter began to reign in year 4 of Takeloth II, and one of them must have been the successor of Osorkon II, and to all probability that was Shoshenq III, because Takeloth II succeeding Osorkon II would make the accession of Shoshenq III three years later fully inexplicable. That means that Takeloth II became king three years before the death of Osorkon II. This has to be explained. During the reign of Osorkon II we find in Thebes Harsiese (A) taking full royal style. Harsiese, the length of whose reign is not known, might have been a son of the High Priest Shoshenq, son of Osorkon I.35 However, it is more likely that he was a son of the High Priest

Smendes III (the latter being also a son of Osorkon I), as Smendes’ wife is called “Queen’s mother”, and Harsiese A is the most suitable candidate to be her royal son.36 From Harsiese manifesting himself as a king it may be assumed that king Osorkon II had to face developments in the heart of the royal family affecting the balance of power. That may be reflected by Osorkon II’s prayer to Amun, inscribed on a stela held by a statue of himself:37 “[You will fashio]n my issue, the seed that comes forth from my limbs, [to be] great [rulers] of Egypt, princes, high priests of Amenresonter, great chiefs of the Ma, [great chiefs of] foreigners, and prophets of Arsaphes….. You will turn their hearts towards the Son of Re, Osorkon II, you will cause them [to walk] on my path. You will establish my children in the [posts which] I have given them, so that brother is not jealous (?) of brothe[r. As for the Great Royal Wife ….] Karoama, you will cause her to stand before me in all my jubilee festivals… You will cause her children, male and [female], to live.”38 It is not improbable that Harsiese A, before proclaiming himself king, had been High Priest of Amun in the early years of Osorkon II, though there is no evidence for this. Anyhow, after Harsiese took royal style Osorkon II appointed his son Nimlot (C) to be High Priest of Amun in Thebes. As appears from the decoration of chapel J in Karnak-east, the latter’s son Takeloth (F) officiated as High Priest in Osorkon II’s reign as the successor of his father.39 This Takeloth F is probably identical with the later king Takeloth II, who was married to Nimlot’s daughter Karomama Merymut (II), and that means that he was married to his own (half-)sister.40 After the death of Harsiese A – either immediately or some time later – Takeloth F proclaimed himself king (in southern Egypt) following in the footprints of Harsiese, probably with the consent of his royal grandfather. Possibly he claimed his right to succeed Harsiese from having participated, in his capacity of High Priest, in Harsiese’s funeral. As Jansen-Winkeln showed, the High Priest Harsiese B, for the first time attested for certain in

34

39

35 36 37 38

KRUCHTEN 1989, 59 ff. KITCHEN 1973/96, 314; JANSEN-WINKELN 1995, 132. JANSEN-WINKELN 2006, 241, n. 64. Cairo Cat. 1040. KITCHEN 1973/96, 317.

40

KEES 1964, 113, REDFORD 1986, 14; JANSEN-WINKELN 1995, 138. JANSEN-WINKELN 1995, 138–139; DAUTZENBERG 1995, 24–25.

254

Gerard P.F. Broekman

Nile level text 23 of year 6 of Shoshenq III, was to all probability already in function during the later years of Osorkon II.41 This Harsiese B might have been a descendent of Harsiese A, perhaps his grandson, as Kitchen suggests,42 and it is not unlikely that he became High Priest of Amun in Thebes as the successor of Takeloth F at the time of the latter’s accession as king Takeloth (II) Meryamun Si-Ese Hedjkheperre Setepenre. In year 16 of Osorkon II his son Nimlot C was still High Priest of Harsaphes in Heracleopolis, great chief of Pi-Sekhemkheperre, general and army-leader, and it is broadly accepted that he only at a later moment became High Priest in Thebes,43 possibly about Osorkon II’s 18th year. Harsiese A’s reign began about the same time, and if he reigned for some 14 years, he died not later than in Osorkon II’s 32nd regnal year, the very year Takeloth II ascended the throne in Upper-Egypt and was succeeded by Harsiese B as High Priest. The death of Osorkon II and the accession of Shoshenq III did not bring any dramatic political changes. Conspicuously, however, Harsiese B boldly had his name and High Priestly title been recorded in Nile level text no. 23 in Shoshenq III’s 6th regnal year, implicitly claiming that he himself, in his capacity of representative of the God Amun, factually was the highest authority in Thebes. A few years later, in Shoshenq III’s year 8, equalling year 11 of Takeloth II, Pedubast I proclaimed himself king. As this king is attested in Lower-Egypt as well as in Upper-Egypt, JansenWinkeln may be right suggesting that Pedubast was ruler of Hermopolis, trying to restore the united Egyptian kingdom and that the Theban rebellion in regnal year 11 of Takeloth II, recorded in the ‘Chronicle’ (A. 22–23), was in fact the recognition of this Hermopolitan king.44 From the ‘Chronicle” (A. 23–53) it appears that in that same year prince Osorkon, travelling south, suppressed his enemies and carried out building activities in Hermopolis, and, at his

arrival in Thebes, had himself installed as High Priest, punished the rebels and issued several decrees. In Takeloth II’s year 12 Prince Osorkon is still master in Thebes (Chronicle, B. 1 - 6), but in year 15 a second rebellion breaks out (Chronicle B. 7), and Harsiese B returns, undoubtedly with the support of Pedubast I, to Thebes, as is shown in Nile text no. 24 of that year, equalling year 5 of Pedubast I (= year 12 of Shoshenq III). From the Karnak Priestly Annals, fragments 1. b, 1. c and 2 it appears that Pedubast I was recognized in Thebes in his years 7 and 8 (years 17 and 18 of Takeloth II), and that in the last-mentioned year Harsiese B was still in function as High Priest. Only in year 24 of Takeloth II (Chronicle C. 7) Prince Osorkon is back in Thebes, making offerings to Amun. Obviously conciliation had been brought about,45 possibly in connection with the death of Takeloth II being expected, and Iuput I being accepted in advance as his successor by both rivalling parties.46 The historical developments outlined above, from the death of Takeloth II until the end of the reign of Shoshenq III, start from a realistic explanation for Iuput I succeeding Takelot II , and are perfectly in accordance with the monumental evidence, notably the sequence of events recorded in the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon and the political situation reflected in it. Likewise, from the accession of Takeloth II until his death we have a sequence of events in line with the monumental evidence. The accession of Takeloth II preceding the death of Osorkon II by three years can perfectly be explained, as well as Pedubast I taking royal style in Takeloth II’s 11th year. In short, this chronological reconstruction of the period at issue, mainly in accordance with Jansen-Winkeln’s conception,47 is grounded purely on a historical basis, real political situations and realistic circumstances, as advocated by Kitchen,48 without anything contradicting it.

41

45

42 43 44

JANSEN-WINKELN 1995, 135–136. See also Dautzenberg 1995, 25–26. KITCHEN 1973/96, 330. KITCHEN 1973/96, 316; JANSEN-WINKELN 1995, 138. JANSEN-WINKELN 1995, 142; JANSEN-WINKELN 2006, 248.

46 47 48

KITCHEN 1973/96, 331–332; JANSEN-WINKELN 1995, 140 & n. 77. JANSEN-WINKELN 1995, 140–141 & n. 79. Shown in JANSEN-WINKELN 1995, 129–145. KITCHEN 2006, 297 and 300.

Once Again the Reign of Takeloth II; Another View on the Chronology of the Mid 22nd Dynasty

255

Bibliography ASTON, D.A.

JACQUET-GORDON, H.

1989

2003

Takeloth II – A King of the “Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty”?, JEA 75, 139–153.

The graffiti on the Khonsu Temple roof at Karnak: a manifestation of personal piety, Chicago.

BECKERATH, J. VON

JANSEN-WINKELN, K.

1966

1995

Historische Probleme der 3. Zwischenzeit, JEA 81, 129–149.

2006

Chronology of the Third Intermediate Period: the 22nd–24th Dynasty, in: E. HORNUNG R. KRAUSS and D.R. WARBURTON, Handbook of Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Leiden.

1995

The Nile Level Records at Karnak and their Importance for the History of the Libyan Period (Dynasties XXII and XXIII), JARCE 5, 43–55. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Libyerzeit; 1. Die neuen Rekonstruktionsvorschläge und Manethos XXII. Dynastie, GM 144, 7–13.

BIERBRIER, M.L., 1975

The Late New Kingdom in Egypt (c. 1300 – 664 B.C.), Warminster.

BROEKMAN, G.P.F. 2002

2005

The Nile Level Records of the Twenty-Second and Twenty-Third Dynasties in Karnak: a Reconsideration of their Chronological Order, JEA 88, 163–178. The Reign of Takeloth II, a Controversial Matter, GM 205, 21–33.

KEES, H. 1964

Die Hohenpriester des Amun von Karnak von Herihor bis zum Ende der Äthiopenzeit, PÄ, Leiden.

KITCHEN, K.A. 1973/96 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, Warminster, 1st ed., 1973; 2nd ed., 1986; revised 2nd ed., 1996. 2006

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology – an Abrégé, in: Egypt & Time, SCIEM 2000 Publication, E&L 16, 293–308.

KRUCHTEN, J.-M.

CAMINOS, R.A.

1989

1958

LEGRAIN, G.

The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, OrAn 37, Rome.

DAUTZENBERG, N. 1995

Bemerkungen zu Schoschenq II., Takeloth II. und Pedubastis II. GM 144, 21–29.

DODSON, A. 1993

A New King Shoshenq Confirmed?, GM 137, 53–58.

1896

Les Annales des prêtres de Karnak, OLA 32, Leuven. Textes gravés sur le quai de Karnak, ZÄS 34, 111–121.

REDFORD, D.B. 1986

New Light on Temple J at Karnak, Or 55, 1–15.

YOYOTTE, J. 1988

Des Lions et des Chats, RdE 39, 166–168.

THE RELEVANCE OF GENEALOGICAL INFORMATION FOR EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY By Karl Jansen-Winkeln

statues, in dynasties 25 and 26 there is a lot of genealogical information on coffins as well. By and large it may be said that long genealogies flourished from the 22nd to the 26th dynasty, reaching their climax in the Late Libyan Period. During that time, genealogical information was generally more detailed, and exceptionally long family trees are known mainly from that period as well. In the second half of the first millenium, genealogical indications become more scarce again, and in the Ptolemaic period only father and mother are mentioned in most cases.2

1. The simple fact that sources such as genealogical tables and family trees are used for the reconstruction of Egyptian chronology is quite revealing: our supply of chronological data is so limited that we are forced to use methods which can only deliver vague results. This is true for historical methods like genealogy as well as for scientific methods like radio carbon dating. The use of genealogical data only makes sense if chronological knowledge is rather imprecise due to the lack of other sources. On the other hand, the use of genealogical data is only possible if there is a sufficient supply of it. Many periods of Egyptian history have left few data which can be used for chronological calculations. The best known epochs are the 12th Dynasty and the New Kingdom, which provide comparatively good evidence from dated inscriptions and administrative documents. In the Late Period, chronology is firmly established with the accession of Taharka in 690. Other epochs are very little known in this respect, for example the Second Intermediate Period or in general the time before the Middle Kingdom. Given these circumstances, genealogical information can indeed be helpful in many cases, if there is an adequate supply of it. In the third and second millenium, however, Egyptian monuments and documents as a rule confine themselves to mentioning the name of the father or the mother of a given person;1 thus there is a lack of basic source material for genealogical studies throughout this broad time span. Genealogical source material becomes increasingly abundant in the period after the New Kingdom. Many texts mention not only the father and the mother, they often give us 3, 4 or 5 generations of ancestors, and even elaborate family trees occur, reaching back hundreds of years. For the 22. and 23. dynasties, the main sources are temple

2. For the first half of the first millenium, genealogical information is indeed a most welcome aid for chronological purposes, because this period is or was an especially weak point in Egyptian chronology. It is revealing, but not surprising, that this epoch has been a favourite target of chronological extremists who have attempted to revolutionize the chronology of Egypt and the Near East by eliminating a few centuries. There are in fact many reasons for the chronological weakness of this period: We have – apart from Manetho – no king-lists, no Sothic dates and few, if any, other astronomical data,3 and there are only few and partly controversial synchronisms.4 Dated royal inscriptions are rare, and there are only a few administrative documents: the allimportant source of Deir el-Medina has terminated. As a consequence, regnal years are sparse in the material handed down to us, and these dates are often anonymous, they do not mention the king to whom the dates refer. There is not a single ruler with a complete chain of dates, for most kings only a few dates are attested, and there are several kings with none at all. Thus the method of dead-reckoning is problematic for this time. Moreover, there are at times two or more parallel dynasties; the stela of

1

3

2

REDFORD 1970, 5; LEAHY 1985, 55; RITNER 1994, 219. JANSEN-WINKELN 2005.

4

The much disputed lunar eclipse in year 15 of Takeloth II will be treated again by Rolf Krauss. VON BECKERATH 1997, 61–62; 68–70.

258

Karl Jansen-Winkeln

Fig. 1 Pedigree Cairo CG 42188/89 (SAK 31, 2003, 222)

Pianchi mentions no less than five kings at the same time. A good example for the difficulties is the well-known controversy surrounding the chronological position of Takeloth II.5 It is still a matter of dispute whether he was the successor of Osorkon II and predecessor of Sheshonq III, or if he was a member of another dynasty, ruling in a different area. If the latter is true, we have to extend the reign of other rulers, and this itself is only possible because so few regnal dates of the rulers of this period are known to us. Between the pros and cons of the dispute, genealogical information plays a vital role as well.

– The second source consists of elaborate genealogical tables, which can be compiled from the surviving commemorative objects of several members of one family. Long pedigrees may seem suspect, if there is no confirmation from other sources, and they may be especially suspect when they go back to a famous person living centuries before. For example, it is well-known from european genealogies how many aristocratic families attempted to include Charlemagne as an ancestor. Now some examples of these long pedigrees:

– On some monuments there are long pedigrees of mostly paternal ancestors, partly going back to the New Kingdom. When at least one of these ancestors is known from other sources, one can try to calculate the distance in time.

– The genealogy on the statues Cairo CG 42188 and 421896 from the reign of Osorkon I (Fig. 1) ends with Ipui, son of Roma, a 2. prophet of Amun. This Roma is also the father of the Highpriest Bakenkhons, who was in office under Ramses II. Obviously, the genealogy contains no internal inconsistencies and the last ancestor was an important man in his time, but surely not a legendary person.

5

6

3. In general, we have two different kinds of genealogical information that can be used for chronological calculations:

BROEKMAN 2005, with earlier references.

JANSEN-WINKELN 2003.

Fig. 2 Table of ancestors Berlin 23673 (BORCHARDT 1935, Bl. 2)

The Relevance of Genealogical Information for Egyptian Chronology 259

260

Karl Jansen-Winkeln

– The relief Berlin 236737 from the time of Sheshonq V(?) (Fig. 2) shows the owner and 59 of his ancestors; in 27 cases, the name of the ruling pharaoh is added. This relief could well be the most important source for genealogical studies, and it surely contains a lot of valuable data. The ancestors of generation 8 to 13 (1,9-14), for example, are known from other sources. Unfortunately, there are some clear inconsistencies: we have only 2 generations between king Amenemnisut of the 21st dynasty and Ramses II; on the other hand, there are no less than 7 generations between Mentuhotep II. and Amenemhet I. Moreover, it is a priori very unlikely, that a family held an office for 60 generations or that it is even possible to trace a single family over such a long time. – The inscription on the block Berlin 2096 (Fig. 3)8 records the introduction of a Theban priest in year 3 of Tanutamun (662 B.C.); the new priest lists 16 generations of forefathers. 3 members of this pedigree are known from the Neseramun-family,9 who lived at the end of the New Kingdom. – The pedigree of the architect Khnumibre in the Wadi Hammamat10 (Fig. 4) from year 26 of Darius I mentions 22 ancestors. Beginning with a forefather 6 generations earlier, each of them was architect and vizier, in all 18 generations, ending with the well-known Rahotep, who was vizier under Ramses II. Apart from Rahotep, not a single one of these viziers is known from other sources, and there are some other inconsistencies as well.11 Nevertheless, 7 generations later than Rahotep, probably during the 21st dynasty, we can locate an ancestor, a 2., 3. and 4. prophet of Amun by the name of Jmn-Hr-pA-mSa. He is otherwise unknown, but the acculumation of offices and the type of name clearly point to the 21st dynasty. On the whole, the reliability of these long pedigrees can often be called into question. However, as L. Borchardt pointed out,12 this does not definitely exclude their use for chronological purposes. For example, it is indeed unlikely, that

7 8 9 10

BORCHARDT 1935, 96–112; Bl. 2/2a. VITTMANN 2001, 357–362; 369; Taf. 21. KITCHEN 1996, 202. POSENER 1936, 98–105.

Fig. 3 Pedigree Berlin 2096 (SAK 29, 2001, 363)

all the ancestors of Khnumibre were architects and viziers, but this is irrelevant for chronology. All that matters is, whether Khnumibre’s information about egyptian history and chronology is sufficient enough to give a pedigree that does not contradict history and chronology. For example,

11

12

POSENER 1936, 104 (n); the sequence of no less than eight persons with the names Nesshutefnut and Tjaenhebu is likewise suspicious. BORCHARDT 1935, 95–96; 105.

The Relevance of Genealogical Information for Egyptian Chronology 261

Fig. 4 Pedigree Wadi Hammamat 92/93 (cf. POSENER 1936, 98 105)

Fig. 5 Family of Montemhat (KITCHEN 1996, 231; reproduced by permission of Aris & Phillips, Oxbow Books)

262

Karl Jansen-Winkeln

The Relevance of Genealogical Information for Egyptian Chronology 263

was the autor’s information about the temporal distance to Rahotep correct? The question of whether Rahotep was really his ancestor need not concern us. The same is true for all other sources of this kind. Even if they exaggerate the importance of their family in former times, the crucial point is whether they succeeded in drawing up a genealogy that is historically and chronologically consistent and at least possible. I think we can be sure that they tried to do so, because an obviously wrong pedigree was useless. We learn from pRylands 9, that there were fierce fights about positions and benefices among the priests.13 A long pedigree of office-holders was a good argument, an inconsistent one surely not.

dynasty and the Nubian period is more doubtful and controversial. One of the key-figures is the vizier Nakhtefmut. His offspring is mentioned in various sources, but with different mothers.17 Thus there may have been several viziers named Nakhtefmut, or only one with several wives.18 The question of whether or not persons of similar names, titles and time periods are identical frequently causes difficulties in the compilation of genealogical tables. Nevertheless, today most colleagues agree that there was only one vizier Nakhtefmut, and it seems, that the late dating of the Besenmut-family is likewise no longer a matter of dispute. To sum up, some of the long pedigrees of a single person give us a genealogical bridge from the Third Intermediate or even the Late Period to the New Kingdom, but it is a bridge whose reliability is open to doubt. The genealogical tables of whole families, on the other hand, are better verifiable, but certain crucial points may nonetheless be controversial.

4. An example for a genealogical table compiled from various sources is the family of the Theban mayor Montemhat, who held his office under Taharka and Psametik I. (Fig. 5).14 Most of this data stems from coffin inscriptions. No doubt, such a compilation is more reliable than a pedigree of 10 or 20 generations. In general, the relevant sources give only 2, 3 or 4 generations of ancestors, errors or an intention to deceive are rather unlikely. Moreover, a lot of data has been confirmed by several sources. The Neseramun-family (Fig. 6)15 is known mainly from statues. Indeed, it is a compilation of the data of two long pedigrees on Cairo CG 42224 and 42221 with several other sources, and all these sources agree quite well with each other. Both genealogical tables are excerpts. In fact, practically all the higher Theban priests and officials in the later periods are at least remotely related, all those genealogical tables are connected. For the families of the Third Intermediate, the Nubian and early Saite period, the material is extensive, and a lot of data is confirmed by different sources. But there are bottle necks for the 21st dynasty and for the passage from the late 22nd dynasty to the Nubian period. The genealogical bridge between the New Kingdom and the 22nd dynasty is the family of the Highpriests of Amun, the rulers of Upper Egypt.16 Fortunately, the members of this family and their succession are well-known. The connection between the 22nd

5. Genealogical information can be an important aid in the chronological arrangement of kings or officials, if their succession is otherwise unknown. Kitchen’s book on the Third Intermediate Period19 shows how important the genealogies of Theban and Memphite officials can be in this respect. Another example is Yoyotte’s identification of king Osochor with the help of two genealogies of the Late Third Intermediate Period.20 Still, genealogies are more important for the dating of monuments. The ruling king is only rarely mentioned after the New Kingdom, and dating by style and iconographic details is still in its infancy in many areas, the dating of statues is especially difficult. But now for chronology proper. If we try to ascertain the temporal distance between two persons by means of a genealogy, we have to count the number of generations. This procedure is not without problems. We almost never know the exact year of birth and of death, nor the age at death. The bulk of genealogical information stems from monuments erected or dedicated after the death of their owners. As a consequence,

13

17

14 15 16

VITTMANN 1998, passim. KITCHEN 1996, 231. KITCHEN 1996, 202. BIERBRIER 1975, 45–50.

18 19 20

BIERBRIER 1975, 86–91. BIERBRIER 1975, 88–90, charts XIX–XXI. KITCHEN 1996, especially part three. YOYOTTE 1976–77; Cf. KITCHEN 1996, 534-5.

264

Karl Jansen-Winkeln

Fig. 6 Family of Neseramun (KITCHEN 1996, 202; reproduced by permission of Aris & Phillips, Oxbow Books)

the monuments of one (genealogical) generation may be widely apart in time, depending on when their owners died. Another element of uncertainty is the date of a posthumous dedication. It is generally assumed that monuments like temple statues were made a short time after the death of their owners, but this is not certain in every single case. A good example for some of theses problems is the Neseramun family (Fig. 7).

21

Neseramun V dedicated the statue CG 42224 to his father Djedbastetefankh, and Djedbastetefankh himself and his elder brother Neseramun VI dedicated CG 42222 and 42223 to their father Hor (VI). CG 42223 and 42224 bear the cartouches of Osorkon III. Because Osorkon reigned for at least 28 years, CG 42223 was probably erected in the beginning of his reign,21 CG 42224 towards the end, both being about a generation

Another, yet unpublished, statue of Neseramun VI himself (Kairo TN 20/2/25/2) is dated by the cartouches of Osorkon (III) and Takeloth (III). It was probably erected shortly after his death.

The Relevance of Genealogical Information for Egyptian Chronology 265

Fig. 7 Family of Neseramun, descendants of Hor V and Hor IX

apart from each other. But there is a complication: Nebneteru (IV), the father-in-law of Hor VI, dedicated a statue to his father Hor (IX),22 and Nebneteru himself is the owner of a vase now in the Louvre.23 Both objects are dated by the cartouches of Osorkon III. In other words, monuments of no less than 4 generations were erected during the reign of Osorkon III, which was hardly longer than 30 years. This shows how misleading the simple counting of generations can be. The genealogical table of this family (Fig. 6) contains another irregularity: The 3rd prophet of Amun DjedThotefankh married a daughter of Sheshonq I,24 but the statue of his son, a vizier, is dated by the name of Sheshonq III,25 giving a gap of far more than two generations. As Kitchen and Bierbrier have shown,26 this is nonetheless possible, there is no need to “emend” our evidence. But it demonstrates again the inherent problems of genealogical counting. The question of whether or not the objects of a genealogical generation are different in time can to a certain extent be solved by archaeological data: this is the subject of D. Aston’s paper.27 Anyone who tries to make a rough chronological calculation by counting generations with the help of long pedigrees

6. However, the actual crux of any calculation of this kind is the average length of a generation. A reliable statistic calculation for a short period is not possible unless we have an ample supply of data like that available for the demography in modern states. In historical and genealogical studies of the Middle Ages and modern times, which deal with longer periods, a generation is estimated at about 30 years28 or a third of a century;29 note the approximate figures. In these studies, the basis for such calculations is the use of a sufficient number of genealogical tables. Such tables have been collected in large numbers for the late Middle Ages down to modern times, with exact dates of birth and death for each person.30 This is indeed a base for calculating an average. For Ancient Egypt, we lack any such basis. As I tried to demonstrate, we have a small amount of long pedigrees and we can put together genealogical tables for a few families from Thebes, but this is a scanty base for a reliable calculation, all the more so since the most important detail is lacking throughout: the dates of birth.

22

27

23 24

25 26

Block statue Berlin 17272, ROEDER 1924, 73–75. Louvre D 34, LEGRAIN 1908, 171–172 (Doc.18). Block statue Cairo CG 42221, e, 5–8, JANSEN-WINKELN 1985, 539. Block statue Cairo CG 42232, ibid., 556 KITCHEN 1996, 205-209; BIERBRIER 1975, 64–66.

and genealogical tables should be aware of these difficulties.

28 29 30

“Why Texts Alone are Not Enough: Chronology in the Third Intermediate Period”, not published. VON BRANDT 1983, 41 („rund 30 Jahre“). DE BATTAGLIA 1948, 29 („ein Dritteljahrhundert“); 117. Ibid., passim.

266

Karl Jansen-Winkeln

In the 19th century, Egyptologists estimated a generation at 30–35 years, as is usual in historical studies elsewhere.31 In 1935, L. Borchardt had a critical look at the problem, and he rightly pointed out how insufficient our data is for any reliable calculation of an average.32 In this connection he published the now famous genealogy of a family of Memphite priests Berlin 2367333 (Fig. 2), whereby he calculated the median length of a generation on that very monument at 22,8 years. His final conclusions34 were somewhat contradictory: On the one hand, he stated that the average length of a generation of the upper classes in Egypt could only be little shorter than that of Europe. On the other hand he thought that the average of 22,8 for the Berlin Genealogy was not so wide off the mark. For the sake of convenience, one could calculate 4 generations in a century, that is 25 years, but he conceded that even this was a very low estimation. So he considered 25 years as the lower limit for the length of a generation. His statements were on the whole rather cautious and his so far unusual low figure of (at least) 25 years was supported only by the Berlin Genealogy. This single family would in fact have had an average of 22,8 years, but it goes without saying that this genealogical compilation of 60 generations is the least trustworthy of all we possess, and, as stated above, in some parts is definitely wrong. In spite of this, Borchardt’s 22,8 years seem to have been very influential. The first major work to deal at length with the priestly families of the early first millenium was Hermann Kees’ “Das Priestertum im ägyptischen Staat vom Neuen Reich bis zur Spätzeit”, published in 1953. Kees estimates the length of a generation at 20–25 years, without further explanation.35 Five years later, H. de Meulenaere mentions that 25 years presents the highest possible figure for a generation, with reference to Kees36. K. Kitchen, in his study on the Third Intermediate Period, calculates with an average of 20 years, but allows for a margin of 5 years.37

In 1975, 40 years after Borchardt’s study, M. Bierbrier published “a chronological and genealogical investigation” on “The Late New Kingdom in Egypt”. At the very beginning he states “a generation will be assumed for the purpose of calculation to be twenty years although this study may in fact show it to be nearer to twenty-five years”.38 This figure, 25 years, is arrived at in the following way:39 The chief worker at Deir el-Medineh, Kaha I, was a younger contemporary of Ramses II. His descendants are well-known in continous succession down to Ramses XI. at the end of the New Kingdom:40 a distance of 6 generations. Moreover, there is a connection between his family and the scribes of the necropolis:41 Taweretemheb, the sister of Anherkhawi II, married the scribe Amennakht (X), and a great-grandson of Amennakht, the famous scribe Thutmose, was a close contemporary of the High Priest Piankh. Thus we have a link to the family of High Priests of the 21st Dynasty, which can be traced down to Osorkon I (6 generations distant from Piankh). The royal family of the 22nd dynasty is best known from the stela of Pasenhor42 (Fig. 8), dedicated in year 37 of Sheshonq V, near the end of his reign. In my calculation we have a distance of 20 generations between Kaha and the end of the reign of Sheshonq V (6 + 6 + 8 generations from Osorkon I down to Pasenhor B). Bierbrier, on his part, counts 20 to 21. Then, he adds one generation that covers the reigns of Piankhy, Osorkon IV, and Tefnakht, and another three generations covering dynasty 25 until 664 B.C.43 However, these three generations cannot be determined with the help of genealogical tables because we have no pedigrees with a link to Sheshonq V. And if we consider the royal family of the 25th dynasty, 3 generations between Piankhy and the end of the dynasty may be too many: King Taharka, the son of Piankhy, reigned until 664. Nevertheless, Bierbrier arrived at 24–25 generations. Now, if we calculate a generation at 20 years, we have to add 480–500 years to the starting

31

37

32 33 34 35 36

E.g. HAIGH 1869, 43–44; LIEBLEIN 1869, 121-122, WIEDEMANN (1890, 505), on the other hand, argued for a much shorter generation of just 26 years. BORCHARDT 1935, 94–95. Ibid., 96–112; Bl.2/2a. Ibid., 111–112. KEES 1953, 280. CdE 33, 195.

38 39 40 41 42

43

KITCHEN 1996, 79. BIERBRIER 1975, XVI. Ibid., 112–113. Ibid., 36–39; chart IX. Ibid., 39–41; chart X. Louvre SIM 2846, MALININE, POSENER, and VERCOUTTER 1968, 30–31; pl.10 (31); KITCHEN 1996, 488. BIERBRIER 1975, 112.

The Relevance of Genealogical Information for Egyptian Chronology 267

Fig. 8 Pedigree of Pasenhor (KITCHEN 1996, 488; reproduced by permission of Aris & Phillips, Oxbow Books)

point 664; this would add up to 1144–1164 for Ramses II, much to low for conventional chronology. Calculated at 25 years, we arrive at 1264–1289; this would fit well. But Bierbrier drew a further conclusion: His results are compatible with an astronomically calculated accession date of Ramses II in 1279 or 1290. To arrive at 1304, it would be necessary to increase the time span of the average generation or to increase the total number of generations. The latter solution, he thinks, is not possible (and I can only agree, it is already too high). Thus, he concludes: “Since the number of generations should not be increased and any increase of the time span of each generation over 25 years is suspect, the generation analysis of the

44

HENIGE 1981.

period from the accession of Ramses II to 664 B.C. tends to weaken the argument in favour of 1304 B.C. as the accession date of Ramses II. Weak points in his line of argument have been pointed out long ago by David Henige.44 Bierbrier’s calculation is based on a combination of a few excerpts of genealogical tables. These excerpts may contain all sorts of deviations from the average. Just one accidental succession of necropolis scribes, Highpriests and kings cannot be the basis for calculating the average length of a generation. Moreover, he does not even attempt to explain why a generation length of more than 25 years should be “suspect”. This alleged upper limit is a pure assertion without any justification.

268

Karl Jansen-Winkeln

7. Now, is there any possibility to arrive at a reasonably realistic average? On the one hand, one can try to determine whether the length of a generation in Ancient Egypt was shorter or rather longer than in Western societies. For example, was the average male age at first marriage lower or higher than in Western societies? Borchardt thought that the Egyptians, male as well as female, were capable of reproduction earlier than Europeans, and therefore the first-born child arrived earlier than in Europe48. This may be so, but it is only an assumption, there is no data whatsoever to support his opinion. A priori, a great statistical deviation from the average length of 30–33 years for a generation in the Middle ages and modern history is very suspi-

cious, and a 5–8 year difference or even more would be a huge deviation in statistics. Herodotus actually informs us (II,142) that 3 generations make up a century in Egypt,49 and that is the same value observed elsewhere in history. It would be important to know the average age of a male when he first married. In Ancient Greece it seems to have been at about 30 years.50 For Ancient Rome, the inscriptions point to a much younger age of about 23–24 years.51 There is no such data for Pharaonic Egypt, but for Roman Egypt, we have the so-called census declarations, with detailed information about more than a thousand people. In their study on the demography of Roman Egypt, Bagnall and Frier conclude that “the median male age at first marriage may in fact be slightly later than 25 years.”52 In modern demography, the length of a generation has been defined “to be equal to the average male age at marriage, plus one year before child-bearing begins, plus half the average number of years during which fecundity lasts.”53 According to this calculation, an age at first marriage of 25 years or more would lead to a length of generation distinctly higher than 30 years. But perhaps we should not apply this calculation to our data without reservation: Most genealogies we have are from sons who inherited their fathers’ main office; as a rule, they should be the eldest surviving sons. On the other hand, all these people were members of the upper classes, wealthy and in good positions. Thus, even men in advanced age could be attractive candidates for marriage, and indeed we know that some key-figures of great families fathered children in advanced age.54 One or two such cases can considerably increase the average length of generation in a pedigree. On balance, general considerations seem to favour an average length of generation of about 30 years rather than 25 years in Ancient Egypt. In my opinion, all figures lower than 25 years are out of the question. Further evidence might come from Herodotus, who reckons three generations to a century, and also

45

49

Incidentally, in my calculation I count only 22 generations instead of 24–25 (20 down to Sheshonq V, as shown, and 2 for the 25th dynasty). This would amount to a median length of generation of 28 years for a generation in this case. But, as stated above, such an accidental addition of genealogical pieces is certainly not a sound base for general conclusions. In spite of these shortcomings, Bierbrier’s calculation has been almost universally accepted, his 25 years are now regarded as the median length or even the upper limit for a generation by most egyptologists.45 Kitchen, in a study on the king list of Ugarit, went even further and postulated 22 years, not only for Egypt, but for the whole Near East: “A generation in the ancient Near East can be about 22 years, 20 years is too short, and 25 years is too long.”46 As proof for this rather apodictic statement he refers to Bierbrier’s study. Von Beckerath is even more exact and estimates the average length of a generation at 22.5 years.47 It is remarkable that modern historical science, which commands a huge mass of detailed and reliable sources, still does not even attempt to give such exact dates. Nor does modern demography: both are usually content to give rough figures such as 30–33 or 35 years.

46 47

48

BOTHMER 1981, 80, even assumes „a generation span of about twenty years“. KITCHEN 1977, 136. VON BECKERATH 1997, 29 („der Generationendurchschnitt ist in Ägypten ... mit etwa 22,5 Jahren zu veranschlagen“). BORCHARDT 1935, 111.

50 51 52 53 54

Cf. the discussion by LLOYD 1975, 176ff. WIESEHÖFER 1998, 256–258. Loc. cit. BAGNALL AND FRIER 1994, 116. JACOBS 2005, 1. Cf. KITCHEN 1996, 208–209; BIERBRIER 1975, 3.

The Relevance of Genealogical Information for Egyptian Chronology 269

duration of 9 generations. This would yield an average of 34,44 years for this family, in no way unrealistic, as I now see it.

from the Egyptian Sed-festival. Its 30 years may indeed reflect the conception of the length of a generation.55 8. Apart from these general considerations, we can try to compare Egyptian genealogies with traditional chronology; this procedure may give us some concrete figures. But one should always bear in mind that the average length of a generation within a single pedigree is not the average for the whole country or period. In fact, it may be very different from the general average. As an example, I could use my own family: I was born in 1955. If we calculate the average length of generation at 30 years, my father should have been born in 1925, my grandfather in 1895 and my great-grandfather in 1865. In fact, my father was born in 1908, my grandfather in 1873, and my great-grandfather in 1815. Thus, after 3 generations, we have a difference from the average of no less than 50 years. Now let us examine some egyptian examples.

– The pedigree of Khnumibre59 (Fig. 4) is dated to 496 B.C. Khnumibre himself is attested with high titles already in 526 under Amasis, but still together with his father.60 A year of birth around 550 should be realistic. The oldest member of this pedigree, 22 generations earlier, is the vizier and architect Rahotep, wellknown from the time of Ramses II.61 Another prominent ancestor could be the architect Horemsaf 12 generations earlier, who is known from year 21 of Sheshonq I.62 If we calculate a generation at 30 years, Rahotep was born in 1210, and his floruit was about 1170, for Horemsaf we get 910 and 870. These figures are clearly too late. If we reckon with 34 years, we will get 1298 and 1258 for Rahotep, and 958 and 918 for Horemsaf. This would fit very well. For Amunherpamesha,63 not attested in his times, we would get 1060 and a floruit at about 1020, also a reasonable time.

– On the statues Cairo CG 42188/89 from the reign of Osorkon I (Fig. 1) we find a long genealogy.56 The last but one ancestor, Ipui, was in office under Merenptah. His father, the second prophet of Amun Roma, was also the father of the High-Priest Bakenkhons, and the career of Bakenkhons is well-known:57 He served in the stables of Sethos I for eleven years and as a priest for seventy years. Thus he should have been born during the reign of Haremhab, and Ipui must be a younger son. If he was in office under Merenptah and his brother was born under Haremhab, he could have been born in the first decade of Ramses II. Because of the alleged average of 25 years for a generation it has been supposed (and I did so myself)58 that this genealogy is wrong, too short. But if we assume that both statues were dedicated in the beginning of Osorkon’s reign, about 920, the dedicator could have been born about 965. If Ipui was born around 1275, we have a difference of 310 years, and a

– On a block statue from Dendera,67 a priest Basa lists 25 generations of forefathers. The 19th ancestor is the well-known Nebwenenef, who was appointed Highpriest of Amun in the first year of Ramses II.68 Unfortunately, the

55

62

56 57 58 59 60 61

MARTIN 1984, 784; 788–789, n.33. JANSEN-WINKELN 2003, 222. JANSEN-WINKELN 1993, 221–225. JANSEN-WINKELN 2003, 222–223. POSENER 1936, 98–105. Ibid., 88–91. KITCHEN 1980, 52–67; ALTENMÜLLER 1975.

– In the genealogy Berlin 209664 (Fig. 3), the author is introduced as jt-nTr-priest in the third year of Tanutamun, that is 662 B.C. Because jtnTr is a rather low rank, he should have been still a young man; he may have been born between 680 and 690, let’s say 685. The ancestors third to fifth from last are probably known from the Neseramun-family.65 Nespaneferhor, a great-grandson of Amenmose (Fig. 6), was introduced as priest in year 2 of Osochor (about 980), his father in year 17 of Siamun (about 960)66. If they were born about 1000 and 980, we can calculate 315 years for the 9 generations from Padichons to Nespaneferhor, an average of 35 years.

63 64 65 66 67 68

CAMINOS 1952, 51; 56; pl.XIII. Cf. above, § 3. VITTMANN 2001, 357–362; 369. Ibid., 362 (v). KITCHEN 1996, 202–204 RITNER 1994. SETHE 1907; KITCHEN 1980, 282–285.

