Herausgeber/Editor MANFRED BIETAK
ÄGYPTEN UND LEVANTE EGYPT AND THE LEVANT
XVII/2007
XVII 2007
Redaktion: ERNST CZERNY
KOMMISSION FÜR ÄGYPTEN UND LEVANTE DER ÖSTERREICHISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN INSTITUT FÜR ÄGYPTOLOGIE DER UNIVERSITÄT WIEN ÖSTERREICHISCHES ARCHÄOLOGISCHES INSTITUT KAIRO
Vorgelegt von w. M. MANFRED BIETAK in der Sitzung vom 12. Oktober 2007
Gedruckt mit der Unterstützung der Universität Wien und des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts
Spezialforschungsbereich (SCIEM 2000) „Die Synchronisierung der Hochkulturen im östlichen Mittelmeerraum im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.“ der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften beim Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
Special Research Programme SCIEM 2000 “The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterrannean in the Second Millenium B.C.” of the Austrian Academy of Sciences at the Austrian Science Fund
Alle Rechte vorbehalten ISBN 978-3-7001-4012-2 ISSN 1015–5104 Copyright © 2007 by Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien Grafik, Satz, Layout: Angela Schwab Druck: Druckerei Ferdinand Berger & Söhne GesmbH, Horn http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/4012-2 http://verlag.oeaw.ac.at
Wien 2007
Die Zeitschrift Ägypten und Levante ist Ä&L abzukürzen. The Journal Egypt and the Levant should be abbreviated E&L.
Inhaltsverzeichnis/Contents
Abkürzungen/Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vorwort/Introduction von/by Manfred Bietak
9
.........................................
11
N. Allon, Seth is Baal – Evidence from the Egyptian Script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
H. Barnard, Additional Remarks on Blemmyes, Beja and Eastern Desert Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
M. Bietak und I. Forstner-Müller, Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht für das Frühjahr 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
E.C.M. van den Brink, R. Gophna and A. Ovadiah, Burial Cave 2 in the Azor-Holon Cemetery: An Early Bronze Age I Tomb with Egyptian Finds . . . . . .
59
I. Finkelstein and E. Piasetzky, Radiocarbon Dating and Philistine Chronology with an Addendum on el-Ahwat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
I. Forstner-Müller, The Colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its Chronological Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
83
I. Forstner-Müller, T. Herbich, W. Müller, Ch. Schweitzer and M. Weissl, Geophysical Survey 2007 at Tell el- Dabca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
97
F. Höflmayer, Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta und ihre Bedeutung für die absolute Chronologie der minoischen Altpalastzeit (MM IB –MM IIB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
107
J.K. Hoffmeier and K.A. Kitchen, Reshep and Astarte in North Sinai: A Recently Discovered Stela from Tell el-Borg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
127
E.S. Marcus, Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription . . . . . .
137
M.A.S. Martin and R. Ben-Dov, Egyptian and Egyptian-Style Pottery at Tel Dan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
191
N.Ch. Math, Eine innere Chronologie der Badarikultur? Möglichkeiten und Aspekte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
205
D. Morandi Bonacossi, The Chronology of the Royal Palace of Qatna Revisited. A Reply to a Paper by Mirko Novák, Egypt and the Levant 14, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
221
T. Mühlenbruch, Die Synchronisierung der nördlichen Levante und Kilikiens mit der ägäischen Spätbronzezeit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
241
H. Refai, Zur Entwicklung der königlichen Jenseitsabsicherung in den thebanischen Totentempeln des Neuen Reiches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
257
R. Schiestl, The Coffin from Tomb I at Byblos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
265
A. Winkels, Restauratorisch-naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von tuthmosidischen Putzen aus cEzbet Helmi / Tell el Dabca – Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung altägyptischer Kalkputztechnik . . . . .
273
E. Yannai, New Typology and Chronology of the Grey Lustrous Wheel Made Ware in Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . .
295
Abkürzungen/Abbreviations Ä&L
Ägypten & Levante. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Archäologie und deren Nachbargebiete, Wien
CRIPEL
Cahiers de recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égyptologie de Lille, Lille
AA
Archäologischer Anzeiger. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Berlin
DFIFAO
Documents de Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire, Le Caire
AAAS
Les annales archéologiques Arabes Syriennes. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire, Damascus
EA
Egyptian Archaeology. The Bulletin of the Egypt Exploration Society, London
AASOR
Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Cambridge, Mass.
E&L
see Ä&L
EEF
Egypt Excavation Fund, London
ADAJ
Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Amman
EES Excav. Mem Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir, London
ADAIK
Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo, Berlin
ESI
Excavations and Surveys in Israel, Jerusalem
GM
Göttinger Miszellen, Göttingen
AHL
Archaeology and History in Lebanon, London
GOF
Göttinger Orientforschungen
AJA
American Journal of Archaeology, New York, Baltimore, Norwood
HA
Hadashot Arkheologiyot, Jerusalem
HA/ESI
Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel, Jerusalem Israel antiquity Authority Reports, Jerusalem
AR
Archaeological Reports, London
ArchDelt
Archaiologikon Deltion, Athen
IAA Reports
AS
Anatolian Studies. Journal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London
IEJ
Israel Exploration Journal, Jerusalem
JAOS
Journal of the American Oriental Society, New Haven, Conn.