Fig. 9 Family of Nakhtefmut A (KITCHEN 1996, 220; reproduced by permission of Aris & Phillips, Oxbow Books)

270

Karl Jansen-Winkeln

The Relevance of Genealogical Information for Egyptian Chronology 271

statue itself is difficult to date. The editor assigned it to the late 22nd dynasty, when extensive pedigrees were especially popular. The owner Basa held many titles, so he should have been advanced in years. A year of birth around 800 would not be improbable. Nebwenenef was introduced in year 1 of Ramses II and died about year 12, a year of birth around 1330 might be realistic. Thus we have 19 generations in 530 years, an average of circa 28 years. But on this statue, the name of Osiris is repeatedly written in a form characteristic for the period following the 22nd dynasty.69 Thus a year of birth around 750 might be more appropriate. This would result in an average of about 30.5 years.70

guesswork. The different results are in no way contradictory or even astonishing, but they can teach us that it is not reasonable to take one single genealogy as a base for general conclusions. Nevertheless, these examples as well as general considerations suggest that the average length of a generation in Ancient Egypt might be nearer to 30 years than to 25 years.

Of course, we should not put to much emphasis on these examples, the calculations contain much

9. Genealogical information should be used for chronological purposes only if there are no better sources. It may be a useful aid to determine whether a person lived earlier or later than another, it can give hints as to whether a chronological reconstruction is more probable than another one. Long pedigrees and genealogical tables with at least two members fixed in time can be used for a rough chronological estimation by counting the generations – but, of course, the whole operation reveals something of a circular argument, if we determine the average length of a generation with the help of the established chronology. Nevertheless, I think it is quite probable that this average is not drastically different from other pre-modern societies. But the material at our disposal and the necessary vagueness of calculation (without exact dates) only allows a rough estimation. A person many generations apart can only be fixed by a margin of some decades. This is enough to refute the conclusions of chronological extremists and to confirm conventional chronology in a very general way. But it cannot help to solve specific chronological problems such as the choice between the astronomically calculated accession dates possible for Ramses II. Thus genealogical information can help us in chronological questions, but only to a very limited extent.

69

71

– The author of the Pasenhor genealogy71 (Fig. 8) is attested with modest titles in year 37 of Sheshonq V, about 740; he may have been born in 770. Sheshonq I is 9 generations apart, he became king in 945 or a little later, and reigned for at least 21 years. He may have been born around 990. We thus find 9 generations in 220 years or an average of 24.4 years. It should be noted that this is a pedigree with a continous succession of father and eldest son. – The statue Cairo CG 4221172 was dedicated during the coregency of Osorkon III and Takeloth III, probably around 770. Being a 4th prophet of Amun, the dedicator Nakhtefmut B cannot be a very young man, perhaps he was 40 and born in 810. Thus we get 180 years to 6 generations up to Sheshonq I (the grandfather of the wife of his great-great-grandfather, Fig. 9), an average of 30 years, if Sheshonq was born in 990.

70

Cf. LEAHY 1979. Recently I. Guermeur has proposed dating this statue to the end of the 25th dynasty or the beginning of the Saite periode (GEURMEUR 2005, 353). This would yield a date of birth of around 700 and an average generation length of 33,2 years.

72

MALININE, POSENER, and VERCOUTTER 1968, 30–31; pl. 10 (31); KITCHEN 1996, 488. LEGRAIN 1914, 28–32; pl. XX; JANSEN-WINKELN 1985, 83–99; 470–481; Taf. 18–21.

272

Karl Jansen-Winkeln

Bibliography ALTENMÜLLER, H. 1975

Zur Frage der Vergöttlichung des Vezirs (Pa-) Rahotep, JEA 61, 154–60.

BAGNALL, R.S. and FRIER, B.W. 1994 DE

2005

The Demography of Roman Egypt, Cambridge.

KEES, H. 1953

BATTAGLIA, O.F.

1948

Wissenschaftliche Genealogie. Eine Einführung in die Grundprobleme, Bern.

BECKERATH, J. VON 1997

Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten, MÄS 46, Mainz

The Late New Kingdom in Egypt (c. 1300 ~ 664 B.C.), Warminster.

BORCHARDT, L. 1935

Die Mittel zur zeitlichen Festlegung von Punkten der ägyptischen Geschichte, Kairo.

BOTHMER, B.V. 1981

The Block Statue of Ankh-Khonsou in Boston and Cairo, MDAIK 37, 75–83.

BRANDT, A. VON 1983

Werkzeug des Historikers. Eine Einführung in die historischen Hilfswissenschaften, 10. Auflage, Stuttgart.

BROEKMAN, G. 2005

The reign of Takeloth II, a controversial matter, GM 205, 21–35.

1977

The King List of Ugarit, Ugaritforschungen 9, 131–142.

1980

Ramesside Inscriptions, Historical and Biographical, III, Oxford.

1996

The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC), 3rd edition, Aris & Phillips 1972, reprinted 1986 and 1996.

LEAHY, A. 1979

The Name of Osiris written

1985

The Libyan Period in Egypt: an Essay in Interpretation, Libyan Studies 16, 51–65.

Gebel es-Silsilah No.100, JEA 38, 46–61.

1908

Le dossier de la famille Nibnoutirou, RecTrav 30, 160–174.

LIEBLEIN, J. 1869

Aegyptische Genealogien, ZÄS 7, 121–129.

LLOYD, A.B. 1975

Herodotus, Book II. Introduction, Etudes Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l’Empire Romain, 43, Leiden.

MALININE, M., POSENER, G., and VERCOUTTER, J.

GUERMEUR, I.

1968

2005

MARTIN, K.

Les cultes d’Amon hors de Thèbes, Turnhout.

HAIGH, D.H. 1879

1981

Generation-counting and late New Kingdom chronology, JEA 67, 182–184.

JACOBS, J. (ed.) 2005

1984

www.JewishEncyclopedia.com, s.v. “Generation, length of”.

JANSEN-WINKELN, K. 1985

Ägyptische Biographien der 22. und 23. Dynastie, ÄUAT 8, Wiesbaden.

1993

The Career of the Egyptian High Priest Bakenkhons, JNES 52, 221–225.

2003

Zu einer Genealogie aus der frühen 22. Dynastie, SAK 31, 211–123.

Catalogue des stèles du Sérapéum de Memphis, Paris.

Sedfest, in, 782–790: W. HELCK, and W. WESTEN(eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5, Wiesbaden.

DORF

Egyptian Genealogies, ZÄS 7, 43–47.

HENIGE, D.

, SAK 7, 141–153.

LEGRAIN, G.

CAMINOS, R.A. 1952

Das Priestertum im ägyptischen Staat vom Neuen Reich bis zur Spätzeit, Probleme der Ägyptologie 1, Leiden.

KITCHEN, K.A.

BIERBRIER, M.L. 1975

Die Entwicklung der genealogischen Informationen nach dem Neuen Reich, 137–145, in: M. FITZENREITER (ed.), Genealogie – Realität und Fiktion von Identität, IBAES 5.

DE

MEULENAERE, H.

1958

Trois Vizirs, CdE 33, 194–201.

POSENER, G. 1936

La première domination perse en Egypte, BdE 11, Kairo.

REDFORD, D.B. 1970

A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 20, Leiden.

RITNER, R.K. 1994

Denderite Temple Hierarchy and the Family of Theban High Priest Nebwenenef: Block Statue OIM 10729, 205–226, in: D.P. SILVERMAN (ed.), For his Ka, Essays Offered in Memory of Klaus Baer, SAOC 55, Chicago.

The Relevance of Genealogical Information for Egyptian Chronology 273

ROEDER, G.

WIEDEMANN, A.

1924

1890

Ägyptische Inschriften aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin, II, Leipzig.

Herodots zweites Buch mit sachlichen Erläuterungen, Leipzig

SETHE, K.

WIESEHÖFER, J.

1907

1998

Die Berufung eines Hohenpriesters des Amon unter Ramses II., ZÄS 44, 30–35; Taf. I–III.

VITTMANN, G. 1998

Der demotische Papyrus Rylands 9, ÄUAT 38, Wiesbaden.

2001

Zwei Priestereinführungsinschriften der 25. Dynastie aus Luxor (Berlin 2096 und 2097), SAK 29, 357–370, Taf. 21–22.

Heiratsalter, in: H. CANCIK, H. SCHNEIDER, and M. LANDFESTER (eds.), Der Neue Pauly, Enzyklopädie der Antike; Bd.5, 256–258.

YOYOTTE, J. 1976–77 Osorkon, fils de Mehytouskhé, un pharaon oublié?, BSFE 77–78, 39–54.

DIVIDED KINGDOM, CO-REGENCY, OR SOLE RULE IN THE KINGDOM(S) OF EGYPT-AND-KUSH?* By Dan’el Kahn**

Recently G. Frame republished a rock inscription and relief of Sargon II, King of Assyria1 discovered in the Tang-i Var Pass in Iran and originally published in Farsí in 1968.2 The text mentions the rebellion of Iamani, king of Ashdod, against Sargon II, King of Assyria (722–705 B.C.) in the year 712 B.C. and his flight to the king of Kush. According to the inscription, king Shebitku (=Shabatka) extradited Iamani to Sargon. The inscription can be dated quite certainly to 706 B.C., not long before the death in battle of Sargon II in the summer of 705 B.C.3 Thus, the Tang-i Var inscription indicates that Shebitku was already king of Kush in 706 B.C. This new date is at least four years earlier than has generally been thought. Frame continued and claimed that this is a “piece of information which will require Egyptologists to revise their current chronology for Egypt’s twenty-fifth Dynasty”, and added: “This would raise difficulties for the current Egyptian chronology”.4 Frame’s article was supplemented with a brief article by Redford. He considered the idea of shifting the dates of the 25th dynasty and fixing the accession of Shabaka to ca. 720 B.C., and concluded that “this presents a major difficulty. For the decade preceding 713/12 B.C. the Assyrians

*

** 1

2 3

4 5

6

7

I would like to thank Prof. Dr. K. Zibelius-Chen for reading my article and suggesting useful comments. All errors are, however, my responsibility. University of Haifa G. FRAME, The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var, Or 68 (1999) 31–57. FRAME, Or 68, 33, n. 2–5. H. TADMOR, The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological– Historical Study, JCS 12 (1958) 97. On the 12th of the month Abu Sennacherib ascended the throne. FRAME, Or 68, 52, 54. D.B. REDFORD, A note on the Chronology of Dynasty 25 and the Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var, Or 68 (1999) 58–60. B.U. SCHIPPER, Israel und Ägypten in der Königszeit: Die Kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall Jerusalems, OBO 170, Freiburg Schweiz and Göttingen 1999, 201–2. R.G. MORKOT, The Black Pharaohs: Egypt’s Nubian Rulers,

and the biblical records contain several allusions to Egyptian rulers but none of them can be interpreted as allusions to a Kushite king ruling over Egypt.” Redford then considered two additional possible solutions. One was to resuscitate the old theory of a “coregency” between Shabaka and Shebitku. Without giving a reason, this idea was rejected by him. The second solution that Redford proposed was a “‘bifurcation in the government’ of the vast domain of the Kingdom of Egypt-and-Kush. Shabaka had … realized the need to separate off the administration of the Kushite heartland; and he assigned to his nephew Shebitku, complete with the trappings of kingship (in Kush).” Redford maintained his earlier proposed chronology.5 It seems that the works of Schipper,6 Morkot7 and Younger8 added the information of the Tangi Var Inscription just before the publication of their work but did not really consider the historical implications of this text. Kitchen suggested “not (to) entail any change in the Best Egyptian chronology whatsoever…” (i.e. his proposed chronology [D.K.]). According to Kitchen, Shabaka ascended the throne in Kush in 717 B.C. and ruled for 15 years until 702 B.C.9

8

9

London 2000, 224 ff., 319 n. 6. Morkot seems to prefer the lower chronology and date Shebitku’s accession as sole ruler after 701 B.C. As for the impact of the Tang-i Var inscription, Morkot laconically notes: “The recently published inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var indicates that Shebitqo was ruling Kush before 706 B.C., while Shabaqo was in Egypt. He may have become co-regent in the last years of Shabaqo’s reign, although there is no clear evidence to support the idea.” K.L. YOUNGER, “Assyrian Involvement in the Southern Levant at the End of the Eighth Century B.C.E.”, in: A.G. VAUGHN and E. KILLEBREW (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, Atlanta 2003, 244. K.A. KITCHEN, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100– 650 BC.), 2nd rev. ed., Warminster, 1996, 383 (henceforth ThIP). He does not dismiss, however, the possibility that Shabaka ascended the throne of Kush in 713 B.C. and reigned until 699. K.A. KITCHEN, ThIP, 552–559.

276

Dan’el Kahn

He explained that “Sargon II is merely using the Akkadian term sharru (in this text written with the logogram MAN) not in the precise meaning of ‘king’=monarch, but with the wider (not to say sloppy, inexact) meaning of ‘ruler’ – just as Ashurbanipal did later in enumerating the variety of Delta Dynasts, almost none of whom were actually ‘kings’ in local Egyptian terms, but simply chiefs of the Ma, city governors, etc. In this case Shebitku in 706 is simply Shabako’s de facto viceroy for Nubia… firm evidence is totally lacking at this point. In this case our chronology does not change by a second (let alone 4 years), but we do see that there was a practical division of top administration between the Nubian Pharaoh in Memphis and Egypt and his deputy in Napata and Nubia as foreseen by Dr. Redford (Redford 1999, 60).” 10 Von Beckerath suggests the same solution and also maintains his earlier proposed chronology.11 Hoffmeier also addressed the issue of Shebitku’s mention in the Tang-i Var inscription.12 Basically, he accepts Kitchen’s chronology.13 Hoffmeier notes that a coregency between Shabaka and Shebitku as discussed by Murnane and Yurco was not widely accepted as can be surmised from his proposed date for the accession of Shebitku to 702 B.C. Initially, he rejected a coregency between the two kings. However, now that the Tang-i Var inscription mentions Shebitku as king of Meluhha (Kush) in 706, he accepts a coregency between Shabaka and Shebitku, although he probably meant that Shabaka and Shebitku split the vast territory of Egypt and Kush between them (as Redford suggested).14 He then maintains that the mention of Shebitku as king of Meluhha could be explained according to the

Egyptian New Kingdom practice of appointing a sA nsw n KS “son of the King of Kush”, translated as “Viceroy of Kush”. Shebitku, thus, controlled Nubia, while Shabaka controlled Egypt. He notes that Shebitku is neither called Pharaoh, nor king of Egypt, but only “šar Meluhha” – “King of Kush”. According to Hoffmeier, Shebitku continued this practice and appointed Taharqa as “Viceroy” in Kush in 701 B.C.15 In a recent article, I suggested that Shebitku ascended the throne of Egypt and Kush as sole ruler in late 707 or early 706 B.C. I tried to show that Shebitku could not have been a coregent of Shabaka, nor that they divided the kingdom between them.16 Zibelius-Chen adopted the theory that Shebitku ascended the throne as sole ruler in 707 B.C. She noted, rightly, that there is no evidence of a divided monarchy in the reigns of Piankhy and Taharqa even though they ruled the whole territory of Egypt and Kush as well. Furthermore, according to Zibelius-Chen, it would also be astonishing that the Assyrians mentioned the extradition of Iamani by the junior ruler Shebitku and not by the more prestigious senior ruler, Shabaka.17 Hoffmeier mentions the existence of my article,18 but does not tackle with any of the issues raised by me against a coregency or a divided monarchy in the United Kingdom of Egypt-and-Kush. Dodson also accepted the year 707 B.C. as the accession year of Shebitku and states: “I reject any ad hoc invention of a coregency between the two kings purely to rescue a preconceived chronology”19 Kitchen considered the idea that Shebitku was sole ruler over Kush and Egypt in 706 creating a shift of ca. 4 years in his proposed chronology of

10

14

11 12

13

K.A. KITCHEN, Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt (Absolute Chronology I): The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, A Current Assessment, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., CChEM 1, 50–51. J. VON BECKERATH, Zur XXV. Dynastie, SAK 29 (2001) 4. J.K. HOFFMEIER, Egypt’s Role in the Events of 701 B.C. in Jerusalem, in: A. G. VAUGHN and E. KILLEBREW (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, (Atlanta, 2003a) 219–234 and in the same volume: Egypt’s Role in the Events of 701 B.C.: A Rejoinder to J.J.M. Roberts, 286–287 (henceforth 2003b). As also accepted by L. TÖRÖK, The Kingdom of Kush: Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilization (Leiden 1997) 166 ff.

15 16

17

18

19

Cf. J.K. HOFFMEIER, (2003b), 287: “The coregency option makes good sense…”. J.K. HOFFMEIER, (2003a) 227–232. D. KHAN, The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var and the Chronology of Dynasty 25, Or 70 (2001), 1–18. K. ZIBELIUS-CHEN, Die Chronologie der mittleren 25. Dynastie bis zum Ende des Reiches von Meroe, in: E. HORNUNG and R. KRAUSS (eds.), Handbuch der Orientalistik, (forthcoming). J.K. HOFFMEIER, (2003a) 219–234 and idem. (2003b), 286. A. DODSON, The Problem of Amenirdis II and the Heirs to the Office of God’s Wife of Amun during the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, JEA 88 (2002) 182, n. 24.

Divided Kingdom, Co-regency, or Sole Rule in the Kingdom(s) of Egypt-and-Kush?

the 25th dynasty. He did not reject it, but prefers to maintain his chronology.20 Yurco, who advanced the coregency theory,21 also maintained his previous views. He stressed that the regnal dates in Manetho for Shabaka and Shebitku (as preserved in Africanus and Eusebius) should not be ignored, that the anchor date of Shabaka’s conquest in 712 should be maintained, and that the coregency between Shabaka and Shebitku must have already started in 706 B.C.22 Thus, every scholar, who wrote about the chronology of the 25th Dynasty before the publication of the Tang-i Var Inscription, and commented on its implications for Egyptian chronology maintained his earlier view without changing his preferred chronology, and explained the appearance of Shebitku, King of Kush, as a coregent of Shabaka or as ruler over the territory of Kush in a divided monarchy. It seems that my case to prove that Shebitku ascended the throne as sole ruler in 707/6 B.C. and that a coregency or division of the Kingdom of Egypt-and-Kush between Shabaka and Shebitku did not occur was not strong enough. Thus, in the following pages I feel compelled to review the evidence (or lack of it) concerning coregencies and division of the Kushite kingdom during the Kushite rule over Kush and Egypt from the reign of Piankhy in Egypt in 734 B.C. until their expulsion from Egypt forever under Tanutamun in 656 B.C. At the end I will briefly deal with the problem of communication and control over the vast territory of Egypt and Kush. But first, I shall deal with the evidence concerning coregencies in Kush between ca. 750 B.C. and 656 B.C. 1. WAS THERE A COREGENCY IN THE UNITED KINGEGYPT-AND-KUSH?

DOM OF

1.1. Coregency and Kushite Ideology of Succession The Kushite royal ideology and rules of succession were basically similar to those practiced in Egypt.23 This means that the Kushite King, like his Egypt-

20 21

22 23

KITCHEN, Regnal and Genealogical Data, 50–51. F. YURCO, Sennacherib’s Third Campaign and the Coregency of Shabaka and Shebitku, Serapis 6 (1980) 221–240. Private communication in 2000. See D. KAHN, The Royal Succession in the 25th Dynasty, Antike Sudan 16, (2005) 143–163. For the Egyptian Mythical cycle of Osiris and Horus and the Egyptian kingship, see V.A. TOBIN, Theological Princi-

277

ian counterpart was seen as the earthly incarnation of the god Horus. On his death the king was identified with the god Osiris, king of the realm of the dead. His place as the earthly Horus was then occupied by his legitimate heir, normally his eldest son. According to this theology, the new king ascended the throne only on the death of his predecessor and there was no place for a coregency and association between the two. In theological terms, there was a problem of having two Horuses acting simultaneously.24 However, Lorton has tried to solve this incompatibility between theory and reality and suggested that the Egyptian mind allowed the existence of several different manifestations of Horus. Thus, there is no possibility to prove that there existed a theological objection to the institute of coregency as has been practiced in Egypt, 25 and for that matter also in Kush. The existence of specific coregencies still have to be proven or disproven based on facts. In practice, the institute of coregency appeared at the beginning of the Middle kingdom after the turbulent times of the First Intermediate Period.26 Only a handful of coregencies can be proven during the millennia of Egyptian History. It does not seem that the political instability that preceded the Middle Kingdom and the special circumstances that prompted co-regencies in other periods can be detected in the Kushite Kingdom of the Eighth-Seventh centuries B.C. 1.2. The evidence for coregencies in the 25th dynasty during the 8th and 7th c. B.C. No written information of great historical value has come down to us from the reigns of the immediate predecessors of Piankhy, the conqueror of Egypt, let alone texts which mention a coregency. 1.2.1. Piankhy and Shabaka British Museum cube statue of Ity (EA 24429) has sometimes been mentioned as an argument in favour of a coregency between Piankhy and Shabaka, for Piankhy is mentioned as anx Dt

24

25

26

ples of Egyptian Religion, New York, 1989, “The Egyptian Kingship”, 93–95. D.B. REDFORD, Review of MURNANE, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, SAOC 40, Chicago 1977, JEA 69 (1983) 182. D. LORTON, Terms of Coregency in the Middle Kingdom, VA 2 (1986) 118. MURNANE, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, SAOC 40; Chicago 1977.

278

Dan’el Kahn

“living forever” in year 15 of Shabaka. It was shown, however, that the text only refered to the funerary cult of Piankhy and that the epithet anx Dt was also applied to dead kings.27 Thus, there is no evidence for a coregency between these two kings.28

and Amun’s legitimization of his kingship over the two lands (tA.wy) =Egypt(?) or alternatively, he received the crown with two Uraei32 from Amun.

1.2.2. Shabaka and Shebitku

“…Now, his majesty appeared as king in the compound of Amun, after he (=Amun) granted him that he will appear to the two lands/gave him the crown with two uraei like Horus on the throne of Re…”

A coregency between Shabaka and Shebitku was proposed on several grounds: 1.2.2.1.Turin Stela no. 1467 In Murnane’s seminal work on co-regencies,29 the author mentions a Stela in the Turin Museum (Turin Stela no. 1467) that depicts Shabaka and Shebitku (the one seated behind the other) on the left side facing two other persons across an offering table. This stela was considered as evidence for a coregency when acquired for the Turin Museum, which acknowledged it later to be a fake. Recently, R. Morkot and S. Quirke dealt with this stela again and reaffirmed that it is a fake and should not be used as evidence for a possible coregency between these two kings.30 1.2.2.2. Karnak Quay Inscription no. 33 In the Karnak quay inscription no. 33, recording the height of the Nile in Shebitku’s regnal year 3, an elaborated statement about the legitimacy of the king was made.31 After mentioning the date and full titles, Shebitku mentioned his appearing (xai) in Thebes as king in the temple of Amun,

27

28

29 30

31

J. LECLANT, Enquêtes sur les sacerdoces et les sanctuaires égyptiens à l’époque dite éthiopienne’ (XXVe Dynastie), BdE 17; Cairo 1964, 15–27. I thank Jean-Frédéric Brunet for reminding me the relevance of this statue to the coregency debate. MURNANE, Coregencies, 188–189. See also R. MORKOT, Kingship and Kinship in the Empire of Kush, in: ST. WENIG (ed.), Akten der 7. Internationalen Tagung für meroitische Forschungen vom 14. bis 19. September 1992 in Gosen/ bei Berlin, Meroitica 15 (1999), 207. See n. 36 above, p. 190. R.G. MORKOT and S. QUIRKE, Inventing the 25th Dynasty: Turin stela 1467 and the construction of history, Begegnungen – Antike Kulturen im Niltal Festgabe für Erika Endesfelder, Karl-Heinz Priese, Walter Friedrich Reineke, Steffen Wenig, Leipzig 2001, 349–363. J. VON BECKERATH, The Nile Level Records at Karnak and their Importance for the History of the Libyan Period (Dynasties XXII and XXIII), JARCE 5 (1966) 53, no. 33. For recent comments, see T. EIDE, T. HÄGG, R.H. PIERCE, and L. TÖRÖK (eds.), Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Textual sources for the History of the Middle Nile Region

… sk r.f xa Hm.f m nsw33 m Hwt [n]t Imn rdi.n.f n.f [x]a.f n tA.wy/iar.ty mi @rw Hr nst Ra

This inscription was taken to be a crowning inscription. The high level of the Nile was understood as a favorable omen by the god on Shebitku’s crowning day (as sole ruler after a coregency?) in his third year. Von Beckerath compared this inscription with Nile Inscription no. 30 from year 2 of Shabaka, the year Shabaka re-conquered Egypt.34 Thus, he concluded, the inscription recalls the arrival of Shebitku for the first time in Egypt to the temple of Amun where he was crowned by Amun. However, the verb xai does not necessarily denote the king’s accession, crowning or appearance for the first time. This was demonstrated by Redford.35 Murnane even stated that: “the text (i.e. quay inscription 33) need not refer to an accession or coronation at all. Rather, it seems simply to record an ‘appearance’ of Shebitku in the temple of Amun during his third year and to acknowledge the god’s influence in securing his initial appearance as king. These two occasions (i.e. Shebitku’s

32

33

34 35

between the Eighth Century BC and the Sixth Century AD. Vol. I, From the Eighth to the Mid-Fifth Century BC, Bergen 1994, 129 (henceforth FHN I). L. TÖRÖK, The Royal Crowns of Kush: A Study in Middle Nile Valley Regalia and Iconography in the 1st Millenia B.C. and A.D., Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 18, Oxford 1987, 4 ff. The words m nsw were omitted from the first copy made by VON BECKERATH in JARCE 6 (1966) 53, no. 33. See J. VON BECKERATH, Die Nilstandsinschrift vom 3. Jahr Schebitkus am Kai von Karnak, GM 136 (1993) 7–9. VON BECKERATH, GM 136 (1993) 7–9. D.B. REDFORD, History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt, Toronto, 1967, 4–6. However, in the following examples cited by REDFORD, xai m nsw is understood as the king’s appearing at his accession (pp. 6–8). See also KITCHEN, ThIP 170. “…this verb xai applies to any official ‘epiphany’ or official manifestation of the king to his ‘public appearances’ …”. See also J. VON BECKERATH, Ägypten und der Feldzug Sanheribs im Jahre 701 v. Chr., UF 24 (1992) 5.

Divided Kingdom, Co-regency, or Sole Rule in the Kingdom(s) of Egypt-and-Kush?

initial appearance as king and the appearance in his regnal year three) are not represented here as having been identical, and there is no reason to suppose that they were.”36 The use of the verb xai in Napatan inscriptions is also very loose and can designate the accession of the king37 but also any appearance of him, especially on the throne of the gods forever, without specifying a precise occurrence.38 It becomes clear, then, that the only certain thing that can be said about Quay inscription 33 is that Shebitku was in Thebes and received the affirmation and legitimatization of the god Amun in his third year on that occasion. 1.2.2.3. A postulated coregency between Shabaka and Shebitku on chronological grounds Kitchen suggested that Shabaka came to the throne in Kush in 717/6 B.C. and conquered Egypt in his second regnal year 716/5.39 According to Kitchen’s chronology, Shabaka would have ruled as Pharaoh in Egypt and Kush until 702/1 B.C. and upon his death was succeeded by

36 37

38

W.J. MURNANE, Coregencies, 189. A sample of the occurrences of the verb xai with the meaning of “accession”: HAt-sp tpy(?) nt sxa m nswt […]”The first year of his appearance as king.” (FHN I 196: Dream Stela of Tanutamun l.3, henceforth DS). It is not clear if the stroke (GARDINER Z1) is part of the indirect genitive nt or designates the number of regnal years. In the Piankhy Stela the word nt is written without stroke. The plural genitive nw is written twice with the stroke (lines 149, 154) and once without a stroke (l. 128). See N.-C. GRIMAL, La stèle triomphale de Pi(‘ankh)y au musée du Caire, MIFAO 105, Cairo 1981, 319; wn Hm.f xa.(w) Hr st @rw m rnpt tn “His Majesty had appeared on the throne of Horus in this year” (FHN I 197: DS 6);aq pw iri.n Hm.f i.iri xa m bAH it.f Imn-Ra nb nst tA.wy gm.n.f sdn.(w) nb.(w) nsw.w n KS wAs.sn “In entered His Majesty to appear before his father, Amon-Re, lord of the thrones of the two lands. It was before this god that he found all the crowns of the kings of Kush with their scepters”. (FHN I 241: Election Stela of Aspelta 22 henceforth E) note the different analysis of the grammar). See also FHN I 242: E 24. di.n.i n.k Xai m nswt Hr st @rw nt anx.w mi ra Dt “I have caused you to appear as king on the Horus-throne of the living, like Re, forever” (FHN I 195, DS C13); sA Ra (Tanutamun)| anx wDA snb xa Hr st @rw Dt “The son of Re, Tanutamun, may he live, be prosperous and healthy, appearing on the throne of Horus forever.” (FHN I 207: DS 42). di.k n.f anx wAs nb xri.k snb nb xri.k Aw ib nb xri.k xa Hr st @rw Dt Inthronisation Stela May you give him all life and dominion from you, all happiness from you, while

279

Shebitku in 702/1 B.C. Kitchen did not support a coregency between Shabaka and Shebitku. In 713/2 or 712/1 B.C. Iamani of Ashdod rebelled against Assyria.40 He attempted to muster support from Pir’u (Pharaoh), King of Egypt. When the Assyrians approached Ashdod in 712 B.C., Iamani fled to Egypt, ending up at the border of Egypt with Kush.41 He initially received asylum from the king of Kush, but was eventually sent back in shackles to Nineveh. Spalinger has noted that when Iamani fled to Egypt he did not meet “Pir’u, King of Egypt,” whom he had contacted before, but went south to Upper Egypt and finally met the king of Kush. Hence, Spalinger concluded that the Delta king, who was ruling in 713 B.C., had disappeared in 712 B.C., and that Shabaka had by that time conquered the Delta in the second year of his reign. The year 712 was thus treated as an “anchor date” and the year 713 was regarded as the accession date of Shabaka. Since Shabaka’s fifteenth year is mentioned,42 it was assumed that he died in 698 B.C.

39

40

41

42

appearing on the throne of Horus forever” (FHN I 233: C. 5). di.i n.k xa n Ra nswyt.f Hr ns.t it (E C7) “I give you the crown / appearing (xa) of Re, his kingship on his(?) father’s (it.f?) throne.” (FHN I 233: E C7). Note that xa is written without a crown determinative and that “his father” is written. Re does not appear only at the accession of the king, but daily. K.A. KITCHEN, Late-Egyptian Chronology and the Hebrew Monarchy: Critical Studies in Old Testament Mythology, I, JANES 5 (1973) 225–233. Idem, ThIP 143–144. Kitchen prefers the above dates because Sargon, King of Assyria received a tribute of twelve horses from Shilkani (Osorkon), king of Egypt and not from Shabaka in 716 B.C. According to Kitchen, Shabaka had not yet conquered Egypt by then. TADMOR, JCS 12 (19958) 79–84; A.J. SPALINGER, The Year 712 B. C. and its Implications for Egyptian History, JARCE 10 (1973) 95–101. For the dating of these events to 711 B.C. cf. A. FUCHS, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad (Göttingen 1994) 381–382; idem, Die Annalen des Jahres 711 v. Chr., State Archives of Assyria Studies VIII; Helsinki 1998, 124–131. ana itê mat Mu1ri ša pat mat Meluhha innabitma. (FUCHS, Die Inschriften, 220, l. 103). KITCHEN, ThIP 583: he (Iamani) fled “to the border of Egypt which is at the territory of Meluhha (Nubia)”. Shabaka ruled for at least fourteen full years. His last dated monument is from year 15, month of Painy (2 Smw), day 11 i.e. eighty-four days before he completed fifteen full years. J. CERNY Philological and Etymological Notes, ASAE 51 (1951) 441–446.

280

Dan’el Kahn

On the other hand, Kitchen proposed that Shebitku was elevated to be ruler of Kush before 701 B.C. According to Taharqa’s texts from Kawa, Shebitku summoned Taharqa to join him with an army to wage war in the North, most probably against the Assyrians in 701 B.C. Kitchen also noted that Shebitku adopted an aggressive policy reflected in his militaristic expansionistic titles.43 This overlap of approximately three years between the conjectured accession date of Shebitku (701/2) and the calculated death of Shabaka in 698 led Spalinger and other scholars to postulate a coregency.44 Yurco45 introduced several new argumentations in favor of a coregency. According to the Assyrian accounts of the campaign of Sennacherib, king of Assyria (705-681 B.C.) to the West in 701 B.C., the Ekronites appealed for help to the kings of Egypt, the bowmen, charioteers and cavalry of the king of Kush, who came to their aid. Sennacherib encountered this Egypto-Kushite force at the plain of Eltekeh. He took captive Egyptian princes and charioteers and Kushite charioteers. Yurco claimed that in the earliest account of the battle, the Rassam cylinder, dated to 700 B.C., the King of Egypt was mentioned in singular, while in subsequent recensions this was changed to “Kings” of Egypt.46 According to him, the change may reflect a belated recognition of the coregency of Shabaka and Shebitku.47 However, Yurco failed to note that the term “Kings of Egypt” does not denote Shabaka and/or Shebitku but the many Egyptian dynasts from the Delta and Middle Egypt. The term šar mát Meluhha in the same paragraph denotes the “King of Kush” (written in the singular!), who did not attend the battle in person. A second argument in favor of the postulated coregency was the reconstructed timetable for the events of the third campaign of Sennacherib and its compatibility to the regnal years of Shabaka and Shebitku as preserved in Manetho. According to Yurco’s reconstruction, Shebitku was present in

Thebes in mid February. This date coincided with the Egyptian new-year, which fell in 701 on the 15th of February.48 Yurco considered this date as Shebitku’s accession date as coregent. Thus, Shebitku reigned into his twelfth year, since Taharqa, Shebitku’s successor, celebrated his first new year in 689 B.C. Shabaka, Shebitku’s predecessor, would have started his reign twelve years before in 713 (as Spalinger has suggested) and would have ruled as sole ruler until 701 B.C. These calculated regnal years would fit the information given in the versions of Manetho. The discrepancy between the versions would reflect ascribing the various years to one of the two coregents.49 However, now that Shebitku’s accession is fixed to 706 at the earliest, it seems to me that none of Manetho’s dates for the 25th Dynasty are correct.50 The solution of coregency between the two rulers was proposed in order to solve a discrepancy between interpretations of several historical data that did not fit together, namely: The supposed anchor date of 712 B.C., for the length of Shabaka’s reign and the kingship of Shebitku in 701 B.C.51 Problematic data was used to prove the coregency: A. The misinterpreted Karnak Quay inscription 33 B. The mention of the “kings of Egypt” in the Assyrian sources C. Wrong information from later sources (Manetho as preserved in Africanus and Eusebius) D. The fake Turin stela It did not occur to scholars that their interpretation of the texts might be wrong. The Tang-i Var inscription accentuated the discrepancy between facts and theory. The text clearly indicates that Shebitku was on the throne in 706 B.C. If Shabaka ascended the throne in 713 B.C., he would have ended up ruling together with Shebitku for eight years (706–698). But no trace of double dating, texts with indication of

43

46

44

45

Cf. KITCHEN, ThIP 154 ff; idem., Egypt, the Levant and Assyria in 701 B.C., 245–246, in: M. GÖRG, (ed.) Fontes Atque Pontes, Festschrift Hellmut Brunner, ÄUAT 5, Wiesbaden 1983. See FHN I 138–139: Kawa stela IV lines 7–9. SPALINGER, JARCE 10 (1973) 98; D.B. REDFORD, Sais and the Kushite Invasions of the Eighth Century B.C., JARCE 22 (1985) 13, n. 61; idem. Or 68 (1999) 59–60, n. 12; KITCHEN, ThIP xlii and 555–557. F. YURCO, Serapis 6 (1980) 221–240.

47 48

49

50 51

E. FRAHM, Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften, BAfo 26; HORN 1997, 54, l. 43, n.3. YURCO, Serapis 6 (1980), 225. YURCO, Serapis 6 (1980), 228. The precise date is given in J. VON BECKERATH, Chronologie des Pharaonischen Ägypten, Mainz am Rhein, 1997, 198. YURCO, Serapis 6 (1980), 228–229. Cf. REDFORD, Or 68 (1999) 59. D. KAHN, Or 70 (2001) 5, n. 23. More on this in paragraphs 2.2, 2.3 below.

Divided Kingdom, Co-regency, or Sole Rule in the Kingdom(s) of Egypt-and-Kush?

joint rule or even reliefs with both rulers performing religious rites jointly exists on the monuments. Taking the facts at face value does not even hint at a coregency. However, for some reason, even people who did not accept a coregency or viceregality initially, like Kitchen, Hoffmeier and von Beckerath accepted a coregency in order not to change their former reconstructed Chronology. In the words of Kitchen: “not (to) entail any change in the Best Egyptian chronology whatsoever … In this case our chronology does not change by a second (let alone 4 years)”.52 Thus, according to the cited facts at hand, there is no objective evidence for a coregency between Shabaka and Shebitku.

281

mention of a dream in his first regnal year, wherein he received the message from god that he will be king HAt sp tp(y)t n sxa.f m nsw “Regnal year 1 of causing his appearance as king” (FHN I 196: DS 3)

The Dream Stela of Tanutamun begins with the

The verb sxa(i) is the causative of the verb xai “to appear” in the infinitive form. This means that, theoretically, somebody caused Tanutamun to appear as king. One option to identify the person who caused Tanutamun to appear as king was Taharqa, his predecessor, thus hinting at an accession of Tanutamun, while his predecessor was still alive.59 Taharqa’s role in Tanutamun’s accession, however, is not mentioned in the Dream Stela. Furthermore, the verb sxai is used in the same meaning as the intransitive verb xai “to appear” in the Piankhy Stela ll. 58–59.60 Kitchen suggested that the gods might have caused Tanutamun to appear as king. The god’s role is not mentioned in the text.61 This might be the case, since Amun-Re of Gebel Barkal says in the lunette the all so common phrase: di.ni n.k xa m nsw bity “I jhave given you appearing as king of Upper and Lower Egypt”. The giving of kingship or causing to appear as king by Amun-Re can hardly prove a coregency. The transitive verb sxai in the body of the text appears in the construction rdi + intransitive xai in the lunette. It should be noted that the dream of Tanutamun occurred in the year of his appearing as king (but before he actually became king). In his dream Tanutamun saw two serpents, one on his right, the other on his left (=of his forehead, i.e. the double uraei depicted on the Kushite crown). Tanutamun woke up and did not understand the dream.62 The text goes on explaining the dream:

52

60

1.2.3. Shebitku and Taharqa53 According to Macadam’s reading of Kawa IV 7–16 Shebitku summoned Taharqa in 689 B.C. (the date of Taharqa’s accession is now 690 B.C.)54 to Egypt and was immediately associated with Shebitku in the kingship as coregent, were he ruled together with him until his sixth regnal year. In this year Shebitku died and Taharqa ascended the throne as sole ruler. He then commenced to rebuild Kawa Temple, which according to Macadam, was also the year of his mother’s arrival in Memphis for his coronation.55 This is clearly contrary to what is written in Kawa V 15 where Taharqa received the crown only after the hawk flew to heaven, i.e. Shebitku died.56 Clearly, a coregency between Shebitku and Taharqa is based on Macadam’s wrong readings of the texts.57 1.2.4. Taharqa and Tanutamun58 1.2.4.1. The Dream Stela of Tanutamun

53 54 55

56

57 58

59

KITCHEN, Regnal and Genealogical Data, 50–51. MORKOT, Meroitica 15 (1999) 205. VON BECKERATH, Chronologie, 91 with earlier literature there. M.F.L. MACADAM, The Temples of Kawa, vol. I (London, 1949) 115–16, 18, n. 30. J. LECLANT and J. YOYOTTE, Notes d’histoire et de civilization éthiopiennes. À propos d’un ouvrage récent, BIFAO 51 (1952) 24 ff. See also KITCHEN, ThIP 164–170; A.F. RAINEY, Taharqa and Syntax, Tel Aviv 3 (1976): 38–41. MURNANE, Coregencies, 190–193. MORKOT, Meroitica 15 (1999) 204–205. Pace MORKOT, it is nowhere stated that Tanutamun was in Egypt at the death of Taharqa. H. SCHÄFER, Zur Erklärung der ‚Traumstele’, ZÄS 35 (1897) 67–70.

61

62

F. BREYER, Tanutamani: die Traumstele und ihr Umfeld, ÄAT 57, Wiesbaden 2003, 93. KITCHEN, ThIP 173. In the Ancient Near East when the god makes a king ruler usually the successor of the king is not the designated heir. See A. BIRAN and J. NAVEH, The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment, IEJ 45 /2 (1995) 15. One might wonder how Tanutamun, who was not son of the former king became king and needed the divine legitimization. FHN I 197: DS 4–5 mA.n Hm.f rsw m grH Hf 2 wa Hr imn.f ky Hr iAb.f nhs pw iri.n Hm.f n{n} gm.n.f st ªDd.n¬ [Hm.f] nn r.i Hr m “His Majesty saw a dream in the night, two serpents, one on his right, the other on his left. Up woke His Majesty but did not find them. Then said his Majesty: ‘Why has this happened to me?’ “ Note that

282

Dan’el Kahn

iw n.k tA rsi iTi n.k tA mHw “Yours is (will be?) the Southland, take (by force) for yourself the Northland” The time frame of this adverbial sentence of possession is not given and can be translated in the present and future.63 Thus, it seems that, before ascending the throne,64 Tanutamun was foretold that he will be king and wear the two Uraei, that the Southland will surely be his,65 and that he should conquer also the North of Egypt which was in Assyrian hands in 664, the year of Tanutamun’s coronation. Then, Tanutamun was crowned in the same year of the dream, thus fulfilling the oracle.66 It would seem strange, if Tanutamun was already king while he dreamt his dream and that he did not understand what the two serpents, symbols of Kushite royalty par excellence, meant. Additional corroboration that Tanutamun ascended the throne of Kush after the death of his predecessor can be found in the Assyrian annals. 1.2.4.2. The royal inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, King of Assyria In Prisms A II 20–22 || C III 26–29 Ashurbanipal, King of Assyria, describes his conquest of Egypt in the year 664, and states that the dread of Ashur’s weapon befell on Taharqa at the place to where he fled and he went to his faith. Tanutamun, son of Shabaka (var. son of his [i.e. Taharqa’s] sister) sat on the throne of his kingdom.67 The dates in the Dream Stela and the information in Ashurbanipal’s prisms do not support a coregency, On the contrary. It can be deduced from the DS that Tanutamun was not supposed to be the heir of Taharqa and got the command to rule through a dream. Taharqa’s remaining chil-

63

64

65

66

the translation of n{n} gm.n.f st differs from my translation. See also BREYER, Tanutamani, 95. Cf. examples J.P. ALLEN, Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs, Cambridge 2000, 113–114; A.H. GARDINER, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed. (Oxford 1988) 88. BREYER, Tanutamani, 97. For a foretelling dream that Thutmosis IV will become king, see B.M. BRYAN, The Reign of Thutmose IV, Baltimore, 1991, 146. Note the similarities between the texts. See also: MURNANE, Coregencies, 194–195. One of the agreed upon uses of the particle iw is to denote that the statement is temporarily true. See: ALLEN, Middle Egyptian, 110. The identification of the verb forms and statives in this paragraph are not conclusive and could be interpreted in past tense. In this case the dream occurred while

dren were probably too young when their father died and could not inherit his throne and lead a country in times of war.68 From the Assyrian inscriptions it becomes clear that Tanutamun ascended the throne after Taharqa’s death, although, lack of knowledge69 by the Assyrian scribe should be taken into consideration when dealing with Tanutamun’s succession on Taharqa’s throne. In sum, there is not one shred of concrete evidence that coregency was ever practiced in the Kushite kingdom. The Kushite Religious beliefs were based on the Egyptian beliefs, that the king ascended the throne on his father’s/predecessor’s death as the god Horus inherited the throne of Osiris his father on his death. No two incarnations of Horus were supposed to rule Egypt together in theory. In practice a small number of co-regencies occurred during the long history of Egypt70 and more than one king could be crowned in Egypt in rival dynasties. It does not seem that the political instability that preceded the Middle Kingdom and the special circumstances that prompted co-regencies in other periods can be detected in the Kushite Kingdom of the eighth-Seventh centuries B.C. and beyond. 2. WAS THE KINGDOM OF EGYPT-AND-KUSH DIVIDED? In the following pages I intend to review the second proposed solution, namely the division of kingdom between a senior king and his presumed heir. According to this theory, the senior king ruled Egypt, while the Junior king functioned as viceroy or local king in Kush, possibly using cartouches, termed ‘prince’ or a civil title without counting his own regnal years.71 In this section I will forward textual and

67

68

69

70 71

Tanutamun was already king. This is not the place to discuss the grammar of the text at length. H.-U. ONASCH, Die Assyrischen Eroberungen Ägyptens, Teil I: Kommentare und Anmerkungen, ÄAT 27, Wiesbaden 1994, 120–121. For the Kushite right of succession, see D. KAHN, The Royal Succession in the 25th Dynasty, Antike Sudan16 (2005) 143–163. But hardly lack of interest, since the Assyrian scribe bothered to record Tanutamun’s filiation and relation to Taharqa. See MURNANE, Coregencies. REDFORD, Or 68 (1999) 60; KITCHEN, Regnal and Genealogical Data, 50–51; VON BECKERATH, SAK 29, (2001) 3–4; HOFFMEIER (2003a) 229; idem (2003b) 287.

Divided Kingdom, Co-regency, or Sole Rule in the Kingdom(s) of Egypt-and-Kush?

283

Piankhy ruled probably from Meroe72 up to Middle Egypt from the early years of his reign. There is no evidence that he shared his power with a viceroy as can be deduced from his monuments. His name in cartouche can be found in Kush as well as in Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt.73 His Horus name is xa m Npt “appearing in Napata” (FHN I 58: Sand stone Stele of Piankhy (=SSS), l. 1.) as well as xa m WAst “appearing in Thebes” and HqA Kmt “ruler of Egypt” (FHN I 54: Obelisk of Piankhy from Kadakol, Letti Basin, Sudan). If he would have ruled only in one part of the kingdom, he would have allowed his counterpart king to appear as king in the other part of the divided kingdom. The Sand Stone Stele of Piankhy is a very important source regarding how Piankhy perceived his legitimacy as given him by the gods and how he executed his authority in the land. His rule over Egypt was predestined by Amun with the words: iw.k r HqA n Kmt “You will rule over Egypt” (FHN I, 55: SSS 3). Amun of Napata has granted Piankhy to be ruler over every foreign country (HqA n xAst nb), while Amun of Thebes (Imn m WAst) has granted Piankhy to be ruler over Egypt. In the Lunette of the stele the ramheaded Amun gives the Kushite cap-crown and the lower Egyptian red crown to Piankhy, and the god Khonsu says: “Receive the two Uraei from the hand of your father Amun”. It is clear that, according to Kushite ideology, Piankhy’s authori-

ty stretched over Kush, all foreign countries and Egypt. He received the Kingship from Amun and no one was to share it with him (nm pS.f r Hna.k). His authority over all the territory is total. No one would share it with him (FHN I, 56: SSS 8, 11–12).74 He was the one who appointed kings, and chiefs. His destiny is to expand the boundaries of Kush alone! (wa waty swsx KS FHN I, 59: SSS l. 3). In his Great Triumphal Stele (GTS), Piankhy expands his rule over the whole of Egypt. In his 20th regnal year Nimlot, ruler of Hermopolis defected and Joined Tefnakht, ruler of Sais (GTS 6 ff.). Piankhy, who heard the news in distant Napata (?) immediately responded to Nimlot’s defection (GTS 8 ff.) and sent his counts (HAty.wa.w) and generals (Ts.w) who were in Egypt. If, as some scholars maintain, the kingdom was too great for Piankhy to control, as it was supposed to be for his two immediate successors, he would have sent his presumed counterpart to quell the rebellion. This is not stated in the text. There was no such viceroy or king of Egypt under the sovereignty of Piankhy. He distinguished quit well between the different petty rulers in Egypt and recorded their correct titles. Why did he not do the same for his viceroy/ coregent, not mention his name, while his commanders were mentioned by their military rank and private names (FHN I 69: GTS 8)? In his thrust northward, the people of Meidum submitted to Piankhy without fight, saying: ntk tA.wy ntk imy.sn ntk nb ntt Hr sA tA “Yours are the two lands (=Egypt), yours is what is therein. Yours is all that is on Earth (FHN I 90: 84). After conquering the Delta and receiving homage from the Egyptian petty rulers, Piankhy returned home to Kush, and again, no mention of appointing a junior ruler over Egypt is mentioned. If there was a coregent or junior king responsible over Egypt, he sure did not fulfill the purpose of his job and thus was redundant. The pattern of a senior king residing in Napata and a junior king residing in Egypt is also opposed to the evidence in the GTS of Piankhy, since it was Piankhy, the *senior ruler who was the active party in the supposed joint rule. He heard the

72

74

archaeological evidence concerning the postulated division of Egypt and Kush into two. The evidence will be comprised of ideological statements of rule over Egypt and Kush sanctified by divine will. These statements are sometimes vague or generalized, and do not necessarily prove that the King did rule over the entire area designated in these statements, but it does strengthen the notion that the King, and he alone, is to be the ruler over the entire Kingdom. This notion of sole rule will be corroborated by more factual writtings as well as archaeological evidence from Egypt and Kush. 2.1. Piankhy

73

See L. TÖRÖK, The Birth of an Ancient African Kingdom: Kush and her Myth of the State in the First Millennium BC, CRIPEL suppl. 4; Lille 1995, 44–45. J.J. JANSSEN, The Smaller Dakhla Stela (Ashmolean Museum no. 1894. 107b), JEA 54 (1968) 165–172.

K. ZIBELIUS-CHEN, Theorie und Realität im Königtum der 25. Dynastie, in: Selbstverständnisund Realität: Akten des Symposiums zur ägyptischen Königsideologie in Mainz 15–17.6.1995, ÄUAT 36, 1, Wiesbaden 1997, 92.

284

Dan’el Kahn

news in Kush, conquered Egypt and returned to Kush almost with all the spoils of war. What would have been left for the supposed junior king in Egypt? It is clear from the evidence just cited, that in the days of Piankhy no coregency and no division of the kingdom existed. Piankhy could manage quit well to subjugate his vast kingdom all by himself. 2.2. Shabaka On the ideological level, Shabaka boasted in his commemorative Scarab that he has slain the rebels in the south, and the north and in every foreign country, (FHN I 124), thus pacifying ideologically the extremes of his Empire. On the factual level, things are not different, as I will try to prove below. According to Redford’s reconstruction of events in Shabaka’s days, Shabaka separated the administration and rule of Egypt from the Nubian heartland in his eighth regnal year, assigning the latter to his son Shebitku Thus, Shabaka would have ruled and administered Egypt, while Shebitku would have ruled Kush. If this assumption were correct we would not find monuments of both kings in the same administrative area from the period of the alleged division of power. Thus, Shebitku’s Karnak quay graffito dating to his year 375 would indicate that his rule extended over a vast area from Kush to Thebes, leaving to the senior ruler, Shabaka, the rule over Middle Egypt and the Delta. Theoretically, this is possible. However, at the alleged time of this divided administration lasting from the eighth to fifteenth year of Shabaka, when we expect to find Shebitku as sole ruler at Thebes (c. 703 B.C.), we find monuments and papyri of

75 76

VON BECKERATH, GM 136 (1993) 7–9. P. Louvre 3228 E was written in Upper Egyptian abnormal hieratic script. ABD EL-MOHSEN BAKIR, Slavery in Pharaonic Egypt, Cairo, 1952, pls. XIII–XIV; M. MALININE, Choix de textes juridiques en hiératic “anormal” en démotique (XXVe–XXVIe dynasties), Paris 1953, 35–42; B. MENU, Cessions de services et engagements pour dette sous les rois kouchites et saites, RdE 36 (1985) 76; J. QUAEGEBEUR, A propos de l’identification de la ‘Kadytis’ d’Hérodote avec la ville de Gaza, Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East, Fs. E. Lipiøski, OLA 65, Leuven 1995, 245–270. An additional linen fragment dated to year 10 of Shabaka was found in the tomb of the fourth priest of Amun, Wedjahor. See N.

Shabaka dating to year 1076 (*703! B.C. according to Redford’s, Spalinger’s and Yurco’s chronology), and to year 1577 (*698 B.C.) and originating from Thebes. It is inconceivable that in a divided kingdom or during a coregency, two rulers would simultaneously administer Thebes and use different dating methods. However, if Shebitku did not use his own regnal years as von Beckerath and Kitchen maintain, this argument looses its validity and Shebitku would be a mere administrator of Kush for his father, Shabaka, who resided in Egypt. Would, in this case, the Assyrians bother to mention that Shebitku extradited Iamani, if the real power in Egypt-and-Kush was Shabaka.78 Could Shebitku’s policy be different from his senior’s policy? If so, could he carry it out and extradite Iamani without Shabaka’s consent? 2.3. Shebitku On the ideological level, Amun-Re gave Shebitku as he gave Piankhy and Shabaka before him, the authority over the north and south alike: “I grant thee thy power like Montu! … I give thee the southerners to thy Great Crown, the northerners to the red crown … King of Egypt, ruler of foreign lands, sovereign who seizes all lands”.79 Shebitku was perceived as ruler of the entire Kushite sphere of influence. 2.3.1. The Akkadian term Šarru: King or (co-)Regent In the Tang-i Var inscription Shebitku appears as m Šá-pa-ta-ku-ªu’ MAN¬KUR me-luh-ha (Shebitkªu, king¬ of the land Kush).80 As seen above, scholars interpreted the term “šar(ru)” with the wider (not to say sloppy, inexact) meaning of “ruler” and not in the precise meaning of “king”=monarch, de facto Viceroy for Nubia’,81 Shabako’s deputy, ruling in Kush, while the senior man – Shabako – was

77 78 79

80 81

STRUDWICK, The Fourth Priest of Amun, Wedjahor, GM 148 (1995) 91–93. Initially the number 10 was assigned to the ‘10th day of the month’, but Strudwick changed his reading and assigned the shroud to the 10th regnal year of Shabaka. Private communication from 09/06/2001 referring to TT99 web site: www.newton. cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99 See note 42. ZIBELIUS-CHEN, see n. 177 above. D.B. REDFORD, From Slave to Pharaoh: the Black Experience of Ancient Egypt, Baltimore 2004, 98. FRAME, Or 68 (1999) 36, l. 20 KITCHEN, Regnal and Genealogical Data, 50–51.

Divided Kingdom, Co-regency, or Sole Rule in the Kingdom(s) of Egypt-and-Kush?

the real king (“pharaoh”) in Egypt proper,82 “Regent von Nubien… ohne Zählung eigener Regierungsjahre”,83 or coregent, Viceroy of Kush following the New Kingdom practice of the King ruling from Memphis, while the “Viceroy of Kush” governed Nubia” (Cf. the NK title imy-r xAs.wt rsywt sA nsw kAS – “the overseer of southern foreign lands, King’s son of Kush”).84 This term is not attested in Kush or later than ca. 775–750 B.C. in Egypt. It was by then a title without much substance.85 It was suggested by Kitchen, that the term šarru is used in the same way as the designation of all the Egyptian rulers mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, even those that did not bear the Egyptian royal title nsw.86 The King (šar) of the land (KUR/ mát) Meluhha, was, however, a ruler of a vast territory, in fact, an entire kingdom. He can not be compared with a local ruler of a town (URU) or two (Necho I governed the towns (URU/ álu) Sais and Memphis and held authority over local Delta rulers such as the ruler of Sebennytos).87 The Assyrian determinatives differ and make this fact clear. Shebitku’s title is the same as Taharqa’s title in Ashurbanipal’s inscriptions, where Taharqa is called King (šar) of the land (KUR/ mát) Meluhha in some of his inscriptions, while in others he is also referred to as King of Egypt.88 Would anyone deny that Taharqa was King of Kush and Egypt based on his appearance as “King of Kush” in Ashurbanipal’s inscriptions? 2.3.2. The distinction between Pharaoh and the King of Kush and the alleged “anchor date” of 712 As mentioned above, Iamani of Ashdod rebelled against Assyria in 713/2 or 712/1 B.C.89 Spalinger noted that Iamani attempted to muster support

82

83 84 85

86

87

KITCHEN, Preprint of “The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology – an Abrégé”, distributed at the conference “Egypt & Time, SCIEM 2000 Workshop on Precision and Accuracy of the Egyptian Historical Chronology”, held in Vienna, 30 June–2 July 2005 (to be published in this volume). VON BECKERATH, SAK 29 (2001) 4. HOFFMEIER (2003a) 229; idem (2003b) 287. D.A. ASTON, and J.H. TAYLOR, The Family of Takeloth III and the ‘Theban’ Twenty-third Dynasty, in: A. LEAHY, (ed.), Libya and Egypt c. 1300–750 BC, London 1990, 147–148. KITCHEN, Regnal and Genealogical Data, 50. ONASCH, Die Assyrischen Eroberungen II, Text in Umschrift, 106–111. For the control over Memphis and Sais, see ONASCH,

285

from Pir’u, (Pharaoh) King of Egypt, but when the Assyrians approached Ashdod in 712 B.C., he fled to Kush. Spalinger stressed that when Iamani fled to Egypt he did not meet “Pir’u, King of Egypt,” whom he had contacted before, but met the king of Kush. Hence, he concluded that the Delta king, who was ruling in 713 B.C., had disappeared in 712 B.C., and that Shabaka had by that time conquered the Delta in the second year of his reign. A closer look at the Assyrian inscriptions of Sargon reveals that this is not the case. It seems that Spalinger’s observation that Pharaoh had disappeared and the King of Kush took his place is not precise. The only Assyrian text where Pharaoh is mentioned in the episode dealing with Iamani, is in Sargon’s annals from the year 711 B.C.90 This is the earliest version of the affair, and by far the most extended version. The destination of Iamani’s flight is not preserved, and his extradition by the Kushite king had not occurred at the time of writing the annals. In all subsequent versions, which were composed in 707 and 706 B.C.,91 the narative has been cut short and kept to the necessary minimum, deleting Iamani’s instigating letters to his neighboring kingdoms and his appeal to Pharaoh for assistance, only described his rebellion, flight to the border of Kush, and eventually, his extradition.92 No text of Sargon which deals with the Iamani affair preserves the accounts of Iamani’s appeal to Pharaoh and Iamani’s extradition by the King of Kush together. It is not legitimate to deduce that these were two different persons. Thus, the alleged evidence for proving the “anchor date” of Egypt’s conquest in 712 by the Kushite King is based on

88

89 90 91

92

Die Assyrischen Eroberungen I, 36, 38. For Sebennytos, see O. PERDU, La chefferie de Sébennytos de Piankhi à Psammétique Ier, RdE 55 (2004) 101. A.J. SPALINGER, Esarhaddon and Egypt: An Analysis of the First Invasion of Egypt, Or 43 (1974) 322–323. See n. 40 above. FUCHS, Die Annalen,124–125. For the inscriptions, see E.F. WEIDNER, Silkan(he)ni, König von Mu1ri, ein Zeitgenosse Sargons II., AfO 14 (1941–44) 50; A. FUCHS, Die Inschriften, 348: Prunk 90–96; 308: XIV 11–14; Prunk 90–111; 326: Ann. 241–254. Note that in Sargon’s annals, 251–252 Iamani’s flight and extradition are omitted and only his capture is reported. FUCHS, Die Inschriften, 326, n. 308.

286

Dan’el Kahn

incorrect interpretation of the evidence. One has to ask, if the change in terminology of Pharaoh into King of Kush bears any significance. Kitchen, claims that Meluhha is Kush, NOT Egypt, and that in 706 B.C. Shebitku is recognized as ruler of Kush, and NOT of Egypt! This distinction is not valid as will be shown in the following selected examples.93 Piankhy, who conquered Egypt in his 20th regnal year, but returned to Napata after his victory over the Egyptian dynasts, considers himself an Egyptian Pharaoh, nsw bity with the whole set of royal names.94 According to Kitchen, he should have been just king of Kush. In Sargon’s inscriptions describing his war in the Levant in 720 B.C. he boasts using a pun, that he defeated in pitched battle Re’, the general (Turtanu) of the Egyptian king and caused him to flee away alone like a shepherd (Re’u), who has lost his flock. In the reliefs from room V in Sargon’s palace at Khorsabad, this episode is depicted. It can be seen that the so-called Egyptian army consists of Kushite soldiers. According to my proposed chronology, the Egyptian king was Shabaka, the successor of Piankhy, and the Kushite soldiers do not have to be considered mercenaries in service of the Egyptian army or an anachronistic depiction of the reality in 707 B.C., the date of the inauguration of the palace.95 A similar phenomenon can be found in Shebitku’s case, Shabaka’s successor. In the biblical account of the events of 701 B.C. Rabshakeh describes Pharaoh, king of Egypt as a broken reed staff, which should better not be relied upon. ( II kings 18:21). Eventually, in II kings 19:9 Tirhaqa king of Kush was the foe of the Assyrians.96 In the Assyrian version the king of Kush was mentioned in the singular, while there were many kings of Egypt present at the battle.97 Would Taharqa be mentioned in the Biblical and Assyrian records as king of Kush, viceroy of Shebitku, king of Egypt, while Shebitku, the overlord of Egypt and Kush was mentioned in the same breath as the kinglets of Egypt, his vassals? Taharqa and Tanutamun are designated in some of the Assyrian inscriptions as “King of

93 94 95 96

See n. 82 above. FHN I, 48–52. D. KAHN, Or 70 (2001) 10–13. As Kitchen so vigorously claimed for decades, until it effected his proposed chronology. See KITCHEN, ThIP,

Egypt and Kush”, while in other inscriptions, which describe the same events, they appears simply with the title “King of Kush”.98 If only the texts, which designate Taharqa and Tanutamun as “King of Kush”, would have survived we could have come to the conclusion that he did not rule over Egypt. From the selected previous examples, I think it is clear that all the relevant kings of kush could also be designated as king of Egypt in biblical and Assyrian sources as they depicted themselves in the Egyptian records. None of these kings ever considered himself as simply king of Kush. 2.4. Shebitku and Taharqa In Kawa inscription IV 7–10 (FHN I 138–139) mention is made of Taharqa’s arrival in the North together with an army: Is Hm.f m &A %ty m Hwn nfr sn nsw bnr mr(wt) Iw pw iri.n.f m (8) xd r WAst m qb Hwn.w nfr.whb.n Hm.f nsw ^A-bA-tA-kA mAa xrw m sA.sn r &A %ty wnn.f (9) im Hna.f mr.n.f sw r snw.f nb swA.f GN…Hna (10) mSa n Hm.f xd r-Hna.f… “Then, his Majesty was in Nubia as a goodly youth, a king’s brother, sweet of love. He sailed (8) north to Thebes in the midst of goodly youths. It was (9b) because he loved him more than all his brethren (8b) that his majesty, the late King Shebitku, had sent for them from Nubia in order that he (Taharqa) might be (9a) there with him. He has passed GN … together with (10) the army of his Majesty that had sailed north with him.” In Kawa V 13–17 (FHN I 153–154) the same event is described as follows: ii.n. m &A %ty m qb sn.w nsw Ts.n Hm.f (14) im wnn.i Hn.f mr.n.f wi r snw.f nb{t} r msw.{t}f nb Tn.kw(i) r.sn xr Hm.f …(16)… is grt Hr.n.(17) i Hr.s(t) m Hwn n 20 rnpt m iw n.i Hna Hm.f r &A mH.t “I came from Nubia in the midst in the midst of the king’s brothers whom his Majesty has enlisted (14) there … (16) …I had departed (17) from her (i.e. Taharqa’s mother) as a goodly youth of 20 years when I came together with his Majesty to the North-land (Delta)” Kitchen associated these events with the arrival

97 98

553–554. Now Kitchen designates Taharqa as “his (Shebitku’s) Nubian lieutenant…”. See n. 82 above. See n. 46 above. SPALINGER, Or 43 (1974) 322.

Divided Kingdom, Co-regency, or Sole Rule in the Kingdom(s) of Egypt-and-Kush?

of the Kushite army to wage war against Sennacherib in the Levant in 701 B.C.99 If we accept the chronology proposed by Spalinger, Redford, Yurco and others (Shabaka 713–698; Shebitku 702–690) and their recent proposal of a divided Kingdom between a senior Pharaoh in Egypt and a viceroy/ junior king in Nubia, then Taharqa would have been enlisted by the viceroy, who is described as “His Majesty”, while the senior king is not even mentioned, although the army was under his principal authority and traveling through the territory under his jurisdiction. Thus, the senior Pharaoh would not have been even mentioned although he was the head of state, at least de jure. If, on the other hand, we accept the chronology of Kitchen for Shabaka (*717–*702) and Shebitku (*702–*690) and do not accept a coregency between the two in 701 B.C. (as Kitchen postulated for years), Shebitku would have been sole ruler and opponent of Sennacherib. Hoffmeier proposed that the same division of power between senior and junior kings existed also in 701 B.C. as was suggested for Shabaka and Shebitku after the publication of the Tang-i Var inscription and that Taharqa’s title “Melek Kush” (King of Kush) in II Kings 19:9 reflects his real position as viceroy in Kush and heir apparent of Shebitku in 701.100 However, several objections can be made to this suggestion: a. The biblical inscription was written after 681, when Taharqa indeed was king (Sennacherib’s murder which occurred in 681 is mentioned in the text). b. Taharqa was not the legitimate heir of Shebitku and thus was not the first choice to

99

100 101 102

103

Cf. KITCHEN, ThIP 154 ff.; idem. Further Thoughts on Egyptian Chronology in the Third Intermediate Period, RdE 34 (1982–3) 65; idem, Egypt, the Levant and Assyria, 245–246. Contra REDFORD, From Slave to Pharaoh, 93–95; VON BECKERATH, UF 24 (1992) 7; idem, SAK 29 (2001) 5. HOFFMEIER (2003a) 229; idem (2003b) 287. D. KAHN, Antike Sudan 16 (2005) 160–162. Note, however, that also Irike-Amanote was a hwn nfr before he became king. See FHN II, 400. In this case too, it was not clear to the people that Irike-Amanote was the designated heir and would become king after his predecessor’s death. The god Amun, however, did predestine Irike-Amanote to kingship. MACADAM, The Temples of Kawa I, 31, n. 46. See also K.

287

be king of Kush.101 c. Taharqa, as supposed viceroy and ruler of entire Kush, designates himself as goodly youth, a king’s brother, and sweet of love in the midst of goodly youths.102 Was Taharqa so modest or absentminded that he forgot to boast that he was the de facto ruler of Kush and showed off as first between equals? d. There is no attestation of a title “King of Kush” in any Egyptian text. 2.5. Taharqa 2.5.1. Egyptian Data Taharqa was considered Pharaoh and King of Egypt on his monuments and in administrative documents in Egypt. He resided in Egypt (Memphis) and was crowned there. He further boasted that Amun had ordered for him: “that every low land and every mountainous land be placed under the soles of my feet, south to +Retehu-Qebet+, and north to Qebeh- Horus,103 east to the rising of Re and west to the place in which he sets” (FHN I, 153: Kawa V, 15–16), thus, encompassing the four corners of the earth without division of authority. According to Taharqa’s inscription in the peristyle court north of Pylon VI at Karnak, Amun gave him the rule over Egypt (FHN I, 184, l. 4), but he was also active in Nubia (FHN I, 186, l. 15 I Imn pA iri.i n pA tA nHs … “Oh Amun, what I did in the land of Nubia […]). Many of his monuments can be found in Egypt104 and also in Nubia.105 It is clear that Taharqa held the same authority in Egypt as in Nubia. He did not need Assyrian approval to be considered King of Egypt or Pharaoh.106

104

105

106

ZIBELIUS, Afrikanische Orts- und Völkernamen in hierogliphischen und hieratischen Texten, Beihefte TAVO, Wiesbaden 1972, 159. A.J. SPALINGER, The Foreign Policy of Egypt Preceding the Assyrian Conquest, CdE 53 (1978) 44–47. To these inscriptions add: Year 21: A.M. MOUSSA, A Stela from the Desert Road at Dahshur, MDAIK 37 (1981) 332–337. Year 7 is recorded in a donation stela from Ashmunein: MEEKS, Les donations, 673 (25.6.7). P. WOLF, Die archäologischen Quellen der Taharqozeit im nubischen Niltal, unpublished diss.; Berlin, 1990. Year 17: S. I. HODJASH, O.D. BERLEV, A New Document from the Times of the Wars with Assyria, in: E. FREIERW.F. REINEKE (eds.), Karl Richard Lepsius (1810–1884): Akten der Tagung anlässlich seines 100. Todestages,

288

Dan’el Kahn

2.5.2. Assyrian Data In Esarhaddon’s chronicle Taharqa’s name is preserved in the events of the year 667, the first regnal year of Shamash-shuma-ukin. His title is partly preserved as šar ša mát M[i-1ir…] “King of E[gypt …]”.107 In the Sendjirli Stela l. 38 Taharqa is called šar mát Mu1ur u mát Kusi “King of Egypt and Kush”.108 In the Stela from Nahr el Kalb and in Fragment F, l. 12 he is called “King of Kush”.109 In Ashurbanipal’s inscriptions Taharqa appears as King of Kush, and as King of Egypt and Kush, as Spalinger has proposed.110 The title “King of Kush” alone might have resulted from propagandistic reasons, to stress his foreignness to Egypt. He is never called “Pharaoh” or only “King of Egypt” in the Assyrian records. 2.5.3. Taharqa’s involvement in the Levant According to the Egyptian texts, Taharqa even acted in the Levant. Stela Kawa III111 recounts that in year eight (683 BC), Taharqa donated to the temple of Amun at Kawa a bronze statue of the king smiting foreign countries, alluding to some hostile activity abroad.112 According to Kawa III, 21 acacia, cedar and juniper wood, which grow in the Levant (particularly in Lebanon), were donated to the temple of Amun. In Kawa VI, 18-21 (FHN I 171–172) cedar and Asiatic bronze were donated to the temple of Amun and gardeners from the Mnty.w %Tti.w were brought from Asia to Nubia to cultivate his vineyards. Clearly, Taharqa controlled Egypt and Kush entirely and even extended his (military or economic) activity to the Lebanon. In his inscription in the peristyle court north of Pylon VI at Karnak Taharqa has claimed to have lost the inw of Kharu (FHN I 186: col. 15) and requested Amun to let him do with the Lev-

107

10–12.7.1984 in Halle, Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients; Berlin, 1988, 247–259. Year 19 and 26: K. DONKER VAN HEEL, Papyrus Louvre E 7852: A Land Lease from the Reign of Taharka, RdE 48 (1997) 81–93; idem, Papyrus Louvre E 78526 Verso and Recto: Leasing Land in the Reign of Taharka, RdE 49 (1998) 91–102; idem, Papyrus Louvre E 78526 Verso and Recto: Leasing Land in the Reign of Taharka, RdE 49 (1998) 91–102; idem, Papyrus Louvre E 7851 Verso and Recto Two More Land Leases from the Reign of Taharka, RdE 50 (1999) 135–144. A.K. GRAYSON, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (TCS V; Locust Valley, New York 1975) 128, Chron. 14, 42. The

ant the same as he has let him do with Nubia (tA nHsy). Further evidence for Taharqa’s involvement in the Levant can be found in the Assyrian texts. Taharqa, Ashkelon and Tyre are mentioned in a broken context in the Nahr el Kalb Stela of Esarhaddon,113 and Ba’al king of Tyre and Taharqa are again mentioned in Fragment F, l. 12.114 Taharqa was active and responsible on both fronts and did not have any problems ruling the whole area without an additional King. Taharqa’s heir apparent Ushanhuru (Egyptian Ns-InHrt), on the other hand, was captured by Esarhaddon’s armies in Memphis.115 He was not called “King of Egypt” and did not share the kingship with his father. He was not the dominant figure in Levantine politics as can be seen in the Assyrian texts mentioned above, nor did he rule over Kush, as was suggested in the theory of a divided kingdom, where the senior king stayed in Egypt, while the junior king reigned over Kush. In Taharqa’s reign too, there is no evidence for a coregency or a divided kingdom with his presumed heir. Taharqa ruled over the entire kingdom alone. 2.6. Tanutamun In the Dream Stela of Tanutamun, the destined king saw two serpents in a dream. These serpents symbolize the dual kingdom of Egypt and Kush. Thus, he was destined to rule the whole of Egyptand-Kush. The southern part of his kingdom i.e. Kush and Upper Egypt would be under his authority on the death of Taharqa. Lower Egypt would have to be conquered by Tanutamun. Again, if the kingdom would have been divided and the senior king would have ruled in Egypt, Tanutamun would not have been residing some-

108 109

110 111

112 113 114 115

context is to broken to reconstruct the rest. It might be that he also bore the title king of Kush, while Necho appeared in l. 44 only with the title king of Egypt. H.-U. ONASCH, Die Assyrischen Eroberungen, 24. R. BORGER, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien, BAfO 9; Graz 1956, 101; Frg. F, 112, l. 12. See references in SPALINGER, Or 43 (1974) 322. MACADAM, The Temples of Kawa, [Text] 8 and [plates] pl. 6: Kawa III. MACADAM, Temples of Kawa I, [plates] pl. 6: Kawa III, 15. BORGER, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, 102, l. 31–33. BORGER, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, 112. ONASCH, Die Assyrischen Eroberungen, 24.

Divided Kingdom, Co-regency, or Sole Rule in the Kingdom(s) of Egypt-and-Kush?

where in Kush and travel to Napata to be crowned, but would be crowned in Egypt, like Taharqa was crowned in Memphis. (FHN I 1 53: Kawa V, 15). In the interpretation of Tanutamun’s dream it is clearly stated that the land will be given to him in its breadth and its length without any other sharing it with him (FHN I 197: DS 6 rdi.(w) n.k tA m Aw.f ws[x].f [nn] (6) ky psS.f Hna.k). Again, the ideology of the Kushite kingship was against dividing and sharing the reign with anybody, be they coregents, viceroys or opponents. In Ashurbanipal’s prisms A and C II 22–23 it is said:116 Arkanu Tašdamane mar Šabakû ušib ina kussî šarrutišu (23) Ne’ Unu ana dannutišu iškun “Later, Tanutamun, son of Shabaka sat on the throne of his (Taharqa’s) kingship (23) No (Thebes) and Unu (Heliopolis) he made as his fortresses.” In Ashurbanipal’s prism F col. I 37 Tanutamun is called šar mát Mu1ur u mát Kusi “King of Egypt and Kush”,117 although the reports of the Assyrian campaigns are conflated and might have originally referred to Taharqa. It seems that also in Assyrian eyes, Tanutamun had the same royal status and territorial control after Taharqa’s death. Thebes as well as Heliopolis were considered his fortified cities, and no mention is made of the territory or existence of a postulated Kushite Junior king. The well-known petition of Padiese preserved in Papyrus Rylands IX, recalling his family’s history mentions Padiese, Shipmaster of Herakleopolis, who was in charge of PA-tA-rsy from the southern guard-house of Memphis unto Aswan in Psammetichus’ regnal year 4.118 Since Padiese and his son were allies of Psammetichus and were commissioned by pharaoh, it was inferred that Psammetichus subjugated Upper Egypt entirely already in his fourth regnal year.119 This information from Papyrus Rylands seemingly contradicts the evi-

116 117

118

119

120

ONASCH, Die Assyrischen Eroberungen, 122–123. ONASCH, Die Assyrischen Eroberungen, 124; SPALINGER, Or 43 (1974) 322. F.LL. GRIFFITH, Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri, Rylands Library III esp. IX, 5/13, p. 77 H. DE MEULENAERE, De Vestiging van de Saitische Dynastie, Orientalia Gandensia I (1964) 99–101. KITCHEN, ThIP,403 ignores Padiese’s claim altogether. G. VITTMANN, Zwei Priestereinfürungsinschriften der 25. Dynastie aus Luxor (Berlin 2096 und 2097), SAK 29

289

dence from Upper Egypt, as Tanutamun’s regnal years 2,3,4,8 are attested in Thebes and he and not Psammetichus was recognized as the legitimate king in Thebes in those years. 120 This piece of information might be wrong since it was written retrospectively c.140 years later.121 However, it seems that the author is simply backdating retrospectively according to Psammetichus’ regnal years in Lower Egypt, disregarding Tanutamun’s sovereignty in Upper Egypt.122 The geographical vast territory from Aswan to the South of Memphis inspected by Padiese in Psammetichus’ 4th year (661 B.C.) would then have been under Tanutamun’s control. Again, the Kushite ruler controlled the vast territory of Kush and almost all of Egypt without a joint king to control the north for him. 3. COMMUNICATION AND CONTROL Kitchen asserts that a division of the vast kingdom of Egypt-and-Kush has excellent reasons. In the following paragraph I will quote his reasoning from his preprint cited in n. 82 (The article will be published in this volume). Kitchen claims that “Long before (the 25th Dyn.) the New- Kingdom pharaohs of Egypt found it impossible to rule both Egypt and Kush in person all the way from the Mediterranean coast well over 2,000 miles (well over 3.200 km) to Napata and the 4th cataract of the Nile. The 25th Dynasty had exactly the same problem, albeit technically in reverse. We too easily forget that nobody then had mobile phones, jet aircraft or any form of fast communication – it took up to 3 weeks to sail from Memphis to Thebes alone, and surely up to 3 months to go from Memphis to Napata – or, 6 months (half a year!) to send up and have a reply! So, development of local authority was essential as much in the 25th Dynasty as in the New Kingdom. Pi(ankh)y would not do this, so he in practice abandoned all of Egypt after his great campaign except for religiously important Thebes to Aswan, closest to his southern domains.”