JARCE
Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, New York
JEA
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, London
JEOL
Jaarbericht van het vooraziat.-egyptisch Genootschap, Ex Oriente Lux, Leiden
JNES
Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Chicago
ASAE
Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte, Kairo
AV
Archäologische Veröffentlichungen. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo, Wiedbaden
BAAL
Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises, Beirut
BaM
Baghdater Mitteilungen, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Orient-Abteilung, Mainz
JSP
Judea and Samaria Publication, Jerusalem
BAR International Series British Archaeological Reports, International Series, London
JSSEA
Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, Toronto
BASOR
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, New Haven
LÄ
W. HELCK und E. OTTO (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie, Wiesbaden
BdE
Bibliothèque d’étude, Le Caire
LingAeg
Beiträge Bf.
Beiträge zur ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde, Wiesbaden, Zürich, Kairo
Lingua Aegyptia. Journal of Egyptian Language Studies, Göttingen
MAG
BICS
Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, London
Mitteilungen der Archäologischen Gesellschaft, Graz
MAN
BIFAO
Bulletin de l’lnstitut français d’archéologie orientale , Le Caire
MAN: a record of anthropological science. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, London
M.A.R.I.
BSA
The Annual of the British School at Athens, London
M.A.R.I. Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires, Paris
MÄS
Münchner Ägyptologische Studien, München
BSAE
British School of Archaeology in Egypt
MDAIK
BSFE
Bulletin de la societe française d’égypte , Paris
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo, Mainz
CChEM
Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean, Wien
MDOG
Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft, Berlin
CdE
Chronique d`égypte , Bruxelles
NEAEHL
CMS
MATZ, F., PINI, I., and MÜLLER, W. (eds.) 1964-. Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel. Berlin; 2002-. Mainz am Rhein.
The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (E. STERN ed.), New York
OBO
Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Fribourg-Göttingen
CRAI
Compte rendue de la rencontre assyriologique internationale, verschiedene Orte
OBO SA
Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica, Fribourg
10
Abkürzungen/Abbreviations
OIP
Oriental Institute Publications, University of Chicago, Chicago
SIMA
Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Göteborg, Jonsered
OJA
Oxford Journal of Archaeology, Oxford
SIMA-Pb
OLA
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, Leuven
Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Pocketbook, Lund
OpAth
Opuscula atheniensia. Annual of the Swedish Institute at Athens, Lund
SJOT
Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, Aarhus
PEQ
Palestine Exploration Quarterly, London
SMEA
Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici, Roma
QDAP
Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine, Jerusalem, Oxford
TA
Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv
UF
Ugarit Forschungen, Münster
RA
Revue archéologique, Paris
UMM
RB
Revue biblique, Jerusalem
RDAC
Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, Nicosia
University Museum Monographs, University Museum Symposium Series. University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia
UZK
RdE
Revue d’égyptologie, Paris
Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes, Wien
RlA
Das Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Berlin-New York
WB
RSO
Ras Shamra-Ougarit, Paris
A. ERMAN & H. GRAPOW, Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache 1–5 (Leipzig, 1926–1931)
WVDOG
SAGA
Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens, Heidelberg
Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, Berlin, Leipzig
Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, Hamburg
WZKM
SAK
Wiener Zeitschrift für die kunde des Morgenlandes, Wien
SAOC
Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, Chicago
ZÄS
Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, Leipzig, Berlin
SDAIK
Sonderschriften des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo, Berlin
ZDPV
Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Stuttgart, Wiesbaden
11
Vorwort
Introduction
Von Manfred Bietak
By Manfred Bietak
Das Heft 17 der Zeitschrift enthält 18 Artikel, die ein weites thematisches Feld abdecken. Der Schwerpunkt freilich liegt auf Beiträgen zur Archäologie Ägyptens und der umliegenden Länder, wie es dem Profil der Zeitschrift entspricht. Der österreichische Grabungsplatz Tell el-Dabca ist mit einem aktuellen Vorbericht zur letzten Grabungskampagne im Frühjahr 2007 vertreten (M. Bietak und I. Forstner-Müller), die, nach einer Unterbrechung im Jahr davor, neuerlich dem Palastareal der 18. Dynastie bei cEzbet Helmi gewidmet war. Ebenso wurden die geophysikalischen Prospektionsarbeiten des Areals von Tell elDabca fortgesetzt, und auch die vorläufigen Resultate dieser Untersuchungen sind bereits in diesem Band vorgelegt (I. Forstner-Müller et al.). Bereits länger zurück (1997) liegt die Grabung I. Forstner-Müller’s im Areal A/II im Bereich des namensgebenden Tells. Die unterste Schichte, die damals erreicht wurde, reicht in die späte 12. Dynastie zurück und läßt sich gut mit etwa gleichzeitigen Arealen in den Grabungsflächen von F/I und cEzbet Rushdi korrellieren (“Phase H”). Die Befunde aus dieser Schichte werden von der Ausgräberin unter dem Titel “The colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its chronological implications” vorgestellt. Schließlich befaßt sich auch noch ein naturwissenschaftlich orientierter Beitrag von A. Winkels mit der Erforschung der ägyptischen Kalkputztechnik anhand der thutmosidischen Putze aus cEzbet Helmi. Hosam Refai behandelt mit “Zur Entwicklung der königlichen Jenseitsabsicherung in den thebanischen Totentempeln des Neuen Reiches” ein klassisches ägyptologisches Thema. Zahlreiche weitere Artikel führen jedoch in Randbereiche der Ägyptologie. So untersucht N. Math die Möglichkeiten, eine innere Chronologie der Badarikultur nach dem Vorbild derjenigen der Negadekultur zu etablieren. Der Annalentext Amenemhet II aus Memphis gilt als eine der zentralen historischen Quellen zur 12. Dynastie. In einem weitausgreifenden Artikel analysiert E. Marcus die maritimen Aspekte und Implikationen dieser erstaunlichen Inschrift, deren “historisches Potential” anhand dieser Auswertung wohl