121

122

(2001) 357–370. The stelae of year 3 were dated to 1 February 661. For additional dates, see FHN I, 193. KITCHEN, ThIP, 235. It misinforms also on the role of Somtuefnakht in Heracleopolis. Cf. the dates of Cambyses in the same petition. See L. DEPUYDT, Egyptian Regnal Dating under Cambyses and the Date of the Persian Conquest, in: P. DER MANUELIAN (ed.) Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson I (Boston 1996) 182. Cf. J. VON BECKERATH, Nochmals die Eroberung Ägyptens durch Kambyses, ZÄS 129 (2002) 2.

290

Dan’el Kahn

In the following paragraphs I will not maintain the Kushites had mobile phones or jet aircrafts. I will, however, try to show, from the scanty information we have about communication and administration in the 25th dyn., that although these problems clearly existed, they did not hinder the kushite king to be the supreme ruler of this vast territory and even included the Levant up to the Euphrates, thus adding several km. to the territories under his authority. 3.1. Piankhy In the Great Triumphal Stela of Piankhy, at least 11 times messengers were sent from Egypt to Napata and back to inform the king on the progress of the military campaign and to receive new orders from the king. Grimal has calculated the length of the journey from Thebes to Napata as 3 months, 123 the same figure as Kitchen mentions. In a review of Grimal’s study, J. von Beckerath argued that this figure is wrong and should be about slightly more than a month.124 This can be deduced from the GTS of Piankhy. Piankhy left Napata by boat on the first month of Akhet, day 9 (GTS l. 29) and arrived in Thebes to celebrate the Opet Festival. This Festival started in the New Kingdom on II Akhet 15 or 19125 and there is no indication that this date changed in the 25th dynasty, although it can not be ruled out. Thus, Piankhy’s journey from Napata to Thebes lasted 39 days at the most and not 3 months.126 Kitchen asserts that it took up to 3 weeks to sail from Memphis to Thebes. This data is also exaggerated, and shorter periods of time are attested for this journey. In the Nitocris adoption Stela the time to travel the distance between Memphis (or possibly Tanis) and Thebes by boat (c. 700 km or more for Tanis) is 16 days.127 It might, possibly,

123 124

125 126

127

128

GRIMAL, La stèle triomphale de Pi(‘ankh)y, 225, n. 668. J. VON BECKERATH, Review of Grimal, N.-C., La stèle triomphale de Pi(‘ankh)y au Musée du Caire (MIFAO 105), Cairo, 1981, BiOr 42 (1985) 74. W. MURNANE, Opetfest, LÄ IV (1981) 574–579. See the estimated figure calculated by YURCO, Serapis 6 (1980) 227, n. 53. R.A. CAMINOS, The Nitocris Adoption Stela, JEA 50 (1964) 81–84 J. DEGAS, Navigation sur le Nil au Nouvel Empire, in: B. MENU (ed.), Les problèmes institutionels de l’eau en Égypte ancienne et dans l’Antiquité méditerranéenne, BdE 110, Paris 1992, 141–146.

even be reduced to 9 days.128 Thus, the time span that elapsed from issuing an order at Napata until it arrived by boat in Egypt can be considerably shortened. This, clearly, was no hindrance to send messengers and inform the king at court in Napata about the developments in Egypt. Although we have no information about the royal communication systems in Egypt and Kush, quicker means of delivering messages on horseback or chariots surely existed from the New Kingdom onwards.129 Kitchen claims that “he (Piankhy) in practice abandoned all of Egypt after his great campaign except for religiously important Thebes to Aswan, closest to his southern domains”. This statement is accepted by almost all scholars,130 and no serious evidence suggests otherwise. But, if Piankhy controlled Thebes, would he abandon control over Lower Egypt just because a message would arrive 2-3 weeks later at its destination? Did Piankhy not receive numerous messages from middle Egypt when he was still in Napata? Messages were sent in times of war and orders were sent back. After the subjugation of Egypt communication could only be better and less urgent. Piankhy did not leave Egypt because the postman was not efficient enough. The reason for abandoning Egypt must be sought elsewhere. According to the GTS of Piankhy, he left only after entire Egypt was subdued and even Tefnakht, his archrival, came to terms with him. Basically he kept the way of government in Egypt as existed before the onslaught of his campaign- one of an overlord and his loyal vassals and not of direct rule. 3.2. Shebitku The practice of sending messengers131 was also used when Taharqa was recruited in far away Kush

129

130 131

Just to mention the messenger that Kamose’s troops captured on the desert road west of the Nile between Avaris and Kush. See also A.R. SCHULMAN, Egyptian Representations of Horsemen and Riding in the New Kingdom, JNES 16 (1957) 263–271. But cf. ZIBELIUS-CHEN, OLZ 98 (2003) 442. On messages that were sent to report about enemy actions, cf. A.J. SPALINGER, Aspects of the Military Documents of the Ancient Egyptians (New Haven, 1982) 1–33; K.A. KITCHEN, Review of A.J. Spalinger, Aspects of the Military Documents of the Ancient Egyptians (New Haven, 1982), BiOr 44 (1987) 638.

Divided Kingdom, Co-regency, or Sole Rule in the Kingdom(s) of Egypt-and-Kush?

by Shebitku to wage war in the north (most probably at Eltekeh in Central Israel), even though the arrival of the Kushite reinforcement would only be of help months later (FHN I 139: Kawa IV, l. 8).132 3.3. Ashurbanipal Years later, when Lower Egypt was in Assyrian hands in ca. 667 B.C., Taharqa reconquered Memphis from the Assyrians. A messenger was sent from Memphis to Nineveh,133 which lay ca. 1850 km away. The message probably arrived weeks after the fall of Memphis. An army was then assembled (obviously not in one day!) and sent to Egypt – 62 or 74 (2–2.5 months!) marching days from Nineveh to Memphis at a rate of 30 or 25 km daily respectively without days of rest which were obviously needed, fighting, negotiations, siege, looting and a further month and 10 days advancement South toward Thebes (ca. 700 km), and then back again.134 Thus, the Assyrian counterattack against Taharqa’s forces was postponed by some months.135 This did not deter them from trying to control Egypt as well. The reaction time of the Assyrian Empire, as well as of the Kushite ruler, to local rebellions could be long and thus mislead the rebels. The harsh and devastating reaction did eventually come in most cases. All efforts were made to pacify a rebellious region and firmly control it, no matter how far away it lay, and how long it would take to suppress the rebellion as long as the region was designated a “priority region”.

132 133

134

YURCO, Serapis 6 (1980) 226–228. ONASCH, Die Assyrischen Eroberungen, 117: Prism C col. I, l. 62. I. EPH‘AL, On Warfare and Military Control in the Ancient Near Eastern Empires: A Research Outline, in:

291

CONCLUSIONS 1. There is no evidence for any coregency between any of the Kushite kings who ruled Egypt and Kush and their successor. 2. There is no evidence of a divided Kingship between a senior King and a junior king, coregent, regent, viceroy, deputy, lieutenant or vizier with kingly authority. 3. Admittedly, problems in communication can create the need to divide an empire into smaller administrative units. In the remaining records, however, there is no clear evidence for communication problems between Egypt and Kush in the 25th Dynasty, on the contrary. Messages, orders and updates were being sent from Kush to Egypt and back. The time estimates for a message to arrive at its destiny and return to the sender with an answer is much lower than the time calculated by Grimal and by Kitchen, and was less of a hindrance than suggested. Thus, we should accept that Shebitku was sole King of Egypt and Kush in 706 B.C. with the historical and chronological implications that derive from the evidence of the Tang-i Var inscription.136 The Anchor date of 690 B.C. for the accession of Taharqa can now be pushed back in time. The earliest secure absolute date for the 25th Dynasty can be determined as the accession date of Shabaka in 721 B.C.

135 136

H. TADMOR, and M. WEINFELD (eds.), History, Historiography and Interpretations, Jerusalem 1983, 99. EPH‘AL, On Warfare and Military Control, 96–97. See D. KAHN, Or 70 (2001) 1–18.

THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY – A RECONSIDERATION By Kenneth A. Kitchen

§2. The agreed starting-point has to be the 26th Dynasty and all that follows it. As ever, the only reliable way to attempt to calculate Ancient NearEastern dates (Egyptian included) is have a fixed point and to work back from it. The 26th Dynasty began in 664 BC, as is generally recognised. Before it, Taharqa of the 25th Dynasty has a clear reign of 26 years back to 690 BC, likewise, surely, to be accepted as a firm date.1 His sucessor Tantamun thus acceded in 664, just in time to suffer the Assyrian onslaught on Egypt in 663 BC, and reigned coevally with Psamtek I; hence his impact on mainline Egyptian chronology is nil. §3. Before Taharqa, we have Shebitku (Shabataka). The endless wrangling about the length of his reign can now be terminated, since the modern publication of the Tang-i-var inscription of Sargon II of Assyria, proving that “Shabataku, king of the land of Meluhha” was active in the Nile Valley in 706 BC. Inevitably, the text has been (superficially) misread, and thus misunderstood. Namely to the effect that Shebitku was king in Egypt from at least 706 BC, hence his predecessor Shabako (14 years, 13 in Egypt) ruled Egypt from c.720 BC or earlier, and hence all preceding rulers would also have to be dated correspondingly earlier.2 The errors of comprehension are threefold. First, Meluhha is Nubia (Kush) and

NOT Egypt! In 706, Shebitku is being recognised as ruler of Kush, and NOT of Egypt. Second, the Assyrian sharru does NOT mean exclusively “king” in the sense of the supreme monarch over a sizeable domain, and certainly not always in relation to reports on foreign potentates (high or low) outside Assyria itself. The slightly later campaignreports of Assurbanipal for Egypt make this crystal clear: everybody, from real kings (e.g. Pedubast II at Tanis) down to local Libyan chiefs and city mayors are all uniformly termed sharru, supposedly “king” – which 90% of them were not! In such Egyptian contexts, sharru should only be translated neutrally as “ruler”, except when actual Egyptian sources prove that a real king (a nswbit) is involved. Thus, in 706, Shebitku should be regarded as Shabako’s deputy, ruling in Kush, while the senior man – Shabako – was the real king (“pharaoh”) in Egypt proper, from 715 BC, when he himself took over Egypt. Third, recorded as (U)shilkanni, Osorkon IV was still in office in 716 when he sent gifts to Sargon II, just before Shabako came north in 715 and ended the reigns of Bakenranef and most likely also of Iuput II and Osorkon IV, in order to become sole and undisputed pharaoh in all Egypt. §4. There was, of course, excellent reason for this proceeding. Long before, the New-Kingdom pharaohs of Egypt found it impossible to rule both Egypt and Kush in person all the way from the Mediterranean coast well over 2,000 miles (well over 3.200 km) to Napata and the 4th cataract of the Nile. The 25th Dynasty had exactly the same problem, albeit technically in reverse. We too easily forget that nobody then had mobile phones, jet aircraft or any form of fast communication – it took up to 3 weeks to sail from Memphis to Thebes alone, and surely up to 3 months to go from Memphis to Napata – or, 6 months (half a year!) to send up and have a reply! So, devolvement of local authority was essential as much in the 25th Dynasty as in the New Kingdom.

1

2

INTRODUCTORY

§1. Unfortunately, as I could not attend the Vienna 2005 meeting in person, I know very little about my colleagues’ papers, and therefore have had no opportunity to interact with them. However, they would hopefully have seen the first version of this paper (which I sent to Vienna), so I will leave most of any interaction to them. My task is simply to review critically the factual evidence that matters, and to propose close-fitting solutions that will help us to see this topic more clearly. 1st MILLENNIUM BC (664–C. 1070)

Full details in ThIP-3 [the revised 2nd ed.], 1996, 161–163, §§130–131.

See, for example, D. KAHN, Orientalia NS 70(2001), 1–18, for a clear presentation on this basis.

294

Kenneth A. Kitchen

Pi(ankh)y would not do this, so he in practice abandoned all of Egypt after his great campaign except for religiously important Thebes-to-Aswan, closest to his southern domains. This, in turn, settles another old problem. In 701, during his Palestinian campaign, Sennacherib is said to have had to watch out for “Tirhaqa, king of Kush” (2 Kings 19:9; Isaiah 37:9). Kush, may I emphasize, NOT Egypt! Which is how almost all commentators have stubbornly misunderstood it (myself included). In 701, Shebitku ruled Egypt, and Taharqa was his Nubian lieutenant, precisely as Shebitku himself had been for Shabako. There was thus a clear, practical Kushite policy for ruling their vast twin realm effectively – and that twice over, on Assyrian and West-Semitic data that are together consistent. §5. As for Shebitku, his reign should indeed be allowed the full 12 years,3 from 702, that would have allowed him to plan his intervention against Assyria (cf. Kawa Stela IV, Taharqa bringing troops from Nubia to Egypt at S’s behest) the following year, when he sent out Taharqa with the Egypto-Nubian forces. Outside of 701, there is (so far) no other known occasion during Sennacherib’s reign (all the way down to his death in 681) for such a political conjunction. This essential digression then clears the way to assign – as previously – Shabako’s 14/13 years in Nubia and Egypt to 716/715–702 BC. No change is remotely needful here. As the 24th Dynasty (whom he evicted in the person of Bakenranef) was wholly contemporary with the 22nd/23rd Dynasties, it is largely irrelevant to the main stream of chronology, bringing us to the Libyan dynasties and their problems. §6. The 22nd Dynasty divides into 2 groups of rulers, with (i) a weak point in the middle, and (ii) some minor inserts (but not too many!) For the latter half, we have the sequence of Apis-bulls, whereby the one installed in Year 28 of Usimare Shoshenq Si-Bast (“Sh. III”) died in Year 2 of Usi-

3

4

5

6

Eusebian version of Manetho; plus an Apis-bull, c. 16 years, Shabako Year 14 to early under Taharqa; cf. ThIPd, p. 156, §(iii). See the sources as cited with references, in ThIPd-3, 100–104 passim. See discussion, ThIPd-3, 1996, xxv–xxvi with refs.; dates, BROEKMAN, GM 205(2005), 25. Cf. latterly, H.D. SCHNEIDER, Mélanges Gamal Eddin

mare Pimay 26 years later. That Shoshenq reigned into a Year 39; leaving some 14 years between then and Pimay’s accession. Then, Pimay reached a Year 6. A further Akheperre Shoshenq (>”V”) “son of Pimay saw another change of Apis-bulls in his Year 11 (after 15 years), then in his Year 37, another change of Apis-bulls, and finally one that died in Year 5 of Bakenranef, its burial being completed by Shabako. This sequence of rulers, Shoshenq III to V, is clearly fixed by these data.4 Within the 26 years’ lifespan of the Shoshenq III to Pimay Apis, it now seems clear that we must insert a “new” Hedjkheperre Shoshenq Son of Bast, God, Ruler of Heliopolis, who should be numbered “IV”, as he comes neatly between the existing III and V. This “new man” reached a 10th year, which fits well inside the interval available.5 After Shoshenq V, Pi(ankh)y invaded Egypt (in his own 20th year, celebrated in the 21st), and found as Shoshenq V’s successor in the 22ndDynasty home-fief of Bubastis (and therefore also Tanis) a king Osorkon (IVth, when we allow for an Os. III in the 23rd Dynasty, cf. below). The totality of the known monuments suffices to prove that this ruler was an Akheperre Setepenamun Osorkon Meriamun, with a royal lady (Tadibast) as his mother or his queen, that also indicates he was distinct from any other king Osorkon.6 The regnal years of Tefnakht (as king after Pi(ankh)y’s invasion) and Bakenranef at 7/8 and 5/6 years respectively give 12 (min.)/14 (max.) years for the two, before 715 BC and the conquest by Shabako, hence a bottom date of 727 (min.) to 730/29 (max.) for Pi(ankh)y’s irruption, say 728 as average of the two (or up to 730, see further §14 below). Again, it is unlikely that Osorkon IV became king only 5 minutes before he had to rush off and submit to Pi(ankh)y in c. 728 (min.), so we may set his rule from c. 730 BC, minimally, or slightly earlier. A minimum reign of c. 15 years or slightly more for Osorkon IV, c. 730+–715 BC, also fits with his being the So of 2 Kings 17:4, appealed-to by Hoshea of Israel in c. 726/725 BC,

Mokhtar, II, Cairo: IFAO, 1985, 261–267, figs. 1–2 and plate I. The relief-fragment clearly has him as an active decorator of some temple at Bubastis or Tanis; its technique is comparable with (but slightly inferior to) that of blocks of Shoshenq V at Tanis (cf. P. MONTET, Le lac sacré de Tanis, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1966, pls. 47:29, 48:40, 49:53, 51:74, 52:89.

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology – A Reconsideration 295

and also the (U)shilkanni who grovelled to Sargon II in 716 BC. As a result, we can nach wie vor, minimally put 37 years of Shoshenq V at c. 767–730 BC, 6 years of Pimay at c. 773–767, then max. 13 years for the new Shoshenq IV at c. 786–773, and the basic 39 years of Shoshenq III at c. 825–786 BC, minimally. There is no absolute need to change this basis for the later 22nd Dynasty – “don’t mend what ain’t broken!” is homely but sound advice in such a case. §7. Likewise, we have a sequence for the early part of this Dynasty. The famous Pasenhor stela gives a clear sequence of Shoshenq I (son of a commoner) > Osorkon I > Takeloth I > Osorkon II. This sequence is mirrored in part in various priestly genealogies from Thebes. Cf. the sequence Shoshenq I (Hedjkheperre), Osorkon I (Sekhemkheperre), and then (missing the short lived Takeloth I) an Osorkon II (Usimare; & SiBast in nomen), as in the genealogy of the 4th Prophet DjedThutefankh (ThIPd-3, 217–221 for data). Thanks to the perspicacity of our good colleague Jansen-Winkeln, we find this Osorkon II bewailing his father, a Hedjkheperre Takeloth (I) Meriamun at Tanis (refs., ThIPd-3, xxii–xxiii), so we have proper titles from Shoshenq I to Osorkon II inclusive (first half of Dyn. 22) as well as for Shoshenq III to Osorkon IV in the second half of the Dynasty. Not included in the sequence from either Pasenhor or any other source is a king Heqakheperre Shoshenq (II?), known exclusively from his rich burial (reburial?) in the tomb of Psusennes I at Tanis. That this is actually Shoshenq I buried under another name is theoretically possible, but highly doubtful; no reason for such an act is evident. As nothing in the burial postdates the early 22nd Dynasty, he may have been a co-regent of Osorkon I (and dying before the latter). See full discussions in ThIPd 1-3, long since. The reign-lengths of Shoshenq I to Osorkon II inclusive are well-known within close limits (so far...). Shoshenq I’s Year 21 may have been a full 21 years (cf. Manetho), dying in Year 22; a Year 33 bandage-date found in a Theban burial with braces naming Osorkon I suggests that the Manethonic 15 years is changed from *35 years; and an associated Year 3 could be of his coregent(?) Shoshenq II or of his successor,

7

Takeloth I. To the latter belong Nile-level texts of Years 5 to 13 or 14, left by his contemporaries and brothers the high prests of Amun, and a stela of Year 9 (cf. ThIPd-3, xxiii and refs.; a minimum of 13/14 years (or up to 15) seems indicated – Manetho’s [misplaced?] Takelothis is given 13 years. For Osorkon II, we have 23 years, but 24 probably the minimum (cf. ThIPd, p. 108), and he may have reigned longer – see further, §16 below. §8. It is also possible to give close dates for these kings, using one or both of two options. (i) Hitherto, a king Takeloth (II Si-Ese; prenomen, Hedjkheperre) with a son and Theban Amun’s high priest, Prince Osorkon, and 25 years’ reign to his credit, has been accepted within the 22nd Dynasty at this point, between Osorkon II and Shoshenq III. Chronologically, this is clearly indicated (a) by the career of Prince Osorkon running in his own ‘chronicle’ through from Years 11, 15, 25 of Takeloth II to Years 22–29 and (in other texts) 39 of Shoshenq III. Before all that, Prince Osorkon was son of Takeloth II by Queen Karomat D, daughter of Nimlot C who had been the previous high priest of Theban Amun, and son of Osorkon II. On this impeccable basis, Takeloth II does belong between Osorkon II and Shoshenq III (with or without coregencies), while his son Prince Osorkon dated exclusively by the 22nd Dynasty ruler Shoshenq III after his own father Takeloth II. So, there is NO a priori reason to doubt that Takeloth II belongs to the 22nd Dynasty, at its median point. Anywhere else is excluded.7 (ii) On such a minimal sequence, of 21 + 34 + 13 + 24/25 + 25 years respectively for Shoshenq I, Osorkon I, Takeloth I, Osorkon I, and Takeloth II, totalling some 120 years, this figure added to c. 825 BC for the accession of Shoshenq III, brings us to approx. 945 BC for the accession of Shoshenq I and the 22nd Dynasty, regardless of any other reckoning. Apart from Assyrian support for the 12-year reign of Shebitku, Egyptian chronology at this point stands clearly on its own resources, back from 664/690 BC all the way back to 945 BC. The Near-Eastern links with Osorkon IV (So in 726/5, (U)shilkanni in 716) confirm the dating from our Nile valley data. Going back further, Shishak = Shoshenq I raided Palestine in the 5th year of Rehoboam king of

Including Heracleopolis (JANSEN-WINKELN, SAK 27 (1999), 137), seeing that we have a continuous series of governors there c. 865-720 BC (ThIPd-1/2/3, 485, table 16); so, no room there for T. II in c. 850–825!

296

Kenneth A. Kitchen

Judah (1 Kings 14:25); reckoning down from 931/930 BC, date of the division of the Hebrew kingdom; that notable event can be set at 926/925 BC, as it is possible to establish Hebrew monarchic dates from 931/930 down to 841 BC, thanks to exact correlations with Shalmaneser III of Assyria. The year 926/925 BC would coincide with about Year 20 of Shoshenq I, and so his accession be in 945 BC – precisely as with the Egyptian data dealt with above. This fits well, because he undertook his vast works at Karnak (forecourt, “Bubastite Gate”, triumph-scene and Palestinian toponym-list) in Year 21 (Silsila stela of Horemsaf), and evidently died in Year 22, the works being left largely unfinished. Therefore, it is very unwise to place Shoshenq I’s Palestinian campaign much before his Year 20. Pushing it back to Year 19 (=acc. 944) is possible, but why a year’s delay to begin building? Going back to Year 18 (= acc. 943) is even less likely with two years’ delay before building. We must not forget that Shoshenq was no callow youth at his accession (probably nearer 40 than 30), and hence near to 60 when he invaded Palestine. Thus, on return, in that age-bracket, he would lose no time in launching his ambitious “imperial’-looking building-programme, to overawe the critical Thebans, and (as Osorkon I’s spending shows), when flushed with enough resources to build extrtavagantly in Thebes, Memphis and Teudjoi (El-Hibeh). So, we should stay at or near Year 20 for the campaign, and close to 945 (possibly 944) for practical reasons. Later in the 22nd Dynasty, in 853 BC, Egypt sent troops to support the Levantine rulers (including Ahab of Israel) against Shalmaneser III; it is no coincidence that a presentation vessel of Osorkon II was found at Samaria in the royal palace; Ahab reigned c. 875/4–853/2, while on reigns given just above, Osorkon II would have reigned (24/25 years min.) c. 877–852 BC – a remarkably close overlap, it so happens. Thus, our Egyptian and Near-Eastern sets of dates – almost wholly independently! – fit together excellently all the way back from 664/690 BC to c. 945 BC. In this impeccable context, it is entirely natural to set Takeloth II as the middle link between the early 22nd Dynasty (Shoshenq I–Osorkon II) and the later 22nd Dynasty (Shoshenq IIIOsorkon IV). It would require very strong evidence indeed to prove otherwise. And none is forthcoming. For some attempts, see §10ff. below. Before reviewing these, we must first review the

essentials of the 23rd Dynasty, as a chronological complement to the 22nd. §9. The monumental evidence reveals a second set of Libyan-period kings who – beyond all doubt – were contemporaries of the mainline 22nd Dynasty, and sprung from it, family-wise. We have a king Usimare Pedubast (I), in whose Years 5, 8, 18, 19 one Harsiese (B) was high priest of Amun; by Year 23 of Pedubast a new high priest Takeloth (E) had succeeded him. The year 5 of Pedubast mentioning Harsiese (B) is equated with Year 12 of another (unnamed) king. In the genealogy of the Theban Nebneteru family, Pedubast comes in a generation also contemporary with Shoshenq III, but following that contemporary with Osorkon II (earlier) and ahead of the next generation dating by an Osorkon III (for whom, see just below). He was therefore a possible contemporary of Takeloth II and certainly of (early?) Shoshenq III. Thus, it the Year 12 = Year 5 of Pedubast I should be attributed to Shoshenq III, and the accession of Pedubast (his Year 1) occurred in Year 8 of Shoshenq III. This cannot be Years 8 and 12 of any later king, because the later kings and high priests could not then be fitted in between Pedubast’s accession and the invasion of Pi(ankh)y in c. 728 BC (min.) as we shall see. Nor can it be under Takeloth II, when Nimlot C officiated just before Prince Osorkon, and Osorkon (not a Harsiese!) was Takeloth’s choice. Thus, if Year 8 of Shoshenq III (acc. 825, §6 end, above) was in c. 818 BC (min.), then that would also be the accession-date of Pedubast I – and of Manetho’s 23rd Dynasty. Shortly before that date, in an explicit Year 6 of Shoshenq III, we find the first mention of Harsiese (B) as Theban pontiff; thus, he had at least 25 years in office from that Year 6 to Year 23 of Pedubast I. However, that Year 6 of Shoshenq III (and the deliberately anonymous Year 12) is the last time that any Theban dignitary dated any event by the years of the 22nd Dynasty. This fact cannot be overstressed. After that point, the Thebans dated exclusively by the parallel 23rd Dynasty, until Pi(ankh)y took over the Thebaid, c. 730/28 BC; after which time, datelines of his began to appear. The only man to date by the 22nd Dynasty after Year 12 of Shoshenq III was its lonely supporter, Prince Osorkon. There is no rational reason to doubt that our Usimare Pedubast is also Manetho’s founder of the 23rd Dynasty, assigned 25 years – so close to our attested Year 23, that it should be accepted (as is normally done). In

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology – A Reconsideration 297

Years 15–16, he had a coregent, Iuput I, of whom nothing more is heard. His actual successor was certainly an Usimare Meriamun Shoshenq, in whose 6th year the high priest Takeloth appears, already attested in Year 23 of Pedubast I, giving that pontiff at least 8 years in office. As we now have Shoshenqs I–V in the 22nd Dynasty, the logic of the situation demands that we here merely reverse the Latin ciphers I+V (of “old” Shoshenq IV) to give us V+I, for this king as now to be reckoned as Shoshenq VI. This will give a sequence in this same Dynasty later, for yet one other Shoshenq (VII), if not another (*VIII). In the genealogies, an Usimare Osorkon SiEse, with a mother Tentsai distinct from Kapes, mother of Osorkon II Si-Bast (also an Usimare), occurs in the generation which followed that of Pedubast I. Of this king, we have dates up to Year 28, possibly 29; as has long been known and accepted, he had a co-regent and successor, Usimare Takeloth (III) Si-Ese, formerly high priest in his father’s reign. Takeloth III had 7 known years, 5 as co-regent, hence a minimum of 2 years’ sole rule (probably enough). After him, a king Rudamun – with no explicit datelines known. In Pi(ankh)y’s time, when he invaded Egypt, he found two Delta kings: the senior, Osorkon (IV) of Bubastis, and a second, a Iuput II at Ta-remu. As Osorkon IV is clearly of 22ndDynasty lineage (at Bubastis, in touch with Israel and Assyria, at the nearest point for their envoys – which implies Tanis), so equally one must insist that this Iuput II (named in imitation of Iuput I of Dyn. 23!) is the last known scion of the parallel 23rd Dynasty. In 730/28, there were NO other Delta kings; the other two kinglets (Nimlot and PeftjauawyBast) lived far away in Middle Egypt. Iuput II has a Year 21 to his credit, and is the last known of his line. If, with Bakenranef and Osorkon IV, his regime too disappeared in 715 under the all-conquering impact of Shabako, then Iuput II’s accession would go back at absolute minimum to c. 736/735. If we compute this Dynasty so far, we have 25 + 6 + 28 + 2 years (minimum) from Pedubast I to Takeloth III inclusive. These 61 years would run from 818 BC (min.) down to 757 BC, leaving about 22/21 years down to Iuput II, acc. c. 736/735 BC. Some 22 years for the ephemeral Rudamun (or even a few extra years for Takeloth III) seems over-generous. And, in fact, we now have a new king to fill this gap. For data on this welcome newcomer, and his great kindness in

sharing with me his data thereon and in showing me his paper forthcoming in SAK 33, I am greatly (and gratefully) indebted to Dr. G.P.F. BROEKMAN, to whom we also owe a good precis of the arguments proffered in favour of eliminating Takeloth II from Dyn. 22, in GM 205 (2005), 21–33. The Wadi Gasus graffito, with Year 12 and a God’s Wife Amenirdis, and Year 19 with the God’s Wife Shepenupet, would now possibly refer to Year 12 of Pi(ankh)y, and then Year 19 not to Iuput II but to the new Shoshenq VII (SiEse). Then, if the latter reached his *20th year, with 19 full years, our previous 2 years for Rudamun would fall in 757–755 BC, and the reign of Shoshenq VII in 755–736 BC, with Iuput II neatly in 736–715 BC, as given in Broekman, GM 205 (2005), 25. The datings are close but perfectly feasible (but adjusted, below). The 23rd Dynasty was one consistent line of rulers, precisely as both Manetho and the monuments in unison both require. Where they officiated is an entirely separate issue. §10. However, in recent years, some have sought to reject the above impeccably straightforward and fully satisfactory solution for the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties for a miscellany of reasons. As has been shown already elsewhere (ThIPd-3, xxiii–xxxiv), almost none of the reasons proffered can be shown to be binding. Nevertheless, it is only proper (however briefly) to do two things. (i) To show – again – why the normal scheme is perfectly sufficient, and the contrary “reasons” are needless. But (ii) to explore whether, in fact, adjustments are feasible in the mid-22nd Dynasty to eliminate the supposed problems in a positive fashion. If so, then we would attain to an alternative chronology for the middle of the 22nd Dynasty, affecting mainly Osorkon II and Takeloth II, but very little for anyone before or after them, thanks to the clear successions, relatively good regnal data, and firm additional controls imposed by the Near-Eastern data. §11. First of, all, very tersely, the arguments for change from Osorkon II to at least early Shoshenq III. We enumerate as follows: (1) The desire to equate Prince Osorkon (son of Takeloth II) with the later king Osorkon III of the 23rd Dynasty. I am criticised for a chronology that would make Prince Osorkon c. 71 years old in Year 39 of Shoshenq III; but this is not impossible – compare another man (Nebneteru iii, ThIPd, 212, n. 102) who lived to be 96 years old! This would not be very common, but it

298

Kenneth A. Kitchen

makes Prince Osorkon (even at 71) young in comparison! Furthermore, eliminating Takeloth II’s reign from the 22nd Dynasty does NOT improve Prince Osorkon’s chances of becoming the Osorkon III who reigned for 28/29 years. Even at 51 at *accession, he would reach 80 – possible (cf, just above) but rather exceptional. Far better he die at c. 72 on my chronology (Shoshenq III, Year 40)! As Broekman also realises now,8 the whole idea that (i) Takeloth II sat powerless in Thebes while the Thebans insulted him by repeatedly barring his son and heir Prince Osorkon from office there and that (ii) then these very same Thebans miraculously welcomed this very same man once he took cartouches as king Osorkon (III), only the very next year after he had (in Year 39, Sh. III)) descended on Thebes breathing fire and slaughter on his opponents – this is, and remains, a near-impossible scenario; see ThIPd-3, xxiv §W end, and xxxi, §BB. There are better reasons than this outdated concept, for any change of reigns here. (2) That Takeloth II has no burial now in Tanis nor monuments there (yet...) is of no consequence whatsoever. None of the kings Shoshenq I, Osorkon I, Pimay, Shoshenq V, or Osorkon IV have known burials or tombs there either (as yet...), but this does not disqualify them from their sequence in the 22nd Dynasty! This remains a wholly valid point. As remarked already, Takeloth II is linked by marriage firmly with the line of Osorkon II, while his son Prince Osorkon absolutely shunned the 23rd Dynasty, dating always by the 22nd! On such clear grounds, he and his father are by no means either 23rd Dynasty or regular residents in Thebes. (3) The epithet Si-Ese (even as studied by Muhs) proves absolutely nothing about the location of kings or dynasties. Pedubast I, actual founder of the 23rd Dynasty, was Si-Bast, not only Si-Ese (an epithet invented by Takeloth II, to distinguish himself from Takeloth I). Si-Ese only became a fixed epithet for Dyn. 23 quite late – Osorkon III onwards. And it is not a Theban title per se. Quite the contrary. In Year 21, Shoshenq I was sitting in “the residence of Per-Ese, the Great Spirit (ka) of Re-Harakhti”, when he decreed his great quarrying and building-works that year.9 The striking

epithet “Great Spirit of Re-Harakhti” is otherwise unique to the long-defunct Pi-Ramesse, only a few miles south of Tanis. It would seem that the new (22nd) Dynasty had annexed both that district and its defunct city’s former epithet, for a royal estate (and country palace) in the name of Isis, as a dependency of Tanis. Here is the Isis of Takleloth II – in home territory, near Tanis! Again, at Leontopolis (Ta-remu), home of the last 23rd Dynasty king, Iuput II, close to his capital (Tell Moqdam/Ta remu) is Mit-Ya’ish, whence came a stela of Osorkon II whose divinities included HorMerti of Shedenu and mighty Isis, Lady of Shedenu, deities of Horbeit further east.10 So we again have Isis in the home territories of both the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties. (4) There was no “special relationship” between Takeloth II and Thebes; only 2 daughters of his married there; links were much more varied with (e.g.) Shoshenq I (definitely a northern king!) and Takeloth III. The idea that Takeloth II’s queen Karomat D was Theban has been scotched by BROEKMAN (GM 205 (2005), 22–23), and likewise other supposedly special southern links (ibid., 23). (5) The attempt to assign 40/45 years to Osorkon II because of the successions of officeholders in his reign is a needless error, because tenure of office is frequently far less than a generation; see already ThIPd-3, xxv. Osorkon II may well have reigned longer than 24 years (as suggested below), but a 20-year gap with no monuments whatsoever is unacceptably artificial. (6) “Gaps” in the series of Nile-level records at Karnak (cf. BROEKMAN, op. cit., 28–30, table 1). Our friend would object to the gap of no Nilelevel records at all for the entire 25-years’ reign of Takeloth II, if he was sole ruler that long; therefore his sole reign is illusory. However, negatives often prove nothing. And there are damning parallels for this phenomenon. What about the 22year gap with no Nile-level texts between Years 6 and 28 of Osorkon III? A whole 22 years, and no text! Almost as bad as with Takeloth II. Again, what about the 26-year gap in these records from Year 9 of Taharqa to Year 10 of Psamtek I? Every bit as “bad” as the 25 years of Takeloth II. What about the 26-year gap between Year 6 of Shoshenq

8

10

9

GM 205 (2005), 23/24. Published by R.A. CAMINOS, JEA 38(1952), plate XIII: 39–40, and 50 end, 55 (obsolescent note).

Published by G. DARESSY, ASAE 22(1922), 77; cf. P. MONTET, Géographie de l’Égypte ancienne, I, Paris, 1957, 134.

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology – A Reconsideration 299

I and Year 12 of Osorkon I? And there may be another 20 year gap within the reign of Shoshenq VII. So, this kind of argument is inherently worthless. It is clear that such records were not carved annually; they were only done on particular occasions for reasons not now certain. Hence, this is not a reliable indicator. (7) Different spellings of Hapi (BROEKMAN, GM 205, 32; JEA 88 (2002), 163–178) may be the product of varying scribes, rather than chronological fashions; hence, they are are not definitive proof without other evidence. Thus, either Osorkon II or III are theoretically possible. (8) It is an error to insert Sehetepibenre Pedubast II for 10 years into the later 22nd Dynasty between Shoshenq V and Osorkon IV, for two good reasons. First, the title-style of Pedubast II is wholly foreign to that period – Sehetepibenre is the style of later 7th-century kinglets, NOT of the outgoing Libyan 22nd/23rd Dynasties with their endless repetitions of the three prenomens Hedjkheperre / Akheperre / Usimare. Second, Pedubast II is undoubtedly the ruler of Tanis c. 670 BC, and the anti-Assyrian prince along with Inaros whose fame was such that he was still celebrated 1000 years later in the Demotic tales on this theme.11 Thirdly, and damningly, there is no room chronologically for this kinglet at this point. The Apis-bull that was inducted in Year 37 of Shoshenq V did not die until Years 5/6 of Bakenranef. The reigns of Bakenranef and Osorkon IV probably both ended in 715 BC in Shabako’s conquest of Egypt then; hence, this bull lived through the (incomplete?) Year 38 of Shoshenq V, and the entire reign of Osorkon IV whose last six years were contemporary with the entire reign of Bakenranef. On my normal dates, with 15 years for Osorkon IV (c. 730–715), that bull lived c. 16 years – the norm for that epoch! If one gives Osorkon IV up to 20 years (from c. 735), that bull would still only live c. 20 years, well within normal limits (up to 19 years even under the Ptolemies). But if we “do an Aston”, with 10 years for Pedubast II (745–735) plus 20 years for Osorkon IV (735–715), as cited by BROEKMAN (GM 205 (2005), 25) we then have the life of this unfortunate Apisbull stretched out to over 30 years! No way!!

(9) The question of “generation-jumps”. Unlike the other eight items noted above (and a few more), this is in fact the only serious argument for attempting to overlap Takeloth II with Shoshenq III (and in consequence, lengthening the reign of Osorkon II to compensate). But the idea that the whole concept of a “generationjump” as somehow abnormal12 is itself a major conceptual error. At no time does an entire generation in a country’s population mechanically get born at the same moment, then grow up to marry (say, aged 15/20) at one and the same time, then have a clutch of kids within (say) 5 years all at the same time, and eventually decease neatly at 50/65 all at the same time. Mass births, mass weddings, mass births, mass funerals! No. Within a population there are people of all ages all the time. Naturally, they commonly team up at roughly compatible ages; but many exceptions occur, for many reasons. Furthermore, down to 100 years or less ago, even in western Europe, couples had far more children than is common today; 7 children or so were nothing unusual; anciently compare the numerous offspring (e.g.) in Theban tomb-scenes or on Deir el-Medina family monuments. Let me illustrate from my own family history. During c. 1900–1920, my paternal grandparents had 7 children (5 sons, 2 girls), the last (a boy) born c. 1920. I was born to the 3rd son in 1932 – which meant that (to me) my Uncle Arnold became an uncle as a teenager at c. 12/13! Not in his 20s or over, as one might conventionally expect. He in turn married in the late 1940s, so in the early 50s I (in mid/later teens) was uncle to his son. And all sorts of jumps of various kinds are to be expected, depending on circumstances. My parents married late (in my mother’s case, also late births of sons); she was born in 1896 (just before Queen Victoria’s 2nd jubilee), whereas I had my (coming-of-age) 21st birthday in Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation year (1953) nearly 60 years later. So, we must not apply mechanical concepts to antiquity, either. Then as now, all would depend upon particular family circumstances, normally well beyond our knowledge. For this reason, the “jumps” argument is inherently so riddled with multiple possibilities

11

12

See K. RYHOLT, in: J.G. DERCKSEN (ed.), Assyria and Beyond, Studies presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, 2004, 483–510, esp. 486; the identification of Esarhaddon in these texts is certain; cf. ibid., 484–485.

Cf. the eloquent presentation by BROEKMAN, GM 205 (2005), 26–27, who had considered just three such “jumps” to be far too common. In practice, probably not nearly common enough!

300

Kenneth A. Kitchen

that it is virtually useless. In a population of perhaps half a million or more, they would have been relatively commonplace, depending on the circumstances in particular families. In short, our chronology can largely disregard this phenomenon; and my basic chronology with a 25-years’ reign for Takeloth II between Osorkon II and Shoshenq III is perfectly OK. (As long as we cease making the sort of mistakes refuted above and in ThIPd-3.) It certainly meets its international obligations perfectly. Change for change’s sake is a bad criterion for studying chronology, I may add. §12. But, in all fairness, we must also investigate if an adjustment can profitably be made to the dating of the 22nd/23rd Dynasties within the practical constraints of c. 945–715 BC, our realistic framework. If so, then maybe internal improvements can be made, without running into the sort of mistakes dealt with above and previously. If such an investigation of a possible “point of weakness” provides a better result, then we all will gain; if it proves fruitless, then we should stay where we were, and should stop chasing novelty for novelty’s (deceptive) sake. It is better to be bored and correct than have an exciting new theory and be hopelessly wrong. We are not part of the entertainment industry! So, let us see what we find. The tables in Excursus I will be found helpful for what follows. §13. First, any overlap suggested between Takeloth II and Shoshenq III cannot go later than Year 22 of Shoshenq III, from when Prince Osorkon dates exclusively by the latter king. So long as his father lived, he dated by him – only after Takeloth II’s death was Prince Osorkon compelled to date by Shoshenq III (to avoid the 23rd Dynasty and its adherents – his foes!) This has one immediate consequence: the total 25-year reign of Takeloth II CANNOT be fitted inside the first 22 years of Shoshenq III. On plain arithmetic, 25 does not go into 22! So, either the first 3 or 4 years of Takeloth II’s reign were independent after the death of Osorkon II (whenever that was), or else he began as a late coregent of Osorkon II. Second, it is not good enough just to play games with numbers. We need to be able to say why one king overlapped with another at any particular juncture. We need real political situations to justify the choices considered. In what follows, we will seek to give realistic circumstances for the possible overlaps endorsed or suggested, or

changes in reign-lengths – NOT treat these as simply arbitrary number-games. §14. Let us begin with a widely-accepted datum. As noted above, the 5th year of Pedubast I is equated with an anonymous Year 12 (Nile level text No. 24), and therefore his Year 1 and accession in a Year 8. This cannot be any later than Shoshenq III, because we have a series of other (Dyn. 23) kings after Pedubast I and before the invasion by Pi(nkh)y of Kush, who ran in parallel with Dyn. 22’s Shoshenq III–V, and themselves total about 107 years alongside the c. 112 years for Dyn. 22 then. This has the result (as established long since, and still accepted, e.g., Broekman, 29, No. 24) that Pedubast I began his reign and his Dynasty in Year 8 of Shoshenq III, in the late 9th century BC (detailed dates, below). What is more, Usimare Pedubast is well attested at Karnak (Years 7–23 passim), and in Theban genealogies, where he comes after Osorkon II, contemporary with Shoshenq III (cf. ThIPd-3, 131, 211), and before Osorkon III. But what right had Pedubast I to take royal style? “He who buries inherits” is the key; a king buries his predecessor. Pedubast certainly did not bury Shoshenq III – but he may have participated in the funeral of Takeloth II. We may suggest that Takeloth II died (in his own Year 25 or *26) in Year 8 of Shoshenq III – giving us almost a decade’s overlap (quite enough), and Pedubast I used his role at this funeral to claim to succeed him alongside Shoshenq III. The latter may not have approved; hence Pedubast I moved out of Tanis, and set up court elsewhere (probably at Leontopolis). Pedubast I’s 25 years (including an ephemeral coregent, Iuput I) were followed by the 6 years of Shoshenq VI, then 28 years of Osorkon III, 2 or 3 years of his coregent Takeloth III, a brief reign (5 or 6 years?) of Rudamun, and (now) by at least 19 years of the new Shoshenq VII (20 years would be less cramped). All this happened before the invasion of Egypt by Pi(ankh)y sometime about 728 as noted already. Thus, the pre-invasion 23rd Dynasty would total about 25 + 6 + 28 + 2 + 5 + 20 years (>86 years) before the accession of Iuput II and Pi(ankh)y’s invasion. In turn, Iuput II reached a Year 21, and should be given that full year, probably being ousted in Year 22 by Shabako in 715 BC. In this way, the entire 23rd Dynasty can be set minimally in the years 822–715 BC. Year 19 of Shoshenq VII (Wadi Gasus, Shepenupt I) would then fall in 738, along with Year 12 for Pi(ankh)y, (Wadi Gasus,

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology – A Reconsideration 301

Amenirdis I). If that is so, then his campaign in Year 20 some 8 years later would fall in 730 BC – an amelioration from c. 728 as offered above. Pi(ankh)y went back to Nubia; and as he did not repeat his campaign in 729, but left Egypt to its own devices, Tefnakht then realised this fact, and (probably) had 8 full years as king, which would cover from 728 to 720 BC, with Bakenranef’s 5 full years (into a 6th) in 720–715 BC. §15. Thus, we have Dynasties 23/24 into incipient 25 well dated. As Shoshenq III’s 8th year and Takeloth II’s incomplete 26th now fall in 822 BC, their accessions will have fallen in 829 BC (Shoshenq III) and in 847 BC (Takeloth II). Why, we may ask, did Shoshenq III seek to become king in about Year 19 of Takeloth II? The politics of the time may hold the answer. In his Year 15 (to cite his son, Prince Osorkon) a cataclysm of revolt (i.e., from the Theban South) burst upon the land, with years of war. As high priests of Amun were in effect (and by titles) also governors of Upper Egypt, the years 15–19 probably saw the Thebans in danger of taking over the entire Nile valley south of Memphis, at least south from Heracleopolis and Teudjoi (El-Hibeh), as the resistance by Takeloth II and his son proved unavailing. In short, the senior (22nd) Dynasty was in danger of losing everything south of the Delta, and maybe even control there. In this crisis, the younger man Shoshenq seized control of the armed forces, pushed his father (?Takeloth II) and brother (?Prince Osorkon) aside, and took two forms of action: (i) stopped the opposition in their tracks, and (ii) negotiated a peace, to the satisfaction of the Thebans. Little wonder that Prince Osorkon was in limbo for some years, while Harsiese B took control in the South. Having saved the day, Shoshenq (III) then assumed the kingship as full coregent to Takeloth II – an arrangement that then lasted nearly 8 years, quite a good overlap. Shoshenq III reigned 39 years overall, not 52 – which includes (for us) a 13-year span for a Shoshenq IV (Year 10 attested); cf. long since, ThIPd-3, xxv-xxvi, §Y. Then, with successive Apisburials, 6 years of Pimay and 37 years of Shoshenq V, down to c. 735 BC, and all gone before Pi(ankh)y found Osorkon IV in possession at Bubastis (and Tanis) in 730. The latter king is attested by our Near-Eastern sources for 726 and 720 as already noted. On plain arithmetic during 735–715 (tine of Shabako’s arrival), he may have 20 years’ reign, coeval finally with Bakenranef,

and an Apis-bull that lived some 20/21 years. §16. If we go back to the period before Takeloth II and 847 BC, only a few minor adjustments are needed to our former dates for Shoshenq I to Osorkon II. The biggest change concerns Osorkon II. If we accept Broekman’s thesis (already cited above) on the currency of spellings of Hapi, and thus the attribution of Nilelevel text 14 to a Year 29 for Osorkon II, which is only about 5/6 years more than the old 23/24 years’ estimate [unlike wild estimates of 40/45 years], then we can go one small step further. Well-known are the jubilee-reliefs of Osorkon II from Bubastis – and the curious dateline of Year 22. May I suggest that this is a slip in transcribing from the hieratic? The two strokes are a slip for a third “10”-sign, its top having been damaged in the hieratic draft, leaving only the two vertical strokes, such that we now have (on the stone) just “22” for “30”. The date “22” for a sed-festival is wholly anomalous; this suggestion would rid us of the anomaly, and confirm a 30-year reign for Osorkon II, after which he probably died in his 31st year; in 847, his accession would then have been in 877. Then we may assign Takeloth I just 13 full years (as in Manetho), dying in the 14th , so in 890–877 BC. In turn if Manetho’s 15 >*35 years for Osorkon I are rounded up from a full 34 years (dying in 35th), Osorkon I can now be set at 924–890 BC, leaving Shoshenq I where he belongs, in 945–924 BC. All of this will have beneficial effects in rejuvenating some of the “elderly” people in the mid22nd Dynasty, including Prince Osorkon. If he were about 16/20 in 837 (11th year of Takeloth II), then in 791 (39th year of Shoshenq III) he would have been about 62/66 – a perfectly reasonable age, soon after attaining which, he probably died. There is still no clear case for confusing him with the later Osorkon III. In Excursus II, there can be found a fresh set of dates to set out the revised set of reigns for our period, now taking on board not only my efforts, but drawing also on recent work (Aston, etc.) and different approaches while eliminating some of the exaggerations and misunderstandings of these recent years. §17. We now come, finally, to the 21st Dynasty and transition to the 22nd, thankfully more briefly. First, the error of imposing an imaginary coregency on Psusennes II and Shoshenq I. This has already been fully refuted by me in ThIPd-3, xix–xxii, §§O–R. Let me here make just one deci-

302

Kenneth A. Kitchen

sive point. The Thebans, already, did not want Shoshenq I as their new ruler, at the death of Psusennes II. And so in Year 2 of the new king, they rebelliously refused to accept his kingly status, dating an item in the Karnak Priestly Annals, “Year 2, 3rd month of Akhet, day 17, of the Great Chief of the Ma, Shoshe(n)q (the foreigner), justified...”! 13 If Psusennes II had still been alive (in a coregency), they could have got out of their dilemma simply by citing the year-number of Psusennes II. He was dead and gone – hence they had no way of dating except by the rule of the new foreign chief. There was no coregent to date by. Full stop. Could anything be clearer? Shoshenq I knew he had to convince the Thebans of his good intentions; hence, he showed much devotion to their last leader, dedicating items to him, associating their names, etc. – but (as so often in such cases) this was all post-mortem propaganda. The early prenomen Maatkheperre for Shoshenq I (dedication for Psusennes II14) was quickly replaced (not later than Year 5) by the normative Hedjkheperre, as it politically associated Shoshenq I with the founder of the (21st) Dynasty of Psusennes II. At the latest, Psusennes might have died later in Year 1 of Shoshenq, leaving him as sole ruler in Year 2. But a *10-month “coregency” is of practically no chronological value, and in fact the whole fantasy needs to be laid to rest. §18. That being so, we may simply note for the st 21 Dynasty overall that its 7 kings reigned as follows: Smendes I, 26 years; Amenemnisu, 4 years; Psusennes I, 48 years, last 2 years coregent with next; Amenemope, 9 years; Osorkon the Elder, 6 years; Siamun, 19 years, and (Har)-Psusennes II, 13, 14, or 15 years. Ending in 945 BC (accession of Shoshenq I), and allowing for a 2-year coregency, these figures total 123/124/125 years back to the beginning of the 21st Dynasty in c. 1068/1069/1070 BC, respectively. There is no obvious choice as to which figure should be preferred for Psusennes II. Africanus (often preferable) has 14 years, while Eusebius has 35 for *15

13

14

15

Published, J.-M. KRUCHTEN, Les annales des prêtres de Karnak..., 1989, 49–50, pls. 3, 18, text 4b. Cf. JANSEN-WINKELN, JEA 81(1995), 147 fig. 5 and pl. XIII:2. See KITCHEN, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., Vienna 2000, 39–52; on the inadequacy of

years; the highest preserved date is a possible Year 13. The latter would provide an absolute minimum; Africanus, a mean value; Eusebius possibly a rounding-up. Probably 14 years, 124 years for the Dynasty (hence 1069) are the best as well as the mean; but the higher figure is possible, and yields a ‘round date’ (1070), easy on the memory. Chacun à son gout, as a Viennese operetta says! In any case, it indicates that the New Kingdom (at the death of Ramesses XI) ended in (or soon after) 1070 BC. Therefore we here end our inquest on the 1st millennium 1070–664 BC; there is good material to construct a closely correct chronology (within about 5 years’ margin of error) for (i) the 21st Dynasty on its own, (ii) for the 22nd/23rd/24th Dynasties within a frame of c. 945 (max.) down to c. 715, and tolerating minor internal variant interpretations, and (iii) closely correct dates for the 25th Dynasty to its end in N. Egypt in 664 BC, with the advent of the Saite 26th Dynasty. LATER 2nd MILLENNIUM BC (C.1550/30–C.1070) §19. On the New Kingdom, I shall be brutally brief, on the fault-lines between strengths and weaknesses. Particularly, as I devoted close attention to that period in the previous SCIEM meeting (May–June, 2003), which paper is currently in press, and before that in the initial paper at the SCIEM meeting in November 1996, published in 2000.15 The essence of the matter for the 18th–20th Dynasties is threefold. (i) We have regnal-year data on almost all reigns, but NOT in all cases for reign-lengths down to each king’s decease. We need another dozen ostraca, like the famous one that records the decease of Sethos II in his 6th year, directly followed by the announcement of his successor, (Ramesses) Siptah. Documents of this type for the transits between Tuthmosis I and II, Tuthmosis II and III, Haremhab and Ramesses I, and especially Sethos I and Ramesses II would go far to settle the practical length of the New Kingdom. In the 20th Dynasty, such transits

absolutely minimal dates based on using last-but-one years of pharaohs as being always their highest dates, see in particular 41–44, with the constraints given us by Near-Eastern synchronisms against such ultra compression. This also warns us against applying such ultra-low calculations to the Third Intermediate Period also (cf. ibid., 39–41).

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology – A Reconsideration 303

between Ramesses VI/VII, VII/VIII, VIII/IX, X/XI and XI/Smendes I would also help to define our dates there with close conviction. As it is, our surviving data take us a long way, but leave us a decade or two short in detail. (ii) The impact of synchronisms with the Near East has always to be quantified with care; cf. my 2003 paper, and in briefer definition, the role of two Mesopotamian links: (a) the peace-treaty of Ramesses II (Year 21) and Hattusil III being after the latest-likely date for Kadashman-Turgu’s offer (within c. 1282/64, low date) of military help to the latter against the former; and (b) the synchronisms of Assur-uballit I and Burnaburiash II with each other and Amenophis III, IV and Tutankhamun. These prevent us from accepting Egyptian dates that are too low, because we do not have data for their full lengths. (iii) There is the possibility of astronomical data, for “fine tuning” of dates already approximately fixed. In 2003, the net result of thrashing through the data was to have two sets of dates 10 years apart, because of the Assyrian problem of either 13 or 3 years for Ninurta-apil-ekur. The higher (via complex synchronisms) favours the currently traditional accession-dates of 1479 and 1279 respectively for Tuthmosis III and Ramesses II, and all that goes with these down to c. 1070; the lower (via ditto synchronisms) would favour corresponding dates about 10 years lower. A 10-year margin of error for events of three and a half millennia ago may irritate us, but it is not a bad standard! The beginning of the 18th Dynasty (beyond 1479) is further bedevilled by inadequate figures for Tuthmosis I and II (another 10/15-year source of error). But there is no reason to begin the 18th Dynasty/New Kingdom before c. 1550/40 BC, or later than 1540/30 BC. A “mean” date is c. 1540. The impact of Santorini on dating the New Kingdom is zero, given the unreliable state of the volcanic data. THE EARLY 2nd MILLENNIUM (C. 2100–1550/40 BC), AND EARLIER EPOCHS §20. Here, I shall be even briefer. From an intelligent dead reckoning of all rulers who successively reigned over Thebes between the 12th and 18th

Dynasties, it is possible to estimate a terminal date for the 12th Dynasty (Middle Kingdom) at c. 1790 BC (between c. 1800 and 1780), and to set its beginning c. 1980/70 (12th Dynasty likely at c. 1973–1795), with the 11th Dynasty (143 years) back to c. 2130/2120 roughly (or c. 2116–1973). Use of the Sothic date (c. 1866 BC) in the 12th Dynasty confirms this picture, possibly fine-tuned with lunar data. Synchronisms abroad do not yet fix things further, except for close-dated sites like Tell el-Dabca implyng closer “fixes” for the Levant and perhaps the Aegean. §21. For the Archaic Period, Old Kingdom and the 1st Intermediate Period, the fault-lines are as ever, the inadequacy of our regnal data, lack of good synchronisms and of most suitable science-based data, plus the uncertain links between the last Old-Kingdom dynasties and the 11th in the Middle Kingdom. More data are needed in each case. It is likely that after the 8th Dynasty, the 9th initially reigned over all Egypt under Khety I (Meribre) and probably his first two successors, the second being Neferkare, spelt “Kaneferre” in the fashion of that epoch, in an Upper-Egyptian tomb-chapel at Moalla In that case, these three reigns at between 20 and 50 years’ guessed total would separate the rise of the rebel 11th Dynasty from the fall of the Old Kingdom (8th Dynasty by that amount), setting the end of the Old Kingdom and 8th Dynasty at 2116 + 20/50 years = somewhere about 2166/2136 BC. If the 9th/10th Dynasties lasted throught the first five reigns of the 11th Dynasty down to c. Year 30 of Mentuhotep II, c. 2012 BC, then about 104 years of the 11th Dynasty and 20/50 years before it would give roughly 120/160 years to the 18 Heracleopolitan rulers (cf. my 113 years in 2000!). Then the Old Kingdom and Archaic Periods respectively would run back respectively to c. 2700 and to around 3100/3000 BC for the 1st Dynasty in Egypt, as suggested since 2000, within up to 200 years margin of error (as it did, a decade ago; cf. the SCIEM volume issued in 2000), and seems likely to remain in that state. Some good dendrochronology might help for these very early historical periods!

304

Kenneth A. Kitchen

EXCURSUS I: Ready-Reckoner - New Libyan Chronology A [Tak II 25 yrs as sole kg] and New Libyan Chronology B [Os II 31 y; Tak II, Sh III c/r.] 1. First Segment (945–856 BC) common to both Options BC 945: 1

Dyn. 22 main line

Dyn. 23, etc.

HPAs of Amun, etc.

acc. Shoshenq I

BC

BC

945

899:26

944: 2

898:27

943: 3

897:28

942: 4

896:29

941: 5

895:30

940: 6

894:31

940

938: 8 936:10

Iuput A, HPA

935:11

(Shoshenq II, co-regent?

891:34

(

935

BC

889: 2

933:13

888: 3

932:14

887: 4

931:15

886: 5

930:16

" , died?)

890:35/1 acc. Takeloth I

934:12

890

Iuwelot, HPA, Thebes

930 885: 6

929:17 928:18

884: 7

927:19

883: 8 Yr. 5, Rehoboam, Judah

925:21

885 Smendes III, HPA

882: 9 Iuput A, HPA

925

881:10

924:22/1 acc. Osorkon I

880:11

923: 2

879:12

922: 3

878:13

921: 4

877:14/1 acc. Osorkon II (“Shoshenq II”, HPA?)

920: 5

920

880

Smendes III, HPA Yr. 14

876: 2 875: 3

919: 6

875

874: 4

918: 7

873: 5

917: 8

872: 6

916: 9 915:10

915

914:11

871: 7 870: 8

870

869: 9

913:12

868:10

912:13

867:11

911:14 910:15

910

866:12

909:16

865:13

908:17

864:14

907:18

863:15

906:19

(Harsiese A in Thebes?)

865

862:16

905:20

905

Nimlot C, HPA in Thebes

861:17

(Osorkon I, contd.)

860:18

903:22 859:19

902:23 901:24 900:25

HPAs of Amun, etc.

895

892:33

937: 9

904:21

Dyn. 23, etc.

893:32

939: 7

926:20

Dyn. 22 main line

858:20 900

857:21

860 (Osorkon II, contd.)

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology – A Reconsideration 305

Ready-Reckoner - New Libyan Chronology A [Tak II 25 yrs as sole kg]

Ready-Reckoner - New Libyan Chronology B [Os II 31 y; Tak II, Sh III c/r.]

2. T. II Sole Reign Option & Consequences (856–756 BC)

2. T. II c/r with Sh. III: Option & Consequences (856–756)

BC

Dyn. 22 main line

856:22

[date of jubilee(?)]

HPAs of Amun, etc.

Dyn. 23, etc.

852:26/1 851: 2

855 B of Qarqar; jar to Israel acc. Takeloth II (Takelot F HPA, Thebes?]

Prince Osorkon > HPA

[wrong date of jubilee?] 855 B of Qarqar; jar to Israel

850:28

845

849:29 848:30 true date of jubilee? 847:31/1 acc. Takeloth II 846: 2 845: 3 844: 4 843: 5 842: 6 841: 7

840 "Cataclysm" (from S.)

(Takelot F HPA, 850 Thebes?]

850

Prince Osorkon > HPA Pr Os in Thebes

841:12 840:13 839:14

845

[ X, son of Har- 840 siese B?]

840: 8 839: 9 838:10

[ X, son of Harsiese B?]

837:11

837:16

Prince HPA

Osorkon

>

Pr Os in Thebes

836:12

836:17 835:18

835

Pr Os in Thebes

835:13

835

834:19

834:14

833:20

833:15

"Cataclysm" - revolt in S

[revolt by Harsiese B]

832:16

- crisis

[Upper Egypt lost to TII]

831:17

- crisis

[..... ditto .....]

830:18

- crisis

832:21 831:22 830:23

830

829:24

Pr Os > Thebes

828:25

T II's d as Th recluse; PrO

827:26/1 826: 2 825: 3 824: 4 823: 5

acc. Shoshenq III 825

819: 9 818:10 817:11 Nile level Yr. 12 = Yr. 5

815:13 814:14

828:20/2

[Harsiese B left in Th?] [.... ditto?....] Pr Os > Thebes Harsiese B in 825 Thebes Pr Os in Thebes T II's d a Th recluse PrOs

827:21/3 826:22/4

823/25/7

= 1/acc. Pedu- (Pr Os out; Harbast I siese B in] " " "

" " "

821: 9

5

"

"

819:11

III, 7 (Pedubast I, contd.)

813:15 812:16 811:17 810:18 809:19 808:20 807:21

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

806:22

15 = Yr. 1, Iuput I, c/r.

"

"

815

818:12

"

"

" " " "

" " " "

816:14

"

Pr Os back to Thebes

= 1/acc. Pedubast I

(Sh. III, contd.)

Nile level Yr. 12 Yr. 5

815:15 810

814:16 813:17 812:18 811:19 810:20 809:21

(Shoshenq III, contd.)

(Pr Os out; Harsiese B in]

2

820:10

817:13

"

Dyn. 23:

822:26/8 death of Takeloth II

2 3 4

6 (Shoshenq contd.)

820

830

829:19/1 acc. Shoshenq III

824:24/6

Dyn. 23:

820:8

816:12

[..... ditto .....] [Sh III > peace with S?]

825:23/5 Harsiese B in Thebes

822/ 6 821: 7

BC

852:26 851:27

849: 4 848: 5 847: 6 846: 7 845: 8 844: 9 843:10

838:15

HPAs of Amun, etc.

Dyn. 23, etc.

855:23 854:24 853:25

850: 3

842:11

Dyn. 22 main line

BC 856:22

855:23 854:24 853:25

BC

=

3

"

"

4

"

"

5

"

"

6

"

"

7

"

"

8 9 (Pedubast I, contd.) 10 11 12 13 14

"

"

"

"

" " " " "

" " " " "

820

815

810

Kenneth A. Kitchen

306

2. T. II Sole Reign Option & Consequences (856–756 BC) BC

Dyn. 22 main line

Dyn. 23, etc.

804:24

16 = Yr. 2, Iuput I, c/r. 17

803:25

18

802:26

19

801:27 800:28 799:29

20 21 22

798:30

23

797:31 796:32

794:34 793:35 792:36 791:37

24 25 26/1 acc. Shoshenq VI 2 3 4 5

790: 38

6

789: 39

7/1 acc. Osorkon III

805:23

795:33

788:40/1 787: 2 786: 3 785: 4 784: 5 783: 6 782: 7 781: 8 780: 9 779:10 778:11/1

acc. Shoshenq IV

13

776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770:

14 15 16 17 19 19 20

769: 4 768: 5 767: 6 766: 7 765: 8 764: 9 763:10 762:11 761:12 760:13 759:14 758:15 757:16

Pr Os back to The805 bes " " Harsiese B in Thebes Harsiese B in Thebes 800 Takeloth HPA in Thebes

795

Takeloth HPA in 790 Thebes (Pr Os last visit, Thebes)

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

acc. Pimay

acc. Shoshenq V

(Shoshenq contd.)

BC

2

777: 2 3 4 5 6 7/1 2 3

HPAs of Amun, etc.

V,

785

780

Takeloth G (> III), HPA 775

770

21 22 23 24/+1 Takeloth III c/r. 25/+2 Tak. III 26/+3 Tak. III 27/+4 Tak. III 28/+5 Tak. III 29/+6 Tak. III > sole kg 7 Tak. III 8/1 acc. Rudamun 2 3

2. T. II c/r with Sh. III: Option & Consequences (856–756) BC

Dyn. 23, etc.

HPAs of Amun, etc.

808:22

15 = Yr. 1, Iuput I, c/r.

Pr Os back to Thebes

807:23 806:24 805:25 804:26 803:27 802:28 801:29

16 = Yr. 2, Iuput I, c/r. 17 18 19 20 21 22

800:30

23

799:31 798:32

796:34 795:35 794:36 793:37

24 25 26/1 acc. Shoshenq VI 2 3 4 5

792:38

6

797:33

“ ” Harsiese B Harsiese B

Takeloth HPA in Thebes

779:12

13

Takeloth G > III, HPA

778:13/1 acc. Pimay 777: 2 776: 3 775: 4 774: 5 773: 6 772: 7/1 acc. Shoshenq V 771: 2 770: 3 (Shoshenq V, 769: 4 contd.)

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

790

785

780

775

770

23 24/+1 Takeloth III c/r. 25/+2 Tak. III 26/+3 Tak. III 27/+4 Tak. III 28/+5 Tak. III 29/+6 Tak. III > sole kg

765

762:11 761:12

7 Tak. III 8/1 acc. Rudamun

760:13

2

Osorkon F, HPA ?

759:14 758:15 757:16

3 4 5

*

Osorkon F, HPA ? 760

805

795

(Pr Os last visit, Thebes)

767: 6 766: 7 765: 8 764: 9 763:10

BC

Pr Os back to Thebes “ ” Takeloth HPA in 800 Thebes

7/1 acc. Osorkon III 790:40/1 acc. Shoshenq IV 2 789: 2 3 788: 3 4 787: 4 5 786: 5 6 785: 6 7 784: 7 8 783: 8 9 782: 9 10 781:10 11 780:11 12 791:39

768: 5

765

Dyn. 22 main line

760

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology – A Reconsideration 307

Ready-Reckoner - New Libyan Chronology A [Tak II 25 yrs as sole kg] and New Libyan Chronology B [Os II 31 y; Tak II, Sh III c/r.] 3. Final Segment (756–664 BC) common to both Options BC

Dyn. 22 main line

Dyn. 23, etc.

755:18 754:19 753:20 752:21 751:22 750:23

4/1 acc. Shoshenq VII 2 3 4 5 6 7

749:24

8

748:25 747:26 746:27 745:28 744:29 743:30 742:31 741:32 740:33 739:34

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 GW Shepenupt I 20 21/ 1 acc. Iuput II

756:17

738:35 737:36 736:37 735:38/1

acc. Osorkon IV

HPAs of Amun, etc.

Dyn. 25 x/1 acc. Pi(ankh)y 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 GW Amenirdis I 13

2 3 4 5 6 7

3 4 5 6 7 8

728: 8

9

727: 9 726:10

10 11

16 17 18 19 20 P in Egypt 21 (Gt. Stela); 22/1 Tefnakht as "king" 23/2 Tefnakht 24/3 Tefnakht

724:12 723:13 722:14 721:15 720:16 719:17 718:18 717:19

(plea, < Ho12 shea of Israel) (Osorkon IV, 13 (Iuput II, contd.) contd.) 14 15 16 (gift > 17 Sargon II) 18 19 20

716:20/1 715:21/2 714: 3 713: 4 712: 5

Shabako in Egypt Shbtk Nb

755

711: 6 710: 7 709: 8 708: 9 707:10

750

745

740

25/4 Tefnakht 26/5 (P & T, ctd.) 27/6 Tefnakht 28/7 Tefnakht 29/8 Tefnakht 30/9/1 acc. Bakenranef 31/2 Bak 32/3 Bak 33/4 Bak.

21

5 Bk/ 34 P/1/acc. Sh, Nb

22/2(Shabako into Eg.)

6 Bakenranef (end)

735

730

725

720

715

Dyn. 22 main line

701: 2

BC

705

acc. Shebitku; Thrqa in Nub (T sent to Palestine) 700

695

acc. Taharqa in Egypt

689: 2 688: 3 687: 4 686: 5 685: 6 684: 7 683: 8 682: 9 681:10 680:11 679:12

HPAs of Amun, etc.

(Sargon sent to Shbtk, Nub)

700: 3 699: 4 698: 5 697: 6 696: 7 695: 8 694: 9 693:10 692:11 691:12 690:13/1

Dyn. 23, etc.

710

705:12 704:13 703:14 702:15/1

14 15

725:11

BC

706:11

2

734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729:

BC

690

685

680 (Taharqa, contd.)

678:13 677:14 676:15 675:16 674:17 673:18 672:19 671:20 670:21 669:22 668:23 667:24 666:25 665:26 664:27/1 acc. Tantamani; acc. Psam/1 tek I (Dyn. 26)

679

675

670

665

308

Kenneth A. Kitchen

EXCURSUS II: Summary Revised Dates for Dynasties 22–25 Option A Dates BC 945–924: 924–890: (c.892/1: 890–877: 877–852: ( c.865? 852–827: 827–788: 788–778: 778–772: 772–735: 735–715:

Rulers Dynasty 22 Shoshenq I Osorkon I Shoshenq II, c/r Takeloth I Osorkon II Harsiese A Takeloth II Shoshenq III Shoshenq IV Pimay Shoshenq V Osorkon IV

Yrs

Dates BC

21 34 2?) 13 25* –) 25 39 10* 6 37 20

820–795: (c. 806/5: 795–789: 789–761: 766–759: 759–756: 756–736: 736–715: 728–720: 720–715:

Rulers Dynasty 23 Pedubast I Iuput I, c/r Shoshenq VI Osorkon III Takeloth III, part c/r Rudamun As in Option B:– Shoshenq VII Iuput II Dynasty 24 Tefnakht (king) Bakeranef

Yrs 25 2?) 6 28 7 3* 20 21 8 5

Asterisks (*) denote year-numbers that differ from the T.II/Sh III overlap table, A Dates BC 749–716: 716–702: 702–690: 690–664:

Rulers in (N) Egypt

Yrs Dynasty 25 Pi(ankh)y (Kush & Thebaid ) 33 Shabako (715ff. in Egypt) 14 Shebitku 12 Taharqa 26

Adjoint Rulers in Kush

Shebitku (715–702) Taharqa (702–690) (X, then Tantamani? – x/y–664)

Summary Revised Dates for Dynasties 22–25 Option B Dates BC 945–924: 924–890: (c. 892/1: 890–877: 877–847: ( c.865? 847–822: 829–790: 790–778: 778–772: 772–735: 735–715:

Rulers Dynasty 22 Shoshenq I Osorkon I Shoshenq II, c/r Takeloth I Osorkon II Harsiese A Takeloth II Shoshenq III (part c/r) Shoshenq IV Pimay Shoshenq V Osorkon IV

Yrs 21 34 2?) 13 30* –) 25 39 12* 6 37 20

Dates BC

Rulers Dynasty 23 822–797: Pedubast I (c. 808/7: Iuput I, c/r 797–791: Shoshenq VI 791–763: Osorkon III 768–761: Takeloth III, part c/r 761–756: Rudamun As in Option A:– 756–736: Shoshenq VII 736–715: Iuput II Dynasty 24 728–720: Tefnakht (king) 720–715: Bakeranef

Yrs 25 2?) 6 28 7 5* 20 21 8 5

Asterisks (*) denote year-numbers that differ from the T.II sole reign table Dates BC 749–716: 716–702: 702–690: 690–664:

Rulers in (N) Egypt

Yrs Dynasty 25 Pi(ankh)y (Kush & Thebaid ) 33 Shabako (715ff. in Egypt) 14 Shebitku 12 Taharqa 26

Adjoint Rulers in Kush

Shebitku (715–702) Taharqa (702–690) (X , then Tantamani? – x/y–664)

ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY IN EGYPT IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC By Ulrich Luft

Chronology is the skeleton of history. It helps to put events and artefacts in relation to each other in time. This time is not absolute, it is artificial. People have reckoned time in different ways. One method is based on the moon, the other is based on the sun, and another one is based on the stars. All these manners of reckoning were present in the ancient Near East including Egypt in the 2nd millennium BC. We call the mode of reckoning absolute chronology because this system allows establishing the succession of events using the numbers of the Julian calendar. Western researchers have considered the Julian year as a reasonable instrument to prolong the Christian era back before the birth of Christ. The day is the basic unit of chronology. A certain number of days were united to weeks, months, and years. However, the day remained the basic unit. Our day runs from midnight to midnight as the Julian day. Censorinus, a writer of the 3rd century AD was acquainted with the problems of its beginning.1 Naturally, he did not claim that the day was the basic element of the calendar. His main interest focussed on the question of the epochs that are formed by a specified number of days, i.e. the year2 and the month.3 The title of his pamphlet de die natalis “On the Birthday” shows his special interest in the day as

1

2

CENSORINUS 1867 is the principal edition. AUGUST BÖCKH 1864, passim has quoted Censorinus. CENSORINUS 1867, XVIII, 10. Specially the year has found great interest among the scholars. It is natural that IDELER 1825, 126–127. 150–151; BÖCKH 1864, 308–309; GINZEL 1906, 187–188, tried to find out the reasons of the different forms of year. They formed the phalanx of the principal investigators on this field. See also HERODOT II 4: „But as to human affairs, this was the account in which they all aggreed: the Egyptians, they said, were the first men who reckoned by years and made the year consist of twelve divisions of the seasons. They discovered this from the stars (so they said). And their reckoning is, to my mind, a juster one than that of the Greeks; for the Greeks add an intercalary month every other year, so that the seasons agree; but the

chronological unit that he defines as following: “Little remains to say of the day which like the month or the year is partly natural, partly civil. The natural day is the time from sunrise to sunset; his counterpart is the night from sunset to sunrise, however, such a period is called civil day that comprises one rotation of the sky containing one real day and the night. If we say that somebody has lived for 30 days, there are also to add nights too.”4 Censorinus being aware of the different definitions of the day compiles the list of its possible beginnings in Antiquity like before him Pliny: “Astronomers and citizens define such a day in four ways. The Babylonians consider the day from sunrise to sunrise; most of the Umbrian people from noon to noon; Athenians from sunset to sunset; otherwise the Romans estimate the day from midnight to midnight.”5 Pliny explains the last issue more precisely: “the Roman priests and those who define the day in the civil manner like the Egyptians and Hipparch from midnight to midnight.”6 Censorinus and Pliny listed the possibilities of the beginning of the day, while Ptolemy used the Egyptian calendar to fix data in the chronological frame if the data were of Egyptian origin.7 First Ludwig Ideler has drawn the attention to the conspicuous dating when Ptolemy refers to

3 4 5 6 7

Egyptians, reckoning thirty days to each of the twelve months, add five days in every year over and above the total, and thus the completed circle of seasons is made to agree with the calendar”. CENSORINUS 1867, XXII 1–2. CENSORINUS 1867, XXIII 2. CENSORINUS 1867, XXIII 3. PLINIUS 1967–70, II 79. NEUGEBAUER 1975, 559: “The Hellenistic astronomers fully realized the usefulness of the Egyptian calendar for computational purposes”; also PEDERSEN 1974, 124: “Therefore it is the Egyptian Calendar which is the chronological basis for the principal work of Hellenistic astronomy”. Pedersen refers on GINZEL I, 150–152 and PARKER 1950. Similarly argues TOOMER 1984, 9: “He uses the Egyptian year and the era Nabonassar.”

310

Ulrich Luft

data between sunset and sunrise.8 Hence, if Ptolemy wanted to point at an event within the dawn he used the following outline: regnal year with the name of the sovereign, then he introduces the date with the expression “after the Egyptians” (êáôN Ákãõðôßïõò), giving the name of month, the number of the day and after that he adds the number of the next day with the preposition “until” (åkò) and at the end he puts –ñèñïõ “dawn”.9 Since –ñèñïò is joined to the previous date the period is to be included between the first and the second number of day. This is clear by the use of ðñùÀá “first hour” in the following context where Ptolemy first gives the regnal year and after that the allusion on the Egyptians followed by the name of month, the number of the day, and ðñùÀáò “in the first hour”. If the notion of both terms were the same Ptolemy would have used them optionally in both contexts. On contrary, he confirms in one case that the first hour (ðñùÀá) follows the beginning of the day.10 A singular and trustworthy Egyptian data concerning the beginning of the day can be found in the archive of el-Lâhûn of the Dynasty XII. A letter was copied into the temple diary that informed the temple staff of the heliacal rise of Sirius.11 The event is announced in Year 7, i.e. the 7th regnal year of King Senwosret III, for the fourth month of prj.t season, day 16. The message was copied in the third month of prj.t season on day 25. It means that the Egyptians could fix the event in the calendar at least 22 days before its happening. This fact proves the existence of schematic charts that the Egyptians had compiled on the base of the calendar of 365 days. The beginning of the day is of importance defining the given date as the date of the astronomical event or as the date of the feast that generally fell on the day.12 Thus the Egyptians used to differentiate the night before the feast from the feast itself by different dates. A striking sample is the night

8

9 10 11

12 13

PTOLEMY, VI 5 Hei 477 for a date after midnight and VI 5 Hei 478 for a date before midnight. Ideler’s remarks concern the different use of ðñùÀáò and –ñèñïò in the Almagest, see 100–101. For a full discussion of the problem see LUFT 2006, 207–215. E.g. PTOLEMY, IV 9 Hei 329. PTOLEMY 1898, III, 1 Hei 206. Papyrus Berlin P.10012A rt (17) – (21); LUFT 1992, 2.12.7. with literature. For feast-lists connected with dates see LUFT 1992, 2.49. Discussed by WINTER 1951, 10–13.

of the wAgj feast with the date of the first month of the Ax.t season, day 17 and the wAgj feast itself with the date of the first month of the Ax.t season, day 18.13 A further piece of the scroll, i.e. the temple diary of Year 7, is preserved with the entry that the offerings of the feast of the heliacal rise of Sirius entered the temple in the fourth month of prj.t season on day 17.14 Researchers believe that this entry is wrong because it is “fully demonstrated” as Parker states that the beginning of the day happened at dawn: “If the beginning of the Egyptian day is connected with lunar month, then we must seek a lunar phenomenon associated with the morning.”15 I consider this argumentation weak because the connection should be proved first. However, we have evidence for a solar connection of the Egyptian calendar as the year of 365 days is the closest to the tropical year. Leo Depuydt solves the problem in the Solomonic way when he writes that “the Egyptian calendar is not only independent from the moon, but also from the sun.”16 He describes the civil calendar of Egypt that “a lunar calendar is tied to, or subordinated to, another full-fledged calendar, namely the civil one”.17 People organizing the calendar on the lunar basis did not invent a year of 365 days. The result of reckoning with the lunar calendar is a year of 354 or 383 days minus resp. plus one day. Hence the striking solar event in the morning is more convincing than the argument of an indefinite event at dawn. Parker himself refers on Ludwig Ideler,18 Richard Lepsius,19 and Kurt Sethe.20 Lepsius and much clearer Sethe were convinced that the sunrise marked the beginning of the day. Sol certus, luna incerta. I accepted their statements proving them by the double dates of Ptolemy.21 Especially Ptolemy, who has used the Egyptian calendar of 365 days as a useful tool in astronomical reckoning, is a persuading witness in this context. If he is obliged to specify hours instead of the normal angles because

14 15 16 17 18

19 20

21

Papyrus Berlin P.10012B rt (1) – (2); LUFT 1992, 2.13.7. PARKER 1950, §32. DEPUYDT 1998, 18. DEPUYDT 1998, 19. IDELER 1825, 101–102. Ideler speaks on page 102 about the era of Nabonassar. LEPSIUS 1849, 130–131. SETHE 1920, 130–138. The reference is erroneous because Sethe refuses beginning on page 131 Meyer’s thesis that the Egyptian day has begun at dawn. LUFT 1987.

Absolute Chronology in Egypt in the First Quarter of the Second Millennium BC

he quoted samples recorded in previous periods, he gives equinoctial hours, daily hours, and hours of the night. That shows an uncertainty in terminology still in the 2nd century AD. The definition of the beginning of the day has a consequence for chronological computing. Comparing the Egyptian calendar with the Julian one by chronological reasons, one has to count the days till the end of the year. The sum of days to the end or to the beginning of the year multiplied by four results the number of years elapsed since the previous coincidence or passing by till the next coincidence of the heliacal rise of Sirius in both forms of year. One day more counted results an error of four years. Rolf Krauss refused my paper on the beginning of the day in 1990.22 The reason is obvious: If Krauss would have accepted the beginning of the day he had to reckon with one day more until the end of the Egyptian civil year. The result is, calculating the distance of the Sothic date observed in Elephantine to lunar dates of the Lahun archive, an average derivation of one day. Anthony Spalinger adopted anew Parker’s view in 1992.23 He discussed the hours and the term HD-tA in different sources, but he did not distinguish between Egyptian sources of the classical, post-classical and Greek-Roman periods.24 Hence, evidence of the Esna temple that was decorated in the Roman period is not striking because the use of hours was established by this time. Further the religious context should remind of prudence. The Egyptians made several endeavours to

22 23 24

25

26

27

KRAUSS 1990, 54–55. SPALINGER 1992, 156. Spalinger questioned my position that I take Ptolemy for a full witness without considering his period. I see a difference between the use of hours and the use of the civil year. Evidence of the first is lacking. Ptolemy has explained the custom with the statement: “We have used our common year reckoning. As one day is intercalated every four years, the events of the stars fall on the same day for a long period.” IDELER 1825, 149: Ptolemy, Star Appearances, introduction. Ideler refers to a text that Buttmann has edited. It is, however, not certain that Ptolemy means the Egyptian civil year with the expression when he continues that the date shifts every four year by one day. It reveals the Julian year. LIDDELL-SCOTT 1996, 1780; LASSERE 1966, 214–215, rightly discusses the authorship of Eudoxos. CENSORINUS 1867, XVIII 10. Theon has in his commen-

311

organize the night by star clocks or by the division of twelve hours, but in the daily life, I mean in the organisation of work, hours do not appear. The term HD-tA was used in the same unspecified manner as we do it. Today, for some people the morning ends by noon, for others the morning is restricted onto the period around the sunrise. The administration needed the calendar to organize the work, to put dead-lines for taxes, to move people for a timed work etc. When the Greeks detected the impact of the two calendars they invented the Sothic period in a rather schematic way. Shortly, it was said that every 1460 years the heliacal rise of Sirius, in Greek transliteration Sothis of the Egyptian %pd.t, coincides with the beginning of the Egyptian year. The figure 365 as the number of days in the Egyptian year is considered to be quite wanted in Antiquity.25 It means that the heliacal rise of Sirius fell on one day of the Egyptian year for four years. Eudoxos of Cnidos was said to have been the first using the term ôåôñáåôçñßò yet in the 4th century BC.26 Censorinus naturally knows and translates the term in Latin as quadriennium: “Their civil year has only 365 days without nothing intercalating. Thus their four-year-epoch is shorter by approximately one day with the result that the beginning returns by 1461 years”.27 Censorinus naturally reviews the Egyptian year in comparison to the Julian year that was in use more than two centuries. Greek writers took the heliacal rise of Sirius for the beginning of the Egyptian year. A scholiast to Aratos Phainomena has connected the heliacal

tary on Ptolemy’s Hand Tables (Ðñï÷åßñïõò êáíüíïõò) precisely compared the two calendars: “En effet, puisque l’année qui nous est donnée selon les Grecs ou les Alexandrins est de 365 jours ¼ et que l’année selon les Egyptiens est, comme nous l’avons dit, de 365 jour seulement, il est clair que tous les quatre ans cette dernière prend un jour d’avance sur l’année alexandrine, et que, tous les 1460 ans, elle prend 365 jours en avance, soit une année selon les Egyptiens; alors les Alexandrins et les Egyptiens commencent à nouveau l’année ensemble, puis les jours et les mois, le temps compté selon les Egyptiens ayant pris une année entière d’avance. Le retour périodique en question, qui se produit tous les 1460 ans au départ d’origine quelconque, a eu lieu la cinquième année du règne d’Auguste, de sorte qu’à partir de ce moment, les Egyptiens ont recommencé à prendre chaque année une avance d’une quart de jour.” Translation of TIHON 1978, 303.

312

Ulrich Luft

rise of Sirius with the beginning of the inundation and the zodiac sign Leo putting the rise in the 11th hour.28 Sirius and its rise are consecrated to the goddess Isis, he said, clearly in allusion on the Hellenistic goddess Isis. The statement is to be understood in the terms of the Julian year: the 11th hour is the equinoctial hour of the Julian calendar. Diodorus also connected Isis with Sirius quoting of an encomium that Burton compared with the hymn of Cyme.29 Servius in his commentary of Aeneas gives a more mythical explication of the relation between the beginning of the inundation and Isis. The goddess shuttles her sistrum as symbol of the inundation.30 The philosopher Porphyry who was Plotin’s pupil situated the heliacal rise of Sirius in the zodiac sign of Cancer,31 but both signs were named as the period of the heliacal rise of Sirius.32 Porphyry called the New Year’s day New Moon (íïõìçíßá), but the term is not restricted on the Moon because some times the expression êáôN óåëÞíçí was added.33 Naturally, Censorinus is acquainted with the problem fixing the heliacal rise of Sirius on the first day of the month Thoth, being the Egyptian New Year’s day, but added the shifting of the civil calendar in relation to the tropical year.34 He is who has given an necessary hint on the last coincidence of the beginning of the Egyptian year with the heliacal rise of Sirius recording that he lives in 100th year after the coincidence.35 He did not say which year of the tetraeteris it was but I can imagine that it was the last year of the tetraeteris. Computing lunar eclipses of the time of Hadrian assured that the tetraeteris ran from 136

to 139 AD.36 Ludwig Borchardt has put the tetraeteris from 139 to 142 AD37 supporting his argument by coins with the figure of a phoenix.38 In the time of Marcus Aurelius the chronographer Vettius Valens said that the Egyptians began their year by Thoth 1, their natural year by the rise of the canicula.39 This statement nourished the guess that the Egyptians used two forms of the year one beside the other. Unfortunately, Egyptian evidence lacks for the third and second millennium BC. Geminus stated that the Egyptian abstaining was consciously maintained when he wrote that the Egyptians did not want that the offerings were fixed on one time.40 This reason is a rather sophisticated one as well as the king’s oath not to alter the length of the year.41 The next step of establishing the absolute chronology is to equate the given Egyptian date with the Julian date. Since the Julian calendar did not exist before the first century BC the equation is completely hypothetical. The problem could be solved by exploring the Sothic period also unknown before the introduction of the Julian calendar in at least 29 BC when Octavian saved the calendar reform of Caesar. The known late attempt to correct the length of the Egyptian year is an argument for the unwillingness of the Egyptians to acknowledge the deviation of about six hours a year. This view recorded also in the Greek tradition is proved by the failed attempt to adjust the Egyptian year to the tropical year in 238 BC,42 but in this time too the Greek side wanted to do so, not the Egyptian partners. They, on the other hand, did not accept the proposed change. Thus the knowl-

28

34

29

30 31

32

33

Scholia in Aratum v. 152, quoted by GINZEL I 1906, 161; BÖCKH 1863, 309; IDELER 1825, 125. 172; text edited by MARTIN 1974, 155–156. DIODORUS 1888, I 27.4; text also in IDELER 1825, 125; BONNEAU 1964, 266; BERGMAN, 39–40; comm. by BURTON 1972, 114; cf. MÜLLER 1961, 33–35. Diodorus lived in the first century AD while the hymn belongs to the first or second century. BERGMAN 1968, 104. Porphyry de antro nympharum cap. 24, quoted by BONNEAU 1964, 269; IDELER 1825, 126. 171–172; text edited by HERCHER 1858. GEMINUS 1975, VIII 16, quoted by IDELER 1825, 95. 133; text edited by AUJAC 1975: Dositheos July 19; Meton July 21; Euktemon and Eudoxos July 23; Kallippos July 26; Euktemon vaning of the star July 28; quoted by BÖCKH 1863, 59; GINZEL I 1906, 188–189. See LIDDELL & SCOTT 1996, 1183: “new moon: the first day of the month”.

35

36 37 38

39

40

41

42

CENSORINUS XVIII 10; quoted by GINZEL I 1906, 187; BÖCKH 1863, 308–309; IDELER 1825, 126. 151; text edited by CENSORINUS 1642 and CENSORINUS 1867. CENSORINUS XXI 10–11 with the corrected date XIII Cal. that NEUGEBAUER 1975, 781 ascribes to SCALIGER 1609. PTOLEMÄUS 1963, 463–464. BORCHARDT 1935, 15. The coins date between the 2nd and the 6th year of Antonin Pius, i.e. they scatter over two tetraeteris. Coins presented by DUTILH 1893, 347. Canon chron. P. 8 ed. Lips., quoted by IDELER 1825, 126. 171; text edited also by BAINBRIDGE 1648. GEMINUS VIII 16, quoted by IDELER 1825, 95. 133; text edited by AUJAC 1975. Nigidius Figulus (ed. SWOBODA, 124), quoted by BONNEAU 1964, 367. Text Urk II 138; for the date see PARKER 1976, 186–189.

Absolute Chronology in Egypt in the First Quarter of the Second Millennium BC

edge of the derivation seems to lack in the Egyptian consciousness or if it would have been present in Egyptian thought it was neglected. Greek astronomers detected the cause of shifting of the Egyptian year in relation to the tropical year.43 Many researchers are convinced that the Egyptians precisely observed the movement of the stars and the moon. It is possible that they did so, but there is no evidence. If somebody would take the star clocks as proof he should explain their context too. The star clocks were invented to organize the night, I mean, for the dead. In the netherworld watches would have their own pace. The figure 3644 connects the star clocks to a year of 360 days, but the Egyptians made the experience that 360 days is to short until the next inundation. Hence they joined five days to their year that were called “days upon the year”. The principle is clear: the Egyptians did not use fractions of day. Thus the year consists of 365 units called day, i.e. one daily turn of the earth. Observation was not the Egyptian lifestyle, rather subordination under the natural and social order, called Maat. The eventuality of observing celestial events was excluded from their speculation and not the basis of their thinking. In 1885 von Oppolzer’s investigations on the Sothic cycle showed the result that its length shortens running with the time.45 Then the Greek tradition of 1460 years for a cycle appeared to be prolonged at least by four years. Von Oppolzer lowered the number of years to 1456 which figure was accepted by the astronomer Paul Viktor Neugebauer who compiled astronomical charts suitable for historians too.46 However, it turned out that the figure decreased by average two years to present as the English astronomer Ingham has calculated in the 1960ties47 scrutinizing the scheme to a chart of 1456, 1454, and 1452 years to present. Historians took 139 AD as starting point and counted with 1460 years from this point. Consequently, they

43

44 45 46 47 48 49

50

I have taken for sure that Meton knew the cause yet in 432 BC, see LUFT 1989, 218 note 6. The figure varies, see PARKER – NEUGEBAUER. VON OPPOLZER 1885, 557–584, especially 579. NEUGEBAUER 1925, cahier III. INGHAM 1969, 36–40. LUFT 1989, 226–228. Theon quoted by IDELER 1825, 136; LEPSIUS 1849, 169–174; GINZEL I 1906, 193. ½ëéáêüò, a quibusdam dicitur, et ab aliis ½ èåï™ díéáõôüò., CENSORINUS 1867, XVIII 10; in commentary 1642, 136: id est, Solis. XXI 11 he states that „quare

313

used the factor 4 within the interval of two coincidences. The result shows about six years more, the result was 1872 BC for the year in question, i.e. Year 7 of King Senwosret III of Dynasty XII. This result is not precise because researchers did not take into consideration that the Sothic cycle was shorter than 1460 Julian years. Thus starting from Year 136 AD as the first year of the tetraeteris the coincidence would repeat in –1316 and –2771. For the interval between the two coincidences it is appropriated to use a factor less than 4 for multiplying the days between the given date and the end of the Egyptian year. I have explained this method in a paper published in 1989.48 The calculation of the Sothic period with 1460 years in Antiquity is proved by the statement of Theon that 1605 years elapsed from Menophris until the beginning of the reign of Diocletian in 284 AD. The calculation is in accord with the calculation from 139 AD.49 Unfortunately, Censorinus did not give the number of years elapsed “since Menophris”, but his statement that he writes in the 100th year of the great year also called sun year50 clearly reveals that he considered the year as a period, not as point. Censorinus gives a hint when the event happened in the Julian year: “However – he writes – their beginning – he means the years after Nabonassar and Philipp – coincides with the first day of the month that the Egyptians call Thoth which happened seven days before the calends of July in this year”.51 He gives also the date of the coincidence 100 years before when he said that “the same day happened 12 days before the calends of August”. The disturbing number 12 apparently was emended by Scaliger yet in 1609.52 The antique tradition was not so precise as two Latin and one Greek sources may demonstrate.53 Starting from Censorinus’ date the year 139 AD was the first match of the coin-

51 52 53

scire etiam licet, anni illius magni, qui, ut supra dictum est, et solaris et canicularis et dei annus vocatur, nunc agi vertentem annum centesimum”. CENSORINUS 1867, XXI 10. PTOLEMÄUS 1963, 701. SOLINUS XXXIII 13, quoted by BONNEAU 1964, 42, worked about the mid 3rd century AD he said that “the priests regard this time for the birth of the world, that is between 13 und 11 days before the calends of August.” PALLADIUS 1898, quoted by GINZEL I 1906, 188, bishop of the turn to the 5th century refers to the 14th day before the calends of August, that means the 19th

314

Ulrich Luft

cidence counting back from 239 AD and taking into consideration that the tetraeteris happened between 136 and 139, further that the Sothic period was shorter than 1460 years accepting Ingham’s decreasing figures the years –1316 and –2771 are most reasonable the first years of a tetraeteris in which the heliacal rise of Sirius coincides with the first day of the Egyptian year. Since the given date of the Middle Kingdom falls between two coincidences the factor 3.98 should be used. The result is –1866, a year of a tetraeteris between the two pertinent coincidence. The heliacal rise of Sirius was probably observed in the same way that Muslims do it nowadays. A Muslim calendar is available in the previous year showing all lunar feasts of the coming year. In spite of that the Muslim world is waiting for the announcement of the end of the holy month Ramadan by the sheikh of Mecca. A similar situation could be reconstructed for the 18th century BC revealing the few evidence of the period. First, there is the announcement of the heliacal rise of Sirius to the staff of the mortuary temple of King Senwosret II in el-Lâhûn for a precise date. Second, the event was announced, i.e. it could be calculated before. Third, the data belongs to a certain place. Four, Jannine Bourriau has published a stele of the Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge where the nomarkhes is waited by people assembled in front of the Memphite temple that he assures the astronomical event.54 Hence, researchers should take into consideration that the date could be corrected within the civil calendar from time to time. However, the Egyptians did not consider the heliacal rise of Sirius as the beginning of the year; they took it as sign of the approaching inundation that put a lot of tasks on the provincial administration.

Much ado rose concerning the angle of observation and the place of observation. As I have demonstrated that chronology is a calendar matter, not an astronomical one, astronomy is restricted onto the development of the calendar. Once established the Egyptians maintained the calendar without intercalation to correct the derivation of six hours a year. Hence the local appearance of the star was more important for the local administration. It is why I think that the date of el-Lâhûn is tied to the latitude of the Memphite region because the star appeared approximately one day later in accord with the advancement of the inundation with one degree of latitude from South to North. The place of the observation was additionally supported by relating the Sothic date to lunar dates of the archive in my book of 1992. In 2003 I only want to emphasize the priority of the dates in their relation.55 The Sothic date is a date of long space because it appears twice on the same day of the Egyptian calendar during 2008 Julian years. On the other hand, lunar dates repeat in the Egyptian calendar every 25 years that means four times in one century. Hence the lunar date can only back up the long timing date. Concerning the angle of observation I have taken into consideration that the astronomical events were supposedly calculated according to a scheme. Working with lunar dates of the Lâhûn archive I made the experience that there was no lunar calendar in use before Year 9 of Senwosret III. All lunar dates are expressed in the terms of the Egyptian civil calendar of 365 days. Thus, the Egyptian administration has used lunar dates only to appoint feasts as well as lunar months to organise the work in the temple.

of July. HEPHAISTION 1973, I 23, Hephaistion of Thebes who lived in the fourth century AD considered the 25th day of Epiphi being the day of the heliacal rise of Sirius. HEPHAISTION 1973, VI–VII considered as regest of Ptolemy, Apostelesmaticorum. If Hephaistion has used

the data of Ptolemy as the editor Pingree assumes the date would fall in a year between 10 and 20 AD. BOURRIAU 1982, 51–53. LUFT 2003.

54 55

Absolute Chronology in Egypt in the First Quarter of the Second Millennium BC

315

Bibliography ARATUS see MARTIN.

KRAUSS, R.

AUJAC, G.

1990

1975

Géminos. Introduction aux phénomènes, Paris.

BAINBRIDGE, J. 1648

Canicularia. Una cum demonstratione ortus Sirii heliaci pro parallelo inferioris Aegypto, auctore Johanne Gravis (Graeves), Oxford.

LASSERE, F. 1966

BERGMAN, J. 1968

Ich bin Isis. Studien zum memphitischen Hintergrund der griechischen Isisaretalogien, Uppsala.

Vorläufige Bemerkungen zu Seth und Horus/ Horusauge im Kairener Tagewählkalender nebst Notizen zum Anfang des Kalendertages, BSEG 14, 49–56. Die Fragmente des Eudoxos von Knidos, Texte und Kommentare, 4, Berlin.

LEGRAND, PH.-E. 1936

Hérodote histoires, Paris.

BÖCKH, A.

LEPSIUS, K.R.

1863

1849

Ueber die vierjährigen Sonnenkreise der Alten, vorzüglich den Eudoxischen, Berlin.

Chronologie der alten Aegypter, Berlin.

LINDENBROGIUS, H. (ed.)

BONNEAU, D.

1642

1964

LLOYD, A.B.

La crue du Nil. Divinité égyptienne à travers mille ans d’histoire, Paris.

BORCHARDT, L. 1935

Die Mittel zur zeitlichen Festlegung von Punkten der ägyptischen Geschichte und ihre Anwendung, Kairo.

BOURRIAU, J. 1982

Three Monuments from Memphis in the Fitzwilliam Museum, JEA 68, 51–59.

1975

1989

Illahunstudien IV: Zur chronologischen Verwertbarkeit des Sothisdatums, SÄK 16, 217–233.

1992

Die chronologische Fixierung des ägyptischen Mittleren Reiches nach dem Tempelarchiv von Illahun, Veröffentlichungen der Ägyptischen Kommission Nr. 2, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Kl., Sitzungsberichte 598th vol., Wien.

2003

Priorities in Absolute Chronology, 199–204, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium B.C., CChEM 1, Wien.

2006

Rund um den Beginn des ägyptschen Tages, 207–215, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN, A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, OLA 149.1, Wien.

Diodorus Siculus. Book 1, a commentary, Leiden

CENSORINUS see HULTSCH and LINDENBROGIUS. DEPUYDT, L. 1998

Civil Calendar and Lunar Calendar in Ancient Egypt, OLA 77, Leuven.

DUTILH, E.D.J. 1893

BIE 3rd series 3, 347.

EUDOXOS see LASSERE. GEMINUS see AUJAC. GINZEL, F.K. 1906

Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, vol. I, Leipzig.

Herodotus, book II, Etudes préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Egypte romain 43, Leiden.

LUFT, U.

BURTON, A. 1972

Censorinus De die natali, Lugduni Bat.

MANITIUS, K. (tr.) – NEUGEBAUER, O. (eds.) 1963

Ptolemäus, Handbuch der Astronomie, Leipzig.

MARTIN, J.

HEPHAISTION see PINGREE.

1974

HERCHER, R. (ed.)

MÜLLER, D.

1858

1961

Scriptorum graecorum bibliotheca, Paris.

HULTSCH, F. (ed.), 1867

Censorini De die natali liber, Leipzig.

IDELER, L. 1825

Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, Leipzig.

INGHAM, M.F. 1969

The Length of the Sothic Cycle, JEA 55, 36–40.

KAISER, W. 1957

Zur inneren Chronologie der Naqadakultur, Archaeologia Geographica 6, 69–77.

Scholia in Aratum vetera, Stuttgart. Ägypten und die griechischen Isis-Aretalogien, Abh. Leipzig 53/1, Berlin.

NEUGEBAUER, O. 1975

A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, Berlin – Heidelberg – New York.

NEUGEBAUER, P.V. 1925

Hilfstafeln zur Berechnung von Himmelserscheinungen, I–III, Leipzig.

OPPOLZER, TH. V. 1885

Über die Länge des Siriusjahres und der Sothisperiode, Sitzungsberichte Wien math.-nat.. Kl. II, Abt. 90, Wien, 557–584.

316

Ulrich Luft

PARKER, R.A. 1976

The Sothic Dating of the Twelfth and Eighteenth Dynasties, 177–189, in: Studies in Honour of George R. Hughes, SAOC 39, Chicago.

PEDERSEN, O. 1974

A Survey of the Almagest, Acta Historica Scientiarum Naturalium et Medicinalium 30, Odense.

PINGREE, D. (ed.) 1973

Hephaistionis Thebani Apostelesmaticorum libri tres, Leipzig.

SPALINGER, A. 1992

Night into Day, ZÄS 119, 144–157.

THEON see TIHON. TIHON, A. 1978

Le petit commentaire de Théon d’Alexandrie aus Tables faciles de Ptolémée (histoire de texte, édition critique, traduction), Studi e testi 282, Vaticano.

TOOMER, G.J. (tr.) 1984

Ptolemy’s Almagest, London.

PLINY, C.

WINTER, E.

1967–70 Plini Secundi naturalis historiae libri 37. Post Ludovici Lani obitum recogn. et scripturae discrepantia adiecta ed. Carolus Mayhoff, vols. 1–6, Stuttgart.

1951

PTOLEMAIOS see MANITIUS – NEUGEBAUER and TOOMER. SCHMITT, J.C. (ed.) 1898

Palladii Rutilii Tavri Emiliani viris illustris opus agriculturae, Leipzig.

Das ägyptische Wag-Fest, Diss. Wien.

WRIGHT W.C. (ed.) 1913/1923 The works of the Emperor Julian, 1–3, The Loeb Classical Library, London.

THE PRINCIPLE OF THE BAYESIAN METHOD By Franz Weninger, Peter Steier, Walter Kutschera, Eva Maria Wild *

INTRODUCTION The Bayesian statistical method has now been used for about ten years in radiocarbon dating. It has become a widely used and commonly accepted method to consider additional information about the samples within the calibration process. (For details on the standard calibration procedure for radiocarbon age determination see e.g. BOWMAN 1990.) In most cases, the available additional information is the knowledge about time relations of the samples, derived from stratigraphic conditions. Depending on the shape of the calibration curve the common calibration procedure may produce calibrated ages with much larger uncertainty ranges than that of the uncalibrated radiocarbon ages. For instance large wiggles in the calibration curve enlarge the uncertainty of the calibrated age considerably, as shown in details below. Including additional information within the calibration process by means of Bayesian statistics can compensate for this increase of the uncertainty. Although the Bayesian method is widely used, it is often difficult for the user to get a clear idea about the detailed procedure underlying the method. Therefore, it is our intent to give a simple description of the basic mechanism of the method in this article. Formulas, avoided in the text, are presented in a short appendix.

calibration curve that gives the relation between the uncalibrated – the so-called conventional – radiocarbon age based on the measured 14C/12C ratio of the sample, and the calibrated (true) age Q. The calibration curve used in this example is an artificial one, chosen to support our example. (It is also assumed that this calibration curve has no uncertainty attached to it, while in reality it does have a finite width due to the procedure to establish the calibration curve itself.) The units for the numbers of both radiocarbon age and calibrated age are given in years Before Present (yr BP; present corresponds to 1950 AD). Note, that the calibrated age on the horizontal axis of Fig. 1 – and also in all analogue figures – increases from the left to the right. This presentation of calibrated ages is not very common, but for the following discussion it is better to envision increasing ages on both axes. Age calibration of a single sample means to find the so-called likelihood function L1, that shows how well a particular true age Q fits to the measured radiocarbon age x1. The procedure to

HOW THE BAYESIAN METHOD WORKS First Example Before entering into Bayesian statistics, let us first have a look at the normal calibration process of a single radiocarbon sample. We start with a radiocarbon measurement with a known uncertainty. On the vertical axis in Fig. 1, x1 indicates the measured radiocarbon age surrounded by a Gaussian-shaped probability function, that gives the uncertainty of the radiocarbon date x1 due to the measurement error. The function m(Q) is the *

VERA Laboratory, Institut für Isotopenforschung und Kernphysik, Universität Wien, Währinger Straße 17, A1090 Wien.

Fig. 1 The principle technique to calibrate a single radiocarbon age. The single sample calibration or ‘likelihood function’ L1 shows how well a particular calendar age Q fits to the measured value x1. Technically this function is produced by transforming the Gaussian shaped probability distribution of the radiocarbon measurement to the axis of the calibrated age, by using the calibration curve m(Q). Note that an artificial calibration curve is used here to produce an obvious example

318

Franz Weninger, Peter Steier, Walter Kutschera, Eva Maria Wild

Fig. 2 First example: There are two samples with radiocarbon ages x1 and x2 and the additional information that sample 1 is younger than sample 2. By independent calibration, we get two likelihood functions L1 and L2. Obviously, only the peaks marked with arrows agree with the assumed chronological order

get this likelihood function is very simple. One only has to take the value of the Gaussian probability function around x1 for each position on the radiocarbon age axis and to apply this value to the corresponding position on the calibrated age axis, as given by the calibration curve. This procedure is illustrated by the dashed lines for two positions in Fig. 1. (Please note that only the shape of the probability function carries the information relevant to our discussion. Therefore, we don’t use units on axes characterising probabilities.) The shape of the likelihood function L1 clearly shows the main problem of radiocarbon calibration. Due to the wiggle in the calibration curve, the likelihood function is dispersed and produces two regions on the true or calibrated age scale that match the measured radiocarbon age. It cannot be clarified from which of the two time ranges the sample originates by investigating one sample only. Now we assume a second sample yielding the uncalibrated radiocarbon age x2. In Fig. 2 one can see both radiocarbon ages x1 and x2 and the likelihood functions of the two samples L1 and L2. Furthermore, we assume that sample 1 is younger than sample 2, which is a common type of additional information provided by a stratigraphic situation of an archaeological excavation. Obviously, only the marked peaks of L1 and L2 in Fig. 2 agree with this given chronological order and the other parts of the likelihood functions should be suppressed. What we need, is a method that can

Fig. 3 First example (continued): a) The two-dimensional likelihood function L, that is the product of both singlesample likelihood functions L1 and L2. b) The prior (or ‘a priori’) probability A, containing the available additional information on the true sample ages Q1 and Q2. In our example, sample 1 is known to be younger then sample 2. So, the prior probability is high when Q1 < Q2 (left of the diagonal), otherwise it is low (right side). c) The posterior probability P is the product of likelihood function L and prior probability A. Consequently, all regions where the prior probability is low are suppressed, which can clearly be seen. Finally, the marginal posterior probabilities P1 and P2 are the probabilities for the age of each single sample. They are the projections of the two-dimensional posterior probability P to the sample age co-ordinates. (For details see text.)

The Principle of the Bayesian Method 319

deal with such additional information in a general mathematical way. The Bayesian statistics is exactly the mathematical formalism which is needed to utilise this additional information. In the first step, the two likelihood functions are multiplied point by point, resulting in the two-dimensional likelihood function shown in Fig. 3a. On the edges of the plane spanned by the two axis of true or calibrated age Q1 and Q2, the normal likelihood functions L1 and L2 as explained above (Fig. 2) are shown again. Each value of the two-dimensional function is the product of the corresponding values of L1 and L2. The meaning of this two-dimensional likelihood function is now a probability of age combinations. The function value at a particular point in the plane, e.g. with age co-ordinates Q1 = 3350 yr BP and Q2 = 3400 yr BP, indicates the degree of agreement of this particular age combination with the set of measured radiocarbon ages (x1 and x2). In this example we get a two-dimensional function. In general the dimensionality of the likelihood function – and also the prior and posterior function discussed below – is equal to the number of radiocarbon samples, and can be quite high. High dimensional functions are definitively a problem for our imagination, nevertheless the principal mechanism of the Bayesian method remains the same. Therefore we will continue with our two-dimensional example for better understanding. The reason for using multi-dimensional functions lies in the fact that it is a convenient way to introduce the additional information mentioned above into the procedure. In Fig. 3b the prior (‘a priori’) probability function A is shown. This function is the two-dimensional representation of the additional information about the sample ages derived from the stratigraphy. In this example, sample 1 is known to be younger than sample 2. Therefore the prior probability is high for all combinations of age Q1 and age Q2 where Q1 is less than Q2 (left of the diagonal in Fig. 3b) and otherwise it is low (right side of Fig. 3b). Having found the prior probability, the next step is to combine it with the two-dimensional likelihood function established above, which contains the information from the radiocarbon measurements. This is easily done by taking the product of the two functions, that means to multiply the values of the likelihood function and the prior function for each position in the twodimensional co-ordinate plane. The result is the

posterior function P, shown in Fig. 3c. This function gives now the probability for any particular combination of the sample ages Q1 and Q2 to be the true one, including both, the information from measurement and the additional information from stratigraphy. In our example, three of the four peaks of the two-dimensional likelihood function are located in the region with low prior probability and therefore are strongly suppressed within the posterior function. The last step in our procedure is to go back from the multi-dimensional co-ordinate space representing age combinations to usual probabilities for the single samples again. This is done by projecting the multi-dimensional posterior function P to the sample age co-ordinates, getting the so-called marginal posterior probabilities P1 and P2 of the single samples, also shown in Fig. 3c. They give the probability that a considered sample has a particular true age based on both, measurements and stratigraphic information. This is the result we intended to achieve. In Fig. 4 we finally compare the initial single calibration likelihood functions L1 and L2 with the resulting marginal posterior probabilities P1 and P2. It is shown very clearly, that only these peaks remain within the posterior probability, that fulfil the condition that sample 1 is younger than sample 2, according to our prior knowledge. This is exactly what we claimed ini-

Fig. 4 First example (continued): Comparison of the single sample likelihood functions L1 and L2 that contain no prior information (a) with the marginal posterior probabilities P1 and P2 including the prior information (b). Only these peaks remain within the posterior probability fulfilling the condition that sample 1 is younger than sample 2, according to the existing prior knowledge

320

Franz Weninger, Peter Steier, Walter Kutschera, Eva Maria Wild

Fig. 5 Second example: Again we take two samples with radiocarbon ages x1 and x2. L1 and L2 are their likelihood functions obtained by independent calibration

tially based on a qualitative consideration that the Bayesian method should produce. So, in our simple example, the method works very well, and it can be assumed, that the Bayesian method is applicable in other situations as well. Second Example Let us discuss shortly a second – also artificially constructed – example, similar to the one described above, but now using a different kind of prior information. Again we restrict ourselves to only two radiocarbon measurements for the reason of simplified visualisation. Fig. 5 shows the determination of the single sample likelihood functions, as already explained above. Due to all possible combinations of the three peaks of L1 with the two peaks of L2 there six peaks arise in the multi-dimensional likelihood function, shown in Fig. 6a. Unlike the first example, we now assume that sample 1 is older than sample 2 by a particular known value with a given uncertainty. This leads to the shape of the prior probability shown in Fig. 6b, looking like a wall with Gaussian cross section. Analogous to the first example, building the product of the multi-dimensional likelihood function L and the prior function A lets only this peak remain within the posterior function P that fulfils the prior condition. Or in other words, only this peak in the multi-dimensional co-ordinate plane remains, that originates from the combination of regions in the single calibration likelihood functions L1 and L2 having the required age difference. Building the marginal posterior probabilities as explained above, it is

Fig. 6 Second example (continued): a) Two-dimensional likelihood function L, and single-sample likelihood functions L1 and L2. b) Prior probability A, containing the additional information on the true sample ages Q1 and Q2. Unlike the first example, we now assume that sample 1 is older than sample 2 by a particular known value with a given uncertainty (60 ± 20 yr). This leads to the form shown of the prior probability, which looks like a wall with Gaussian cross section. c) Two-dimensional posterior probability P and marginal posterior probabilities P1 and P2. (For details see text.)

again clearly shown that all regions are suppressed that do not match the required condition (Fig. 7).

The Principle of the Bayesian Method 321

Fig. 7 Second example (continued): Comparison of the single sample likelihood functions L1 and L2 (a) with the marginal posterior probabilities P1 and P2 (b). Analogous to the first example, again only the peaks that are in agreement with the prior knowledge remain within the posterior probability which means that sample 1 has to be 60 ± 20 years older than sample 2

Third Example – a ‘Real-World’ One An early investigation, where Bayesian statistics were used in conjunction with radiocarbon dat-

ing was performed by BUCK et al. 1994 for an excavation of an Austrian Bronze Age village. We use here the radiocarbon dates and the stratigraphic relations investigated in this work to show a realistic application of the Bayesian method. Naturally in a real-world application, the situation is more complex then in the artificial examples previously shown. Now we have ten-dimensional functions according to a sample number of ten, a lot of wiggles in the real calibration curve, and a more complex prior information (see Fig. 8). However, the method works just the same way as explained above. Fig. 8a shows the pattern of the overlapping uncertainty ranges of the radiocarbon dates of ten measured samples, indicated by their Gaussian probability distributions, as well as the relevant section of the radiocarbon calibration curve (IntCal 04 by REIMER et al. 2004). Part (b) in Fig. 8 gives a symbolic representation of the stratigraphic relations, which must be read in the following way: Sample 10 is known to be younger than sample 9 and 9 is known to be younger than 8. The samples 3, 4, 6 and 7 are all known to be older than 8, but the age relation between them is unknown. Again, sample 3 is

Fig. 8 Third example: In a real-world application the situation is more complex then in the artificial examples shown in the previous figures. Now we have functions within a ten-dimensional mathematical space, many wiggles in the real calibration curve and more complex prior relations. The time relations between the individual samples based on the stratigraphic information are given in (b): sample 10 is known to be younger than sample 9, sample 9 younger than 8. Samples 3, 4, 6 and 7 are all known to be older than 8, but the relationship between them is unknown. Again, 3 is younger than 2 and so on. The data are taken from BUCK et al. 1994 from an excavation of an Austrian bronze age village

322

Franz Weninger, Peter Steier, Walter Kutschera, Eva Maria Wild

Fig. 9 Third example (continued): Single sample calibration without prior information (a), compared with the outcome of the Bayesian method, including the prior information (b). Once again parts of the probability distributions that are not in agreement with the prior knowledge are suppressed

younger than 2 and so on. Nearer to archaeological terms, the stratigraphy contains two phases. The younger one contains the sequence 8-9-10, the older one the sequences 1-2-3 and 5-6 and additionally the samples 4 and 7. Across these sequences (e.g. sample 3 vs. 5) no relation is known. In Fig. 9 we show a comparison of the likelihood functions from single sample calibration and the marginal posterior functions produced by the Bayesian method for each sample, analogous to Fig. 4 and Fig. 7 in the previous examples. It is not necessary to discuss these functions in detail, there can easily be seen two qualitative aspects. First, the time ranges of possible ages turn out to be much smaller in the posterior functions then in the likelihood functions. Second, the regions are shifted in accordance to the stratigraphic relations. This can be seen when looking e.g. at sample 8. As mentioned above, sample 8 has to be younger then the samples 3, 4, 6 and 7. So, roughly spoken, all these samples try to shift the posterior function of sample 8 to the younger side of the age scale. This is what one sees when comparing the likelihood function (Fig. 9a) and posterior function (Fig. 9b) of sample 8. Of course, both of the effects described have again one basic reason: the suppression of all parts of the (multi-dimensional) posterior function, which do not agree with the prior probability, i.e. the stratigraphical information.

Although we have seen that a large number of samples does not change the method in principal, there is a non-negligible technical difference, which will be discussed below. For further reading about the application of Bayesian methods in radiocarbon dating see e.g. BUCK et al. 1991, BRONK RAMSEY 1995, 1998, BRONK RAMSEY et al. 2004, STEIER and ROM 2000. GIBBS SAMPLING, THE KEY NUMERICAL FEASIBILITY

TO

For the simple examples with only two samples measured, we had to deal with two-dimensional functions. If we suppose to work with 100 points on each of the two age co-ordinates within the numerical calculations, this leads to 1002 = 10 000 points within the co-ordinate plane spanned by two age co-ordinates. So, all functions have to be evaluated at 10 000 points. This is for sure no problem for a computer. But if we suppose now that there are 15 samples and we again use 100 points on each age axis, we get 10015 = 1030 points to be evaluated for our now 15-dimensional functions. Therefore, it is not possible any more to calculate these functions point by point. Fortunately, a very efficient Monte-Carlo method can solve this problem, the so-called Gibbs sampling. The principle of doing the calculations with a Monte Carlo method is to evaluate not all points in the multi-dimensional co-ordinate space, but

The Principle of the Bayesian Method 323

only a number of randomly drawn ones. It would not, however, be very efficient to draw the points really randomly out of the multi-dimensional space, because many points would lie in areas where the posterior function is nearly zero, as one can imagine when looking at Fig. 3c or Fig. 6c. These points would be useless, because they do not contribute to the resulting marginal posterior functions. In contrast, the Gibbs sampling finds a pattern of points in the multi-dimensional coordinate space where the density of the points reproduces the probability function investigated. These points can be found by evaluating only one-dimensional slices within the multi-dimensional probability function. These slices are conditional probabilities with all dimensions but one fixed. The procedure is the following: One starts with calculating a slice e.g. in the first dimension, choosing all other co-ordinates arbitrarily. This slice represents a probability distribution along the first dimension and out of this distribution a position on the first co-ordinate is randomly drawn. Next, a further slice is calculated along the second dimension, located at the position of the first draw. All other co-ordinates stay the same. This procedure is repeatedly performed. When reaching the last co-ordinate it jumps back to the first and iterates all over. With each change of any co-ordinate a new point is found. It can be shown theoretically, that the density of their pattern converges to the probability function processed. Within the Bayesian method, Gibbs sampling is used to find the marginal posterior probabilities of the samples. As explained previously, the marginals are projections of the multi-dimensional posterior probability to the single sample coordinates. Mathematically, they are evaluated by an integration – or summation when done numerically – over the age co-ordinates of all other samples. With the Gibbs sampling method this summation can easily be done by projecting every selected point onto the corresponding positions on each sample co-ordinate and adding them up. This produces the correct marginal probability distributions, because the density of the points represents already the probability to be integrated. So we only have to run the Gibbs sampling on the multi-dimensional posterior probability. And the great advantage is, that there is no need to evaluate all points of the posterior function before, because the method uses only onedimensional slices of the function. Therefore, the use of Gibbs sampling makes

Bayesian statistics numerically feasible, allowing it to become a powerful tool in radiocarbon calibration widely used today. For more details to Gibbs sampling and related numerical methods see e.g. GILKS et al. 1996. FINAL REMARK We hope that this work shed some light on a method which – although intrinsically complex – is very useful for the reduction of the well-known uncertainties of standard radiocarbon dating. Of course, there are many detailed aspects and specialised applications of the method, as well as various questions and problems that are not mentioned in this article. APPENDIX: BASIC MATHEMATICAL RELATIONS Here we present the mathematical formulation of the Bayesian method used in this article. The equations are particularly given for the second example described in the text.

The variables used are exactly the same as in the text: x1 and x2 are the uncalibrated radiocarbon ages of sample 1 and 2 with their measurement errors s1 and s2. Q1 and Q2 are the calibrated true ages of the to samples and m(Q) is the radiocarbon calibration curve. L1(x1*Q1) (read: “the probability L1 of x1 given Q1”) and L2(x2*Q2) are the one-dimensional likelihood functions for single sample calibration. The notation L1(x1*Q1) means, that L1 is the conditional probability to measure the value x1 when having a

324

Franz Weninger, Peter Steier, Walter Kutschera, Eva Maria Wild

true age Q1. L(x1,x2*Q1,Q2) is the multi-dimensional likelihood function. A(Q1,Q2) is the prior probability for the special case, that Q1 is known to be older then Q2 by a particular age difference d with an uncertainty sd. Further P(Q1,Q2*x1,x2) is the multi-dimensional posterior

probability. This is the conditional probability, that the particular combination of age Q1 and age Q2 is the true one, when having measured x1 and x2. Finally, P1(Q1*x1,x2) and P2(Q2*x1,x2) are the marginal posterior probabilities of the true age of sample 1 and sample 2.

Bibliography BOWMAN S.

BUCK C.E., LITTON C.D. and SHENNAN S.J.

1990

1994

Radiocarbon dating – (Interpreting the past). British Museum Publications Ltd, London.

BRONK RAMSEY C.

A case study in combining radiocarbon and archaeological information: the early Bronze Age settlement of St. Veit-Klinglberg, Land Salzburg, Austria. Germania 72(2), 427–447.

1995

Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37(2), 425–430.

GILKS W.R., RICHARDSION S. and SPIEGEL-HALTER D.J. (eds.)

1998

Probability and dating. Radiocarbon 40(1), 461–474.

REIMER P.J. et al.

BRONK RAMSEY C., MANNING S.W. and GALIMBERTI M. 2004

Dating the volcanic eruption at Thera. Radiocarbon 46(1), 325–344.

BUCK C.E., KENWORTHY J.B., LITTON C.D. and SMITH A.F.M. 1991

Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity 65 (1991), 808–821.

1996

2004

Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice, London.

IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46(3), 1029–1058.

STEIER P. and ROM W. 2000

The use of Bayesian statistics for 14C dates of chronologically ordered samples: a critical analysis. Radiocarbon 42(2), 183–198.

EGYPT & TIME By Malcolm H. Wiener

The papers and subsequent discussions at this fine workshop, while establishing no major breakthroughs in the chronology of Ancient Egypt, succeeded in clarifying a number of major issues while simultaneously illuminating events in the Third Intermediate Period. Indeed, the papers by David A. Aston, Gerard P.F. Broekman, Dan’el Kahn and Kenneth Kitchen concerning the T.I.P. seemed almost a parallel conference that discussed in detail historical and chronological issues within the period, without impacting Egyptian chronology in general since all of the speakers accepted c. 945 B.C. as the time of the accession of Shoshenq I. At the 2003 SCIEM conference, Rolf Krauss set forth a strong case based on lunar observation data for an accession in 943 B.C. (In press. I am grateful to R. KRAUSS for sharing his text).1 Kenneth Kitchen’s paper (presented in absentia in final form after the conference) addressed many contentious chronological issues within the T.I.P. and presented his current position with respect to the whole of Egyptian historical chronology, relying largely on texts and “dead reckoning” of reigns. The dates proposed have received widespread general acceptance and are propounded as well in the paper by Manfred Bietak. The paper by Vera Müller presented a general overview of all periods and various approaches, scientific as well as textual, cautioning against placing total reliance on proposed absolute astronomical dates.

1

Egyptian textual evidence (KITCHEN 1986; 1991; 1996) provides a date not later than 941 B.C., and probably a little earlier (KITCHEN, this volume). A major building program in the temple of Karnak at Thebes was begun by Shoshenq I in Year 21 of his reign, according to a rock stele found in the sandstone quarries at Gebel Silsila (CAMINOS 1952; KITCHEN, this volume). The building program, left unfinished presumably because of the death of Shoshenq the following year, included a relief recounting a major campaign in Israel and perhaps in Judah. Correspondingly, the Hebrew Bible in I Kings 14:25 states that Shishak seized the Temple treasure of Jerusalem in the 5th year of the reign of Rehoboam, king of Judah. Correlations with Assyrian annals from

THE THIRD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD AND THE TWENTY-FIFTH DYNASTY The fine papers on the genealogy and history of the Third Intermediate Period and Twenty-fifth Dynasty speak for themselves. The T.I.P–Twentyfifth Dynasty framework established through the heroic efforts of Ken Kitchen in particular, Morris Bierbrier and others was subject to vigorous challenge on many points of detail. Dan’el Kahn’s proposal that Manethonian absolute dates in the period around 700 B.C. are in error by a few years supports the long-held understanding that Manetho’s sources were better for some periods than others. THE NEW KINGDOM Workshop papers and discussions of the New Kingdom raised two challenges to the current widely accepted absolute chronology placing the accession of Ramses II at 1279 B.C., of Tuthmosis III at 1479 B.C. and of Ahmose I and the beginning of the New Kingdom c. 1539 B.C. The first challenge came in a paper by David Aston, who argued that the reign of Tuthmosis IV should be lengthened considerably beyond the decade (c. 1400–1390 B.C.) now generally allotted because of the number of tomb chapels constructed and officials recorded during his reign, plus the significant change in pottery styles during his reign and the preceding reign of Amenophis II (c. 1427–1400

the reign of Shalmaneser III establish Hebrew Biblical monarchic dates from the beginning of the Divided Monarchy in c. 931–30 B.C. (see KITCHEN, this volume). Accordingly, if the proposed new lunar observationbased date of 943 B.C. for the accession of Shoshenq I is correct, then either the campaign in Judah occurred in Year 18 rather than Year 20 of his reign, followed by a delay of two years until the inauguration of the building program containing the stele describing the campaign, or the 5th year of Rehoboam should be placed in 923 B.C. rather than 925 B.C. as proposed by THIELE (1951; 1983) and KITCHEN (1986; 1996; this volume) on the basis of Biblical accounts of the lengths of interconnecting reigns in Israel and Judah.

326

Malcolm H. Wiener

B.C. on the generally accepted chronology). In the discussion following David Aston’s paper, I commented that periods of prosperity uninterrupted by war, drought or plague in a land as wealthy as Egypt could have witnessed much building activity and expansion in administration, and that the rate of change in pottery in all societies is irregular and dependent on many factors, including foreign influences, tastes of rulers and users or consumers versus the extent to which certain shapes and patterns of decoration came to denote the contents of containers, i.e., as trademarks, thus tending toward stability. The length of the reign of Tuthmosis IV has been the subject of considerable past discussion. Thirty years ago, E. Wente and C. Van Siclen published an important article arguing for a 34year reign for Tuthmosis IV and a high Egyptian chronology placing the reign of Tuthmosis IV between 1419 and 1386 B.C. and the accession of Tuthmosis III in 1504 rather than 1479 B.C. (WENTE and VAN SICLEN 1976). In 1991 B. Bryan, in the expanded version of her 1980 dissertation on the reign of Tuthmosis IV, argued that while there was abundant evidence for Tuthmosis IV through his 8th year, there was none thereafter, adding that a brief reign was supported by astronomical evidence and the Manetho Kinglist. Bryan concluded that the reign of Tuthmosis IV was unlikely to have gone beyond 12 years at the most. E. Wente then graciously stated that he accepted Bryan’s position (pers. comm., for which I am most grateful). A brief reign for Tuthmosis IV is also favored by K.A. Kitchen. Rolf Krauss believes that astronomical sightings in the 23rd and 24th years of Tuthmosis III firmly fix the year of his accession at 1479 B.C. (forthcoming) and hence require a brief reign for Tuthmosis IV. Further astronomical evidence is available in the form of a lunar observation in Year 52 of Ramses II, consistent only with an accession date of 1279 B.C. within the period required both by Near Eastern correlations and by “dead reckoning” via the addition of the regnal years of subsequent rulers (KRAUSS forthcoming and this volume). Furthermore, Karl Jansen-Winkeln argued in his paper that on the basis of genealogical data regarding average life spans even a date of 1279 B.C. appeared to be earlier than might be anticipated and that accordingly a 25-year increase to the higher lunar cycle date seemed contraindicated. It will be interesting, therefore, to see whether David Aston’s contribution to this workshop will change the communis opinio.

The second challenge to the now standard chronology of the New Kingdom went to the heart of the issues raised at this workshop. Franz Weninger, Peter Steier and Walter Kutschera in their paper presented radiocarbon dates of seeds collected at Tell el-Dabca from early New Kingdom, Second Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom strata. At Tell el-Dabca two determinations from the C/2 stratum of the post-Hatshepsut Tuthmosis III period gave central dates of 1620 B.C. and earlier, far too early on textual, archaeological and astronomical grounds (BIETAK, this volume). Moreover, the radiocarbon determinations showed very poor agreement between the originally calibrated and the quasi-Bayesian-sequenced time range in radiocarbon terms (see below). There is an old saying in radiocarbon dating that “one date is no date,” reflecting the uncertainty inherent in any single 14C determination. Here perhaps one may say the same of two dates, when they are of this nature. The 14C dates obtained from seeds from the early New Kingdom strata are also far earlier than the dates established through the study of texts and astronomical observations. The absolute dates for these strata and for the New Kingdom in general cannot move very much from those stated above, not only for the reasons previously stated but also because of the correlations with the chronology of the ancient Near East fixed via the correspondence of Amenophis III and Akhenaten with Near Eastern rulers whose dates are known to within about a decade. Confirmation of the firm foundation of Near Eastern chronology was provided recently by the discovery at Assur of correspondence between the twelfthcentury B.C. rulers Ninurta-apil-Ekur of Assur and Meli-Shipak of Babylon (FRAHM n.d.), thus confirming the overlap of these reigns as required by the independent chronologies of Assur and Babylon set forth over 30 years ago by J. BRINKMAN (1972, 272–273; 1976, 31–33; 1977). The work of Brinkman (which of course utilized the records contained in the vast number of fired clay tablets produced in the Near East) took the chronologies of Assyria back to around 1430 B.C. with a possible error range of about a decade. The recent extensive reworking of the evidence by H. GASCHE (2003) has reaffirmed Brinkman’s conclusions back to the last quarter of the fifteenth century B.C. with only minor variation; for example BRINKMAN (1977) placed the reign of Enlil-nasir II in c. 1430–25 B.C., whereas GASCHE (2003, 210 n. 17) gives regnal dates of

Egypt & Time 327

1422–17 B.C. Further discussion of the 14C measurements from New Kingdom strata is contained in the concluding section of this summary dealing with radiocarbon dating problems in general. THE SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD Apart from radiocarbon dates from the relevant strata, discussions of the Second Intermediate Period are provided by Kim Ryholt and Chris Bennett. Both stress the high degree of chronological uncertainty which prevails. Ryholt’s paper reports that the damaged figure in the Hyksos summation in the Turin Kinglist is in fact more compatible with the reading “140 years” than “108 years,” although the latter cannot be entirely ruled out. Ryholt further notes that it would be unwise in any event to place much confidence in the Turin Kinglist for the obscure Fifteenth Dynasty, considering that for the better-documented Twelfth Dynasty the Kinglist is hard to reconcile with the contemporary sources of information (RYHOLT 2004 and pers. comm. of 5 January 2006). Bennett’s paper notes that the surviving portions of the Turin Kinglist covering the late Second Intermediate Period are particularly difficult to reconcile with the Manethonian tradition. The Turin Kinglist, contained on about 300 fragments of papyrus now housed in the Turin Museum, provides what was intended as a complete list of Egyptian kings since the creation beginning with gods and semidivine mythic figures. In its scope and intention, the list is a unique document from the Pharaonic period. The list is written on the reverse of a discarded tax register of the thirteenth century B.C., but whether the list was written in the same century or later is unclear (RYHOLT 2004). Would adding 32 years to the Hyksos in accordance with Ryholt’s tentative suggestion raise dates overall or merely reduce the duration of the Fourteenth Dynasty accordingly? Ryholt believes that the Fourteenth Dynasty at Avaris in the Nile Delta begins very soon after the end of the Twelfth Dynasty in Thebes, whereas Manfred Bietak thinks that the Fourteenth Dynasty in the Delta did not begin until the latter part of the Thirteenth Dynasty located in Memphis. Critical evidence strongly favoring the Bietak position is provided by studies of pottery typology and, in particular, scarabs (ALLEN, ALLEN and BEN-TOR 1999). Bietak notes among other arguments that major occupation of the Uronarti fort in Nubia during the Thirteenth Dynasty is established by

the pottery and by scarabs with close Hyksos parallels, contrary to Ryholt’s view that the occupation belongs in the Fourteenth Dynasty. The duration of the Hyksos period is of interest for Aegean chronology, for interconnections generally, and (at the margin) for the compatibility of 14C determinations with archaeological evidence. As for the Aegean, an alabaster lid with the cartouche of the Hyksos ruler Khyan was found by Sir Arthur Evans at the Palace of Minos at Knossos. Kim Ryholt’s work strongly supports the position that Khyan was the fourth of the Hyksos rulers, and not the first, as the late Olga Tufnell thought (TUFNELL 1984). Evans believed the alabaster lid came from a secure Middle Minoan IIIA context at Knossos (EVANS 1921). Colin Macdonald has suggested in a recent article that the context could be MM IIIB rather than IIIA (MACDONALD 2003, 40), whereas Peter Warren believes Evans’ case for a IIIA context remains convincing (pers. comm. of 4 February 2005). The Aegean Long Chronology, supported by Sturt Manning and others, requires that Khyan rule during LM IB (accepting that he is the fourth Hyksos and not the first, which would make the discrepancy far worse still). In this case both Evans’ description of the findspot and Macdonald’s reinterpretation must be completely wrong and/or the lid must have migrated downward as a result of some now unrecognizable LM II rebuilding in the area in which it was found. The Khyan lid is one of countless archaeological contexts (if one considers all of the relevant Cypriot pottery) which would have to move by roughly a century to accommodate a seventeenth-century date for the eruption of Thera as proposed by some (though disputed by others) on the basis of radiocarbon determinations (pro: MANNING 1999; BRONK RAMSEY, MANNING and GALIMBERTI 2004; contra: WIENER 2003). Raising the date of Khyan even by a generation (made possible if one assumes that most of Ryholt’s 32-year addition comes in the last three Hyksos reigns) would do little to resolve this difference. Similarly, the extension of the Hyksos period in toto by about 32 years would affect only slightly the absolute dates of the various strata at Dabca and of the Cypriot pottery they contained, or the dating of Canaanite sites on the basis of interconnections with Dab ca (B IETAK 2003; BIETAK, KOPETZKY and STAGER forthcoming. Of course there would be no effect on the dating of Late Bronze Age Cypriot pottery styles including

328

Malcolm H. Wiener

White Slip I, a piece of which was found in the Volcanic Destruction Level at Thera). The paper by Chris Bennett presents a probing analysis of the textual evidence for the Second Intermediate Period, to which is added critical evidence gathered from genealogy and prosopography. Bennett has been able to construct a network of family trees centered on the governors of El-Kab that spans the period from the mid-Thirteenth to the early Eighteenth Dynasty and includes synchronisms with several kings in this period. Bennett reports that the evidence so obtained “suggests that the Theban state broke away from the 13th dynasty a few decades before the end of that dynasty, and that the Theban dynasty lasted some decades longer than is usually supposed” (BENNETT 2005). Bennett has also explored the implications of a proposed Sothic (rising of Sirius) date for anchoring Dynasty Sixteen and Seventeen, which he considers a single dynasty (BENNETT 2002). The date comes from an unusual and surprising source and location – a rock graffito from Djebel Tjauti (DARNELL and DARNELL 2002, 49–52). Kim Ryholt, however, in his paper to this workshop presented a detailed argument that the graffito did not record a Sothic date at all. Skepticism has also been expressed in this regard by James Allen of the Metropolitan Museum (forthcoming), although no one has yet proposed an alternative reading for the graffito. Sothic date aside, Bennett’s conclusions concerning the succession of governors at El-Kab, which require a minimum distance of about ten generations between Sebekhotep IV to Hatshepsut, argue against lowering the dates of the preceding Middle Kingdom, a subject to which we now turn. THE MIDDLE KINGDOM, FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD AND OLD KINGDOM The absolute chronology of the Middle Kingdom and hence earlier periods depends largely on Egyptian Sothic and lunar observations and our understanding of them. Written records play an important role within each period. Interconnections with the Near East may provide additional information via connections to cedar- and juniper-based dendrochronology and to increasing numbers of high-precision Near Eastern radiocarbon dates as described by Ezra Marcus in his paper to this workshop. With respect to Middle Kingdom astronomical dating, this workshop saw the continuation of an ongoing, long-standing debate. The paper by Rolf

Krauss refined his lunar-based argument for a low chronology which would place Year 7 of Senwosret III in 1831–30 B.C., consistent with his dating of the Illahun Papyrus Sothic observation, which Krauss believes was recorded at Elephantine in Upper Egypt rather than at Memphis/Illahun as is commonly held, or at Thebes. The fundamental analysis of Parker in 1950 proposed 1872 B.C. for Year 7 of Senwosret III, with subsequent adjustment to 1866 B.C. by LUFT (1992, 114 n. 46) and VON BECKERATH (1997, 45, 132–134). Parker placed the reign of Senwosret III between 1878 and 1843 B.C.; von Beckerath and Kitchen prefer 1872–53/52 B.C. while Luft favors 1873–54 B.C. (VON BECKERATH 1997; KITCHEN 2000). Krauss’ reading of the astronomical evidence, on the other hand, leads to proposed regnal dates of 1837–19 B.C. (KRAUSS forthcoming). The Turin Canon, compiled more than 500 years later, gives thirty-plus years. Luft believes the astronomical evidence for a shortened 19-year reign of Senwosret III is controlling (LUFT 1992, 114 n. 46; 2003, 202). LUFT in 1992 also cited W.K. SIMPSON (1984) who argued for shortening the reign of Senwosret III because of the then lack of epigraphical evidence after Year 19, but in the same year FELIX ARNOLD (1992) published a control note from a limestone building block inside the king’s pyramid at Dahshur which recorded a Year 30 (see also DIETER ARNOLD 2002, 59) and in 1996 J. Wegner published control notes on building blocks from the mortuary temple of Senwosret III that continue up to Year 39. Reconciling the foregoing evidence with Illahun Papyrus Berlin 10055 (KAPLONY-HECKEL 1971), where a “Year 19” is followed with a “Year 1” in the same hand, requires a co-regency of Senwosret III and his successor Amenemhat III of 20 years. (I am most grateful to Dorothea Arnold for reminding me of the history and commentary concerning the control notes and the Illahun Papyrus.) In contrast to Krauss’ paper, Ulrich Luft strongly defends a high Middle Kingdom chronology on astronomical grounds, arguing for the correctness of both the Sothic date for the reign of Senwosret III and the Illahun lunar observations as set forth by Parker (while also contending for a 19-year reign for Senwosret III on the basis of astronomy, as noted above). Andrew Shortland, Christopher Bronk Ramsey and Thomas Higham’s paper also contends that the Illahun observations and the generally accepted understanding of them seem well

Egypt & Time 329

based. Krauss’ lunar calculations would result in an end date for the Twelfth Dynasty and the Middle Kingdom in 1760–59 B.C., compared to high chronology dates of 1786 B.C. (PARKER 1950, 63–69), 1794/3 B.C. (VON BECKERATH 1997), 1795 B.C. (KITCHEN 2000, 46–47, 49), 1796 B.C. (LUFT 1992, 114 n. 46), and 1803 B.C. (RYHOLT 1997, 184–197). Bennett’s conclusions concerning the Second Intermediate Period mandate a high Middle Kingdom chronology as well (BENNET 2002), and Ryholt’s paper points in the same direction in reemphasizing his prior support for the high Middle Kingdom chronology. Apart from the papers at this workshop, Fabian Boudville (The Egyptologists’ Electronic Forum: [email protected], 29 March 2005) has argued that Krauss’ date of 1760/59 B.C. for the end of the Middle Kingdom would shorten the Thirteenth Dynasty unreasonably by allowing an average reign of only 2.4 years for the many shortlived but well-attested kings and that an Elephantine locus for the Sothic sightings adopted by Krauss is much less likely than a Thebes or Memphis observation point, either of which would yield a higher date. Gary Greenberg has also supported the standard Middle Kingdom high chronology, with the Twelfth Dynasty beginning in 1991 and ending in 1786 B.C. (GREENBERG 2002; 2003–2004, 53. Substituting an Illahun papyrus date of 1866 for 1872 B.C. brings the inception date of the Twelfth Dynasty down to 1985 B.C.). Shortening the reign of Senwosret II to nine years as suggested by the lack of evidence to date for any year beyond Year 8 would result in a beginning year of 1981 B.C., while the Greenberg ending date of 1786 B.C. assumes a 39-year reign for Senwosret III with only a three-year coregency (GREENBERG 2003–2004, 37–40. So brief a co-regency is difficult to reconcile, however, with the other evidence cited). A further indication that the Thirteenth Dynasty covers a substantial period of time rather than the brief period suggested by Krauss is provided by the extended stratified sequence from the Metropolitan Museum excavations at Dahshur conducted by Dieter and Dorothea Arnold (DOROTHEA ARNOLD 1982; pers. comm. of 8 February 1996 from Dorothea Arnold, for which I am most grateful). Manfred Bietak notes that a long time span for the Thirteenth plus Fourteenth Dynasties is further suggested by the stratigraphy at Tell elDabca, where strata G/4, G/1–3, F, E/3 and early E/2 fall in this period (I am most grateful to

Manfred Bietak for this observation and for other comments on this section of my paper as well). In sum, the weight of scholarly opinion from various directions is heavily against Krauss’ low Middle Kingdom chronology. The radiocarbon dates reported by Weninger, Steier and Kutschera at this workshop, would imply a higher chronology still, since their analysis of the seed measurements from Thirteenth Dynasty strata at Dabca produced dates similar to the majority view astronomical dates for the Twelfth Dynasty. Questions posed by the Dabca 14C determinations are considered in the final section of this summary. With regard to the First Intermediate Period and the Old Kingdom, various radiocarbon determinations have sometimes yielded dates higher than traditional chronologies, as noted in the paper by Hendrik Bruins (see also BRUINS and MOOK 1989, 1025; BRUINS 2001, 1150–1153; VAN DER PLICHT and BRUINS 2001, taking account as well of Near Eastern radiocarbon dates and Egyptian interconnections). Here, however, traditional Egyptological chronologies clearly lack precision, and indeed appear more fluid than is often acknowledged, with the F.I.P. and the Sixth Dynasty presenting particular difficulties. Adding together the estimated reign lengths of known rulers leaves open the possibility of additional rulers or periods of interregnum. The Turin papyrus is incomplete in the section covering the First Intermediate Period and the Manethonian report of “70 rulers in 70 days” can hardly be taken literally; rather it suggests that 70 names had been recorded with no way of knowing whether some or all were local rulers who overlapped. Analyses of charcoal used in Old Kingdom pyramid construction (HAAS et al. 1987; BONANI et al. 2001; NAKHLA et al. 1999) produced some radiocarbon determinations with dates centuries earlier than conventional dates, but the presence of old wood is suspected. The Andrew Shortland et al. paper noted that the 14C measurements in question produced both dates that were consistent with the standard chronology and dates hundreds of years older perhaps representing old carbon, and contended that the two sets of dates should not have been averaged. (For additional Old Kingdom radiocarbon dates, see MANNING 2006) L. DEPUYDT (2000) has analyzed a papyrus from the Abusir mortuary temple of the Fifth Dynasty king Neferefre as containing a Sothic date which would place his reign more than

Fig. 1 Comparison of Tell el-Dabca phases to the chronologies of Ashkelon, Tell el-cAjjul, Cyprus and the Levant, including a reference to the 1645 ±7 Greenland ice-core signal (after BIETAK 2003, fig. 1)

330

Malcolm H. Wiener

Egypt & Time 331

half a century earlier than conventional dating (KITCHEN 2000, 47–48). Some adjustment of traditional dates for the First Intermediate Period and the Old Kingdom is clearly possible. (Vera Müller’s paper entitled “How Fixed is Egyptian Historical Chronology Really?” provides a general overview of this question and many of the problems considered by the workshop.) THE CHALLENGE OF BAYESIAN-FILTERED RADIOCARBON DATES A leitmotif of this workshop has been the challenge posed to traditional Egyptological dating by the presentation of radiocarbon dates from Tell elDabca in the Nile Delta said to be generally 100–150 years older than the dates previously assigned to the contexts in which the dated shortlived samples were found. Fig. 1 (BIETAK 2003) presents the Tell el-Dabca archaeological data in detail, together with interconnected archaeological data of chronological significance from Canaan, the Levant, Cyprus and the Aegean. Fig. 2 sets forth the radiocarbon determinations available as of the date of the workshop (I am greatly indebted to Walter Kutschera for allowing me to present his preliminary data here. Additional measurements and analysis will be presented at the 19th International Radiocarbon Conference at Oxford [2006].) In a comment from the floor, Peter Stadler reported that the radiocarbon samples from Miletus on the coast of Anatolia that he was measuring also gave some dates about 100 years too early in comparison with the traditional chronologies. The same shift has been claimed but disputed with regard to Aegean determinations (MANNING 1999; WIENER 2003; WIENER forthcoming). While most participants in the workshop appeared to accept both the existence of the difference and the fact that there was at present no explanation, two members of the workshop, Ezra Marcus and myself, questioned this consensus on the ground that the radiocarbon evidence from Dabca appeared unconvincing. The fact that the dates from the seeds recovered from post-Hatshepsut Tuthmosis III strata at Dabca were hundreds of years too early for dates which are closely fixed by textual and genealogical data from Egypt and the Near East, and perhaps absolutely fixed by astronomy, has already been noted above, and indeed the radiocarbon analysis indicates that there is very poor agreement between these actual 14C measurements and the dates proposed after Bayesian sequencing, as Walter Kutschera noted.

The radiocarbon dates for the early New Kingdom strata are also far too early in terms of well-established New Kingdom dates. No 14C data have been presented to date from phases L or K, which cover the Sothic dates generally accepted for the 7th year of Senwosret III (nor, for that matter for phase I, which would correspond to the Sothic plus lunar date proposed by R. Krauss). One seed measurement for Thirteenth Dynasty level G/4 resulted in a Bayesian-filtered range of dates centering close to the Twelfth Dynasty 1872–66 B.C. span for the 7th year of Senwosret III. Moreover, three seed measurements from later Dabca Thirteenth Dynasty phases G/1–3, after Bayesian sequencing, overlap the 1872–66 B.C. range to some extent. Thus the Bayesian-sequenced radiocarbon dates proposed conflict with all views of the astronomical evidence. With respect to some of the other radiocarbon determinations obtained from seed samples at Tell el-Dabca, the bottom of the two sigma calibrated range encompasses the dates which would be strongly preferred on textual, genealogical and astronomical evidence in the absence of radiocarbon dates, as noted by Ezra Marcus in the discussion. The incompatibility of the New Kingdom 14C dates proposed with all the other New Kingdom evidence was discussed above. Accordingly, it is appropriate to review some of the problems inherent in radiocarbon dating, beginning with the process of Bayesian “sequencing.” We may begin by noting the improvements in the past few years in the OxCal statistical programs employed by the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory. Walter Kutschera described the current OxCal program as the “Mercedes Model” as compared to the “Model-T Ford” of past decades. Of course the statistical model employed is a critical component of precision radiocarbon dating given the amount of raw data generated. The paper presented by Franz Weninger on behalf of himself, Peter Steier and Walter Kutschera noted that 15 samples for each year over 100 years would produce a total number of data points of 1030. Accordingly, statistical methods are employed to create conditional probabilities by taking slices through each dimension of the data, and then examining the density points. Christopher Bronk Ramsey reported that further refinements were forthcoming in the form of a new version of the OxCal program employing Metropolis-Hastings Markov chain Monte Carlo modeling on a Webbased platform, in place of the step functions used previously.

332

Malcolm H. Wiener

Preliminary information on 14C measurements at Tell el-Dabca by W. KUTSCHERA et al., private communication 2 range after sequencing

Tell el-Daba Phases

N 1–3

M

L

Historical Chronology of Egypt

2100

2000

K

I H

G 4

G 1–3

F

Middle King do m

1900

1800

E 3

E 2

E 1

D 3

D D D 2 1.2 1.1

Hyksos

1700

1600

C 3

C 2

C 1

Ne w King do m

1500

1400

Calendar Date [BC] ? THERA ? Fig. 2 Comparison of calibrated two sigma 14C ranges with the historical chronology of Egypt and the corresponding Tell el-Dabca phases

Of course no statistical package is bias free, and it may be worthwhile by way of illustration to note one of the difficulties inherent in the model. Suppose that a group of 14C determinations from well-stratified seeds give age ranges before present which intersect an oscillating portion of the calibration curve for two decades in Century I and one decade in Century II. All else being equal, the OxCal program would give a probability of a date in Century I twice that of a date in Century II. In the absence of statistical interpretation, one might simply conclude that dates in both Century I and Century II are consistent with the radiocarbon evidence, and turn to the textual and archaeological evidence, if any. The Bayesian approach makes explicit that there are twice as many radiocarbon-appropriate years in Century I than Century II, and assuming as a Bayesian “prior” that each year is equally likely, gives a “mild weighting” to Century I irrespective of how many or how few samples are measured (BRONK RAMSEY, pers. comm. of 19 December 2005, for which I am most grateful. Discussions of various issues arising from the application of Bayesian or quasi-Bayesian Probability Theory to radiocarbon

dates may be found in MARCUS, this volume; WIENER 2003; WIENER forthcoming; CAVANAGH as quoted in WIENER 2003, 391 n. 148; SCOTT 2000; WHITELAW 1996). In an ideal world, each seed cluster or other sample measured would be suitable for and subject to either repeated measurements or longer than typical measurement times (depending on the method employed) and also to repetition of pre-treatment on different parts of a sample. In practice, decisions as to duration or repetition of measurements are often made by laboratory technicians in light of the nature of the initial scatter of determinations and the difficulties presented by the sample, subject always to the constraints of available time and cost, which is itself time-dependent. The number of samples tested worldwide is great, with Groningen, for example, processing 4000 samples annually (VAN DER PLICHT and BRUINS 2005). Between 1994 and 2000, over $1,000,000 was spent by English Heritage alone on radiocarbon dating of samples from the British Isles (BAYLISS and BRONK RAMSEY 2004, 26–27). The amount spent worldwide on radiocarbon dating today may well exceed

Egypt & Time 333

$1,000,000 annually. Submitting samples from excavations for 14C determinations is now de rigueur, but unfortunately many submitted samples are of little value; e.g., pieces of charcoal where there is no indication of the relation of the charcoal to the outer bark of the tree, and/or samples whose context is unclear. More effort devoted to fewer, but well-chosen, samples would seem the better course. Of course all statements concerning radiocarbon measurements and dates assume the uniform distribution of radiocarbon in the earth’s atmosphere at any one time, and hence the absence of distorting regional variation, seasonal variation, or old carbon in the sample measured, as noted below. Such statements assume as well the correctness of the decadal determinations of whichever calibration curve is employed, against which the samples tested are compared. A risk exists that some consumers of radiocarbon data may not realize that a “66.67% probability” in the stylized example given constitutes only a mild preference or that the probabilities stated for radiocarbon determinations do not encompass the probability of non-uniform radiocarbon distribution in the atmosphere nor the possible presence of old carbon in the sample nor the contingent nature of some decades of the calibration curve. Simply put, the probabilities stated for radiocarbon determinations are measurement probabilities, not date probabilities. The opportunity provided by this workshop to clarify such questions through discussion across disciplines was clearly of value. Certainly the calibration curve, the critical input for the OxCal program, is itself an imperfect construct. The committee of leading 14C authorities charged with producing the INTCAL04 revision of the calibration curve concluded that the previously utilized Gaussian bell-curve distributions were insufficient to capture the inherent uncertainty of 14C determinations of radiocarbon ages, and recommended extending the one sigma range by a factor of 1.3 in presenting 14C ages. The correction reflects only the uncertainties of radiocarbon measurement itself, and does not include the problems posed by calibration curve oscillations, regional variations, some of them episodic, or the potential presence of old carbon in the sample tested, as for example when the burning of a structure containing wood causes old carbon to become mixed with a seed sample.

Moreover, the INTCAL04 committee concluded that the risk of error in the individual decadal or duodecadal radiocarbon determinations comprising the INTCAL98 calibration curve was such that overall reliability would be improved by incorporating information from measurements from the preceding and following three decades of the calibration curve into each decadal segment of the curve. The potential sources of error included the limited amount of measurement of each segment by the Seattle and Belfast laboratories, the small number of samples measured for each decade or duodecade and the fact that modern methods of pre-treatment were not then employed. As a consequence, the 14C determinations of the Seattle and Belfast laboratories produced inconsistent results for certain decades as well as determinations later recognized as faulty. Recent measurements of the data for certain critical decades, including comparisons with measurements of the Gordion sequence of wood of closely known dendrochronological date, have produced significant improvements in the data base. The smoothing of the data as described in the INTCAL04 calibration curve is intended to diminish the risk of major error in the measurement of each specific decade, but it will necessarily introduce some distortion in the decadal data, particularly where information is borrowed from decades where the calibration curve is rapidly changing. Moreover, the smoothing of the data automatically reduces the wiggles on which wiggle-matching depends, and accordingly the INTCAL98 calibration curve, whatever its flaws, will continue in use for certain purposes. With regard to the radiocarbon measurements from Tell el-Dabca, the process of Bayesian “sequencing” occupies center stage, with the stratigraphic order in which the measured seed samples appeared providing the sole external data. The statistical process (greatly but not falsely simplified) involves slighting any part of the distribution (date range) from a seed measurement that is inconsistent with the range obtained from the radiocarbon measurement of a seed or seeds higher or lower in the stratigraphic excavation sequence. Unlike 14C determinations from a dendro sequence, when the number of years between decadal tree-ring segments tested is known and the tree rings in any sequence or series of overlapping interconnected sequences do not move in relation to one another, the number of years separating Bronze Age archaeological strata is

334

Malcolm H. Wiener

usually unknown. Furthermore, the seeds recovered from them and measured radiometrically may move between strata as the result of human, animal, plant or geological activity, even as a result of post-depositional earth movement apparent only to micromorphologists. Two seed samples may be separated by a destruction level, so that one sample will appear to be clearly earlier in date than the other, but the number of years separating the samples will not be known. Suppose that the seeds from which the 14C determinations have been taken are in fact close in date, in the same decade or in a relatively flat part of the calibration curve where the actual date difference cannot be accurately determined by radiocarbon dating. Attempting to provide meaning for otherwise somewhat inchoate radiocarbon determinations via sequencing in such circumstances runs major risks. M. SCOTT (2000) summarized the general position as follows: “Bayesian analysis is not a ‘cure-all’; it has costs, not least the specification of the prior. This is not easy and even in those situations where we think we are not making any strong assumptions, there may be hidden complications.” As Christopher BRONK RAMSEY (2005) has noted, no two practitioners are likely to apply the Bayesian model in the same way to the same data. Of course radiocarbon measurements for the century comprising the decadal measurements between 1625 B.C. and 1535 B.C. – essentially the Hyksos period – must contend with the oscillation of the calibration curve in these years, depicted in Fig. 3. The foregoing caveats (and to some extent those stated below) to the proposed Dabca 14C dates are open to the major objection that to the degree such distorting factors exist, their effects should be random, whereas the results obtained purportedly produce somewhat uniform ranges of dates 100–120 years earlier than generally accepted New Kingdom, Second Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom dates presented by the other papers in this conference. Such an objection appears at least partly circular, however, inasmuch as the radiocarbon dates prior to Bayesian sequencing are largely lacking in structure (although at their central points tending

2

Another example from a Nilotic environment of radiocarbon determinations inconsistent with perceived stratigraphy for the period 2150–1450 B.C. is provided by a series of thirteen dates at Kerma in Nubia (HONEG-

somewhat earlier than standard dates) as noted above. Moreover, the New Kingdom dates which fall into the same general purported pattern and provide a central date of c. 1620 B.C. for postHatshepsut Tuthmoside levels and similarly inappropriate dates for the early New Kingdom cannot be correct in any event and the 14C measurements obtained from seeds from Thirteenth Dynasty phases give dates which overlap the widely accepted astronomical dates for the Twelfth Dynasty (LUFT and SHORTLAND et al. in this workshop). Accordingly, the objection posed may be reversed by inquiring whether, given that the radiocarbon dates proposed are putatively 100–150 years too early for the Tuthmoside era, the early New Kingdom and the Thirteenth Dynasty, there may be some systemic factor at work affecting the radiocarbon dates. Apart from the risk of creating false positives through Bayesian analysis noted by Ezra Marcus in his comment at this workshop and considered above, physical problems arising from the possible presence of old carbon and from regional variation, sometimes exacerbated by climatic conditions, can affect radiocarbon measurements. A theoretical potential problem area for seed measurements from riverine environments reported in the literature should be noted in passing, although the evidence is as yet slight and the significance questionable. Groundwater from rivers and marshes is a recognized source of old carbon. While plants absorb the bulk of their carbon from the atmosphere via their leaves, a small amount comes directly from the soil through their roots (WIENER forthcoming, citing GEISLER 1963; YORGALEVITCH and JANES 1988; STOLWIJK and THIMANN 1957; SKOK, CHORNEY and BROECKER 1962; SPLITTSTOESSER 1966; ARTECA, POOVAIA and SMITH 1979). Whether plants almost totally dependent on Nile waters might be affected is unknown.2 14C determinations from Amarna-period seeds have not resulted in dates earlier than those established through non-radiocarbon methodologies. A more conspicuous problem for radiocarbon dating of Egyptian seed samples is posed by the phenomenon of regional variation in 14C measurements. Regional variation may take two forms:

2005). The radiocarbon dates from Kerma were obtained from charcoal rather than seeds, however; accordingly, the anomalies noted may have resulted from the presence of old wood.

GER

Egypt & Time 335

3800 3700

Int Cal04

3600

Radiocarbon Age BP

Int Cal98 3500 3400 3300

2s

3200 3100 3000 2900 2800 –2000 –1900 –1800 –1700 –1600 –1500 –1400 –1300 –1200 –1100 –1000

Calender Date BC Fig. 3 Comparison of INTCAL98 and INTCAL04 calibration curves, with the addition of a two sigma range in the span between 1500 and 1650 (after S. MANNING in: The Thera (Santorini) Volcanic Eruption and the Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Bronze Age, a companion website to MANNING 1999, http://www.arts.cornell.edu/classics/Faculty/SManning_files/testoftime.pdf)

general differences, as yet inadequately understood, between regions – e.g., Northern vs. Southern Hemisphere or (less significantly), Old World vs. New World – and variation due to ongoing differences in climate or changes in climate affecting the growing season of plants in relation to the annual carbon cycle. As to general regional differences, no one can say with confidence why measurements of Southern Hemisphere tree segments of known date are older than Northern Hemisphere tree segments of known date by an average of 41 ±14 years over the last millennium, but with wide differences within the period (MCCORMACK et al. 2002; STUIVER et al. 1998, 1046) or why bristlecone pine measurements from the western United States of known date show a 37 ±6 year shift from European oak of the same known date (REIMER et al. 2004, 1033). Proposed explanations for the Northern vs. Southern Hemisphere disparity include 1) the fact that more of the Southern Hemisphere is covered by water; 2) the escape of carbon from a sink of carbon around 17,000 years old in the Weddell Sea in Antarctica; and 3) upwellings of old carbon from El Niño episodes in the Pacific Ocean (LERMAN, MOOK and VOGEL 1970; OLSSON 1979; 1987; KNOX and MCFADGEN 2001; KEENAN 2002). The hypothetical possibility of old carbon from the Mediterranean periodi-

cally affecting Egyptian 14C dates has been discussed by D. KEENAN (2002), but no method has been proposed for testing this hypothesis. As to regional seasonal variation, consider the instructive example of the discrepancy between Anatolian and European radiocarbon determinations from tree-ring segments almost certainly from samples from the same respective decades in the ninth–eighth centuries B.C. KROMER et al. (2001) propose that a marked climate change in Anatolia in this period delayed the growing season of the Anatolian trees (see also MANNING et al. 2001). P. Reimer, the director of the Belfast Laboratory and lead investigator of the INTCAL04 calibration curve revision, has described succinctly the process at work: “14C is primarily produced at high latitudes in the lower stratosphere by the collision of cosmic ray-produced neutrons with nitrogen. During periods of high solar activity, distortion of Earth’s geomagnetic field by the solar wind prevents charged particles from entering the atmosphere and little 14C is produced, whereas 14C production peaks during periods of low solar activity (solar minima). The atomic 14C is quickly oxidized to 14CO2 and enters the troposphere during the late spring, a period of high stratospheric-tropospheric exchange. By the next spring, the higher 14C concentration

336

Malcolm H. Wiener

in the atmosphere has been well mixed and diluted by exchange with other carbon reservoirs, particularly the surface ocean. The German trees, which grow mostly in the mid to late summer, take up more 14CO2 during photosynthesis than do the Mediterranean trees, which grow in the spring and early summer.” (REIMER 2001, 2495). The growing seasons of Egyptian seeds and the European oak trees which form the basis of the calibration curve are clearly quite different, for almost all Nile plants grow in winter to early spring and the European oaks in mid-spring to early summer. Of course we lack information about climate events, if any, in Egypt between 1900 B.C. and 1450 B.C. which could have had an effect on 14C determinations analogous to the putative cold period in ninth–eighth century B.C. Anatolia. (In the preceding First Intermediate Period, we have harrowing accounts of the suffering caused by the cessation of the Nile floods.) Unfortunately, it is easier to state the problems inherent in radiocarbon dating than to assess whether, or to what extent, the problems may have affected the radiocarbon dates from any particular site, such as Tell el-Dabca. As the concluding discussion at the workshop made clear, most partici-

pants felt that the resolution of the apparent chronological conflict between the radiocarbon measurements from Dabca, on the one hand, and the evidence from astronomy, archaeology and texts on the other must await future developments. A well-known scientific proverb instructs us that “if your data need a heavy dose of statistics to yield results, obtain more data,” and accordingly we look forward to results of additional analyses of seed samples from Dabca now underway at the Vienna Environmental Research Accelerator Institute (VERA). Nevertheless, at this fine workshop the productive interaction of radiocarbon physicists and statisticians with experts in Egyptian astronomy, chronological texts and history and with archaeologists working throughout the Near East, in the supportive ambiance of the VERA Institute, promoted interdisciplinary understanding, facilitated probing exchanges and opened important channels of communication. The foundation for future progress across disciplines in Egyptian chronology is now in place. Acknowledgments I thank Jayne L. Warner and her associates Erin Hayes and Catriona McDonald for their research assistance in the preparation of this paper.

Bibliography ALLEN, J.P.

ARTECA, R.N., POOVAIA, B.W. and SMITH, O.E.

forthc. The Second Intermediate Period in the Turin Kinglist, Proceedings of the Colloquium, The Second Intermediate Period: Current Research, Future Prospects, British Museum, 14–16 July 2004, London.

1979

ALLEN, J.P., ALLEN, S. and BEN-TOR, D. 1999

BAYLISS, A. and BRONK RAMSEY, C. 2004

Seals and Kings, review of The Political Situation in Egypt During the Second Intermediate Period c. 1800–1550 B.C., by K.S.B. Ryholt, BASOR 315, 47–74.

ARNOLD, DIETER 2002

The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret III at Dahshur: Architectural Studies, New York. Keramikbearbeitung in Dahschur 1976–1981, MDAIK 38, 25–65.

ARNOLD, F. 1992

New Evidence for the Length of the Reign of Senwosret III? GM 129, 27–31.

Pragmatic Bayesians: A Decade of Integrating Radiocarbon Dates into Chronological Models, 25–41, in: C.E. BUCK and A.R. MILLARD (eds.), Tools for Constructing Chronologies: Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries, Lecture Notes in Statistics 177, London.

BENNETT, C. 2002

A Genealogical Chronology of the Seventeenth Dynasty, JARCE 39, 123–155.

2005

Genealogy and the Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period, Abstract of paper presented at Egypt and Time, SCIEM2000 Workshop on Precision and Accuracy of the Egyptian Historical Chronology, Vienna, 30 June–2 July 2005. http://www.sciem 2000.info/Egypt/abstract/bennett.html.

ARNOLD, DOROTHEA 1982

Changes in Carbon Fixation, Tuberization, and Growth Induced by CO2 Applications to the Root Zone of Potato Plants, Science 205, 1279–1280.

Egypt & Time 337

BIETAK, M.

DEPUYDT, L.

2003

2000

Science versus Archaeology: Problems and Consequences of Aegean High Chronology, 23–33, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000-EuroConference, Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, CChEM 4, Vienna.

BIETAK, M., KOPETZKY, K. and STAGER, L.

EVANS, A.J. 1921

The Palace of Minos at Knossos, Volume 1, The Neolithic and Early and Middle Minoan Ages, London.

FRAHM, E. n.d.

forthc. Stratigraphie compare nouvelle: The synchronization of Ashkelon and Tell el-Dabca, in: J.-C. MARGUERON, P. DE MIROSCHEDJI and J.-P. THALMANN (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (ICAANE), Paris 2002.

Sothic Chronology and the Old Kingdom, JARCE 37, 167–186.

Inscribed Objects http://assur.de/Themen/new_ excavations/Ashur2001/inscribed/inscribed.html.

GASCHE, H. 2003

La fin de la première dynastie de Babylone: une chute difficile, Akkadica 124, 205–220.

GEISLER, G. Morphogenetic Influence of (CO2 + HCO3 –) on Roots, Plant Physiology 38, 77–80.

BONANI, G., HAAS, H., HAWASS, Z., LEHNER, M., NAKHLA, S., NOLAN, J., WENKE, R. and WÖLFLI, W.

1963

2001

GREENBERG, G.

Radiocarbon Dates of the Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments in Egypt, Radiocarbon 43, 1297–1320.

2002

BRINKMAN, J.A. 1972

Foreign Relations of Babylonia from 1600 to 625 B.C.: The Documentary Evidence, AJA 76, 271–281.

1976

A Chronology of the Kassite Dynasty, 6–34, in: Materials and Studies for Kassite History, Volume 1, A Catalogue of Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to Specific Monarchs of the Kassite Dynasty, Chicago.

1977

2005

Dating the Volcanic Eruption at Thera, Radiocarbon 46, 325–344.

Near East Chronology: Towards an Integrated Time Foundation, Radiocarbon 43, 1147–1154.

2005

1971

2002

The Need for a Calibrated Radiocarbon Chronology of Near Eastern Archaeology, Radiocarbon 31, 1019–1029.

The Reign of Thutmose IV, Baltimore.

CAMINOS, R.A. 1952

Gebel Es-Silsilah No. 100, JEA 38, 46–61.

DARNELL, J.C. and DARNELL, D. 2002

Construire une chronologie dans la vallée du Nil, l’example de Kerma en Nubie, Dossiers d’Archeologie 306, 44–53.

Theban Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian Western Desert, Volume 1, Gebel Tjauti Rock Inscriptions 1–45 and Wadi el-Hôl Rock Inscriptions 1–45, Chicago.

Ägyptische Handschriften, Part 1, Wiesbaden.

Why Early-historical Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean Are Too Early, Radiocarbon 44, 225–237.

KITCHEN, K.A. 1986

The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.), 2nd edition, Warminster.

1991

The Chronology of Ancient Egypt, World Archaeology 23, 201–208.

1996

The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.), revised 2nd edition, Warminster.

2000

Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt (Absolute Chronology I): The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a Current Assessment, 39–52, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. Proceedings of an International Symposium at Schloss, Haindorf, 15–17 November

BRYAN, B.M. 1991

Radiocarbon Chronology and the Historical Calendar in Egypt, 585–606, in: O. AURENCHE, J. EVIN and F. HOURS (eds.), Chronologies du Proche Orient/Chronologies in the Near East. Relative Chronologies and Absolute Chronology 16,000–4,000 B.P., BAR IS 379, Oxford.

KEENAN, D.J.

14C

BRUINS, H.J. and MOOK, W.G. 1989

1987

KAPLONY-HECKEL, U.

BRUINS, H.J. 2001

HAAS, H., DEVINE, J., WENKE, R., LEHNER, M., WÖLFLI, W. and BONANI, G.

HONEGGER, M.

Improving the Resolution of Radiocarbon Dating by Statistical Analysis, 57–64, in: T.E. LEVY and T. HIGHAM (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, London.

BRONK RAMSEY, C., MANNING, S.W. and GALIMBERTI, M. 2004

2003–2004 Manetho: A Study in Egyptian Chronology, Warren Center, Pennsylvania.

Appendix: Mesopotamian Chronology of the Historical Period, 335–348, in: A.L. OPPENHEIM (ed.), Ancient Mesopotamia. Portrait of a Dead Civilization, Chicago.

BRONK RAMSEY, C.

Manetho’s Twelfth Dynasty and the Standard Chronology, Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 29, 58–73.

338

Malcolm H. Wiener

1996 and at the Austrian Academy, Vienna, 11–12 May 1998, CChEM 1, Vienna.

OLSSON, I.U. 1979

The Radiocarbon Contents of Various Reservoirs, 613–618, in: R. BERGER and H.E. SUESS (eds.), Radiocarbon Dating, Berkeley.

1987

Carbon-14 Dating and Interpretation of the Validity of Some Dates from the Bronze Age in the Aegean, 4–38, in: P. ÅSTRÖM (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th–22nd August 1987, Part 2, Gothenburg.

KNOX, F.B. and MCFADGEN, B.G. 2001

Least-squares Fitting Smooth Curves to Decadal Radiocarbon Calibration Data from AD 1145 to AD 1945, Radiocarbon 43, 87–118.

KRAUSS, R. forthc. An Egyptian Chronology for Dynasties XIII to XXV, in: M. BIETAK and E. CZERNY (eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May–1st of June 2003, CChEM 9, Vienna. KROMER, B., MANNING, S.W., KUNIHOLM, P.I., NEWTON, M.W., SPURK, M. and LEVIN, I. 2001

Regional 14CO2 Offsets in the Troposphere: Magnitude, Mechanisms, and Consequences, Science 294, 2529–2532.

LERMAN, J.C., MOOK, W.G. and VOGEL, J.C. 1970

14C in Tree Rings from Different Localities, 275–301, in: I.U. OLSSON (ed.), Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology. Proceedings of the 12th Nobel Symposium, Stockholm.

LUFT, U. 1992 2003

Remarks of a Philologist on Egyptian Chronology, Ä&L 3, 109–114. Priorities in Absolute Chronology, 199–204, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – EuroConference, Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, CChEM 4, Vienna.

PARKER, R.A. 1950

REIMER, P.J. 2001

The Palace of Minos at Knossos, Athena Review 3/3, 36–43.

2004

Test of Time, Oxford.

2006

Radiocarbon Dating and Egyptian Chronology, 329–357, in: E. HORNUNG, R. KRAUSS and D.A. WARBURTON (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Handbook of Oriental Studies 83, Section 1, The Near and Middle East.

MANNING, S.W., KROMER, B., KUNIHOLM, P.I. and NEWTON M.W. 2001

Anatolian Tree Rings and a New Chronology for the East Mediterranean Bronze-Iron Ages, Science 294, 2532–2535.

MCCORMAC, F.G., REIMER, P.J., HOGG, A.G., HIGHAM, T.F.G., BAILLIE, M.G.L., PALMER, J. and STUIVER, M. 2002

Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale for the Southern Hemisphere: AD 1850–950, Radiocarbon 44, 641–651.

IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP, Radiocarbon 46, 1029–1058.

RYHOLT, K.S.B. 1997

The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period c. 1800–1550 B.C., Copenhagen.

2004

The Turin Kinglist, Ä&L 14, 135–155.

SCOTT, M. 2000

Bayesian Methods: What Can We Gain and at What Cost? Radiocarbon 42, 181.

SIMPSON, W.K. 1984

MANNING, S.W. 1999

A New Twist in the Radiocarbon Tale, Science 294, 2494–2495.

REIMER, P.J., BAILLIE, M.G.L., BARD, E., BAYLISS, A., BECK, J.W., BERTRAND, C.J.H., BLACKWELL, P.G., BUCK, C.E., BURR, G.S., CUTLER, K.B., DAMON, P.E., EDWARDS, R.L., FAIRBANKS, R.G., FRIEDRICH, M., GUILDERSON, T.P., HOGG, A.G., HUGHEN, K.A., KROMER, B., MCCORMAC, G., MANNING, S., BRONK RAMSEY, C., REIMER, R.W., REMMELE, S., SOUTHON, J.R., STUIVER, M., TALAMO, S., TAYLOR, F.W., VAN DER PLICHT, J. and WEYHENMEYER, C.E.

MACDONALD, C.F. 2003

The Calendars of Ancient Egypt, SAOC 26, Chicago.

Sesostris III, cols. 903–906, in: W. HELCK and W. WESTENDORF (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5, Wiesbaden.

SKOK, J., CHORNEY, W. and BROECKER, W.S. 1962

Uptake of CO2 by Roots of Xanthium Plants, Botanical Gazette 124, 118–120.

SPLITTSTOESSER, W.E. 1966

Dark CO2 Fixation and Its Role in the Growth of Plant Tissue, Plant Physiology 41, 755–759.

STOLWIJK, J.A.J. and THIMANN, K.V. 1957

On the Uptake of Carbon Dioxide and Bicarbonate by Roots and Its Influence on Growth, Plant Physiology 32, 513–520.

STUIVER, M., REIMER, P.J., BARD, E., BECK, J.W., BURR, G.S., HUGHEN, K.A., KROMER, B., MCCORMAC, F.G., VAN DER PLICHT, J. and SPURK, M. 1998

INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000–0 cal BP, Radiocarbon 40, 1041–1083.

NAKHLA, S., HAWASS, Z., BONANI, G., WÖLFLI, W., HAAS, H., LEHNER, M., WENKE, R., NOLAN, J. and WETTERSTROM, W.

THIELE, E.R.

1999

1951

Dating the Pyramids, Archaeology 52/5, 26–33.

The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. A Recon-

Egypt & Time 339

struction of the Chronology of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, Chicago. 1983

Studies on Scarab Seals 2, Scarab Seals and their Contribution to History in the Early Second Millennium B.C., Warminster.

VAN DER

PLICHT, J. and BRUINS, H.J.

2001

Radiocarbon Dating in Near-Eastern Contexts: Confusion and Quality Control, Radiocarbon 43, 1155–1166.

2005

VON

Quality Control of Groningen 14C Results from Tel Rehov: Repeatability and Intercomparison of Proportional Gas Counting and AMS, 256–270, in: T.E. LEVY and T. HIGHAM (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, London.

BECKERATH, J.

1997

Chronologie des Pharaonischen Ägypten. Die Zeitbestimmung der ägyptischen Geschichte von der Vorzeit bis 332 v. Chr., Mainz.

WEGNER, J.W. 1996

1976

The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, new revised edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

TUFNELL, O. 1984

WENTE, E.F. and VAN SICLEN, C.C., III

The Nature and Chronology of the Senwosret III – Amenemhat III Regnal Succession: Some Considerations Based on New Evidence from the Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III at Abydos, JNES 55, 249–279.

A Chronology of the New Kingdom, 217–261, in: J. JOHNSON and E.F. WENTE (eds.), Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes, SAOC 39, Chicago.

WHITELAW, T. 1996

Review of The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: Archaeology, Radiocarbon and History, by S. MANNING, Antiquity 70, 232–234.

WIENER, M.H. 2003

Time Out: The Current Impasse in Bronze Age Archaeological Dating, 363–399, in: K.P. FOSTER and R. LAFFINEUR (eds.), METRON: Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Conference, New Haven, Yale University, 18–21 April 2002, Aegaeum 24, Liège and Austin.

forthc. Times Change: The Current State of the Debate in Old World Chronology, in: M. BIETAK and E. CZERNY (eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May–1st of June 2003, CChEM 9, Vienna. YORGALEVITCH, C.M. and JANES, W.H. 1988

Carbon Dioxide Enrichment of the Root Zone of Tomato Seedlings, Journal of Horticultural Science 63, 265–270.

UNTERSUCHUNGEN DER ZWEIGSTELLE KAIRO DES ÖSTERREICHISCHEN ARCHÄOLOGISCHEN INSTITUTS Herausgegeben in Verbindung mit der Kommission für Ägypten und Levante der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften von MANFRED BIETAK

Band I

MANFRED BIETAK, Tell el-Dabca II. Der Fundort im Rahmen einer archäologisch-geographischen Untersuchung über das ägyptische Ostdelta. Wien 1975.

Band II

LABIB HABACHI, Tell el-Dabca and Qantir I. The Site and its Connection with Avaris and Piramesse. Aus dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von EVA MARIA ENGEL. Unter Mitarbeit von PETER JÁNOSI und CHRISTA MLINAR. Wien 2001.

Band III

JOACHIM BOESSNECK, Tell el-Dabca III. Die Tierknochenfunde 1966–1969. Wien 1976.

Band IV

MANFRED BIETAK und ELFRIEDE REISER-HASLAUER, Das Grab des cAnch-Hor, Obersthofmeister der Gottesgemahlin Nitokris (mit einem Beitrag von ERHART GRAEFE). Wien 1978.

Band V

MANFRED BIETAK und ELFRIEDE REISER-HASLAUER, Das Grab des cAnch-Hor, Obersthofmeister der Gottesgemahlin Nitokris. Teil II (mit Beiträgen von JOACHIM BOESSNECK, ANGELA VON DEN DRIESCH, JAN QAEGEBEUR, HELGA LIESE–KLEIBER und HELMUT SCHLICHTHERLE). Wien 1982.

Band VI

DIETHELM EIGNER, Die monumentalen Grabbauten der Spätzeit in der Thebanischen Nekropole (mit einem Beitrag von JOSEF DORNER). Wien 1984.

Band VII

MANFRED BIETAK, Tell el-Dabca IV. Stratigraphie und Chronologie (in Vorbereitung).

Band VIII

MANFRED BIETAK, unter Mitarbeit von CHRISTA MLINAR und ANGELA SCHWAB, Tell el-Dabca V. Ein Friedhofsbezirk der Mittleren Bronzezeit mit Totentempel und Siedlungsschichten. Wien 1991. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie, Bd. 9.

Band IX

EIKE M. WINKLER und HARALD WILFLING, Tell el-Dabca VI. Anthropologische Untersuchungen an den Skelettresten der Kampagnen 1966–69, 1975–80, 1985. Wien 1991.

Band X

JOACHIM BOESSNECK und ANGELA VON DEN DRIESCH, Tell el-Dabca VII. Tiere und historische Umwelt im Nordost-Delta im 2. Jahrtausend anhand der Knochenfunde der Ausgrabungen 1975–1986. Wien 1992.

Band XI

KARL KROMER, Nezlet Batran. Eine Mastaba aus dem Alten Reich bei Giseh (Ägypten). Österreichische Ausgrabungen 1981–1983. Wien 1991.

Band XII

MANFRED BIETAK, JOSEF DORNER, HANS EGGER, JOACHIM BOESSNECK und URSULA THANHEISER, Tell el-Dabca VIII. Interdisziplinäre Studien (in Vorbereitung).

Band XIII

PETER JÁNOSI, Die Pyramidenanlagen der Königinnen. Untersuchungen zu einem Grabtyp des Alten und Mittleren Reiches. Wien 1996.

Band XIV

MANFRED BIETAK (Hrg.), Haus und Palast im Alten Ägypten. Internationales Symposium 8. bis 11. April 1992 in Kairo. Wien 1996.

Band XV

ERNST CZERNY, Tell el-Dabca IX. Eine Plansiedlung des frühen Mittleren Reiches. Wien 1999.

Band XVI

PERLA FUSCALDO, Tell el-Dabca X. The Palace District of Avaris, The Pottery of the Hyksos Period and the New Kingdom (Areas H/III and H/VI), Part I. Locus 66. Wien 2000.

Band XVII

SUSANNA CONSTANZE HEINZ, Die Feldzugsdarstellungen des Neuen Reiches – Eine Bildanalyse. Wien 2001.

Band XVIII

MANFRED BIETAK (Ed.), Archaische Griechische Tempel und Altägypten, Internationales Kolloquium am 28. November 1997 im Institut für Ägyptologie der Universität Wien. Mit Beiträgen von DIETER ARNOLD, ANTON BAMMER, ELISABETH GEBHARD, GERHARD HAENY, HERMANN KIENAST, NANNO MARINATOS, ERIK ØSTBY und ULRICH SINN, Wien 2001.

Band XIX

BETTINA BADER, Tell el-Dabca XIII. Typologie und Chronologie der Mergel C-Ton Keramik. Materialien zum Binnenhandel des Mittleren Reiches und der zweiten Zwischenzeit. Wien 2001.

Band XX

MANFRED BIETAK and MARIO SCHWARZ (Eds.), Krieg und Sieg. Narrative Wanddarstellungen von Altägypten bis ins Mittelalter, Interdisziplinäres Kolloquium, Langenlois, Schloß Haindorf, 29.–30. Juli 1997. Wien 2002

Band XXI

IRMGARD HEIN und PETER JÁNOSI, Tell el-Dabca XI, Areal A/V, Siedlungsrelikte der späten Hyksoszeit. Mit Beiträgen von K. KOPETZKY, L.C. MAGUIRE, C. MLINAR, G. PHILIP, A. TILLMANN, U. THANHEISER, K. GROSSCHMIDT. Wien 2004.

Band XXII

NADIA EL-SHOHOUMI, Der Tod im Leben. Eine vergleichende Analyse altägyptischer und rezenter ägyptischer Totenbräuche. Eine phänomenologische Studie. Wien 2004.

VERLAG DER ÖSTERREICHISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN

Band XXIII

DAVID ASTON in collaboration with MANFRED BIETAK, and with the assistance of BETTINA BADER, IRENE FORSTNERMÜLLER and ROBERT SCHIESTL, Tell el-Dabca XII. A Corpus of Late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period Pottery. Part I: Text; Part II: Plates. Wien 2004.

Band XXIV

PETER JÁNOSI, Giza in der 4. Dynastie. Die Baugeschichte und Belegung einer Nekropole des Alten Reiches, Band I, Die Mastabas der Kernfriedhöfe und die Felsgräber. Wien 2005.

Band XXV

PETER JÁNOSI, Structure and Sicnificance. Thoughts on Ancient Egyptian Architecture. Wien 2005.

Band XXVI

GRAHAM PHILIP, Tell el-Dabca XV. Metalwork and Metalworking Evidence of the Late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period. Wien 2006.

forthcoming

MANFRED BIETAK, NANNÓ MARINATOS and CLAIRY PALIVOU, Taureador Scenes in Tell el Dabca (Avaris) and Knossos (with a contrubution by Ann Brysbaert)

forthcoming

IRENE FORSTNER-MÜLLER, Tell el-Dabca XVI. Die Gräber des Areals A/II von Tell el-Dabca.

forthcoming

VERA MÜLLER, Tell el-Dabca XVIII. Opferdeponierungen in der Hyksoshauptstadt Auaris (Tell el-Dabca) vom späten Mittleren Reich bis zum frühen Neuen Reich. Teil I: Katalog der Befunde und Funde; Teil II: Auswertung und Deutung der Befunde und Funde.

forthcoming

ROBERT SCHIESTL, Tell el-Dabca XVII. Die Palastnekropole von Tell el-Dabca. Die Gräber des Areals F/I der Straten d/2 und d/1.

BERICHTE DES ÖSTERREICHISCHEN NATIONALKOMITEES DER UNESCO-AKTION FÜR DIE RETTUNG DER NUBISCHEN ALTERTÜMER Herausgegeben von der Kommission für Ägypten und Levante der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften durch MANFRED BIETAK

Band I

MANFRED BIETAK und REINHOLD ENGELMAYER, Eine frühdynastische Abri-Siedlung mit Felsbildern aus Sayala – Nubien. Wien 1963. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Denkschriften, Bd. 82.

Band II

REINHOLD ENGELMAYER, Die Felsgravierungen im Distrikt Sayala – Nubien. Teil I: Die Schiffsdarstellungen. Wien 1965. Denkschriften, Bd. 90.

Band III

MANFRED BIETAK, Ausgrabungen in Sayala – Nubien 1961–1965. Denkmäler der C-Gruppe und der Pan-Gräber-Kultur (mit Beiträgen von KURT BAUER, KARL W. BUTZER, WILHERLM EHGARTNER und JOHANN JUNGWIRTH). Wien 1966. Denkschriften, Bd. 92.

Band IV

KARL KROMER, Römische Weinstuben in Sayala (Unternubien). Wien 1967. Denkschriften, Bd. 95.

Band V

MANFRED BIETAK, Studien zur Chronologie der nubischen C-Gruppe. Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte Unternubiens zwischen 2200 und 1550 v. Chr. Wien 1968. Denkschriften, Bd. 97.

Band VI

FATHI AFIFI BEDAWI, Die römischen Gräberfelder von Sayala Nubien. Wien 1976s. Denkschriften, Bd. 126.

Band VII

EUGEN STROUHAL und JOHANN JUNGWIRTH, Die anthropologische Untersuchung der C-Gruppen- und Pan-Gräber-Skelette aus Sayala, Ägyptisch-Nubien. Wien 1984. Denkschriften, Bd. 176.

Band VIII

MANFRED BIETAK und MARIO SCHWARZ, Nagc el-Scheima, eine befestigte christliche Siedlung, und andere christliche Denkmäler in Sayala – Nubien. Wien 1987. Denkschriften, Bd. 191.

Band IX

MANFRED BIETAK und MARIO SCHWARZ, Nagc el-Scheima. Teil II. Die Grabungsergebnisse aus der Sicht neuerer Forschungen. Wien 1998. Denkschriften, Bd. 255.

In Vorbereitung: EUGEN STROUHAL und ERICH NEUWIRTH, Die anthropologische Untersuchung der spätrömischen-frühbyzantinischen Skelette aus Sayala, Ägyptisch-Nubien. EUGEN STROUHAL und ERICH NEUWIRTH, Die anthropologische Untersuchung der christlichen Skelette aus Sayala, Ägyptisch-Nubien.

VERLAG DER ÖSTERREICHISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN Edited by MANFRED BIETAK and HERMANN HUNGER

Volume I

MANFRED BIETAK (Ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium BC. Proceedings of an International Symposium at Schloß Haindorf, 15th–17th of November 1996 and at the Austrian Academy, Vienna, 11th–12th of May 1998, Wien 2000.

Volume II

VASSOS KARAGEORGHIS (Ed.), The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Proceedings of an International Conference organized by the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, in Honour of Malcolm Wiener. Nicosia 29th–30th October 1998, Wien 2001.

Volume III

MANFRED BIETAK (Ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant. Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material. Vienna, 24th–26th of Jannuary 2001. Wien 2002.

Volume IV

MANFRED BIETAK (Ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – EuroConference, Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001. Wien 2003.

Volume V

CELIA BERGOFFEN, The Cypriot Bronze Age pottery from Sir Leonard Woolley’s Excavations at Alalakh (Tell Atchana). Wien 2004.

Volume VI

HERMANN HUNGER and REGINE PRUZSINSZKY (Eds.), Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited. Proceedings of an International Conference of SCIEM 2000, Vienna 8th–9th of November 2002. Wien 2004.

Volume VII

ULRICH LUFT, Urkunden zur Chronologie der späten 12. Dynastie: Briefe aus Illahun. Wien 2006.

Volume VIII

MANFRED BIETAK and ERNST CZERNY (Eds.), Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete, and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications. Papers from a Symposium, Vienna, 10th–13th of January 2002. Wien 2004.

Volume IX

MANFRED BIETAK and ERNST CZERNY (Eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May–1st of June 2003.

Volume X

KATHRYN O. ERIKSSON, The Creative Independence of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. An account of the archaeological importance of White Slip ware in assessing the relative chronology of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the island's historical links with the societies of the Eastern Mediterranean during this period.

Volume XI

PETER FISCHER, Tell Abu al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley. Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Wien 2006.

Volume XII

PETER FISCHER (Ed.), The Chronology of the Jordan Valley during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Pella, Tell Abu al-Kharaz and Tell Deir cAlla. Wien 2006.

Volume XIII

IRMGARD HEIN (Ed.), The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, Conference held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 5th–6th November 2004. Vienna 2007.

Volume XIV

FLORENS FELTEN, WALTER GAUSS and RUDOLFINE SMETANA (Eds.), Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Salzburg, 31st of October–2nd November 2004. Vienna 2007.

forthcoming

JACQUELINE PHILLIPS, Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in their Chronological Context: A Critical Review.

VERÖFFENTLICHUNGEN DER ÄGYPTISCHEN KOMMISSION Begründet von FRITZ SCHACHERMEYR † Herausgegeben von MANFRED BIETAK

Band 1

GÜNTHER HÖLBL, Ägyptisches Kulturgut auf den Inseln Malta und Gozo in phönikischer und punischer Zeit. Wien 1989. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. KLasse, Sitzungsberichte, Bd. 538.

Band 2

ULRICH LUFT, Die chronologische Fixierung des Mittleren Reiches nach dem Tempelarchiv von Illahun. Wien 1992. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. KLasse, Sitzungsberichte, Bd. 598.

Band 3

PETER JÁNOSI, Österreich vor den Pyramiden. Die Grabungen Hermann Junkers im Auftrag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien bei der großen Pyramide in Giza. Wien 1997. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. KLasse, Sitzungsberichte, Bd. 648. VERLAG DER ÖSTERREICHISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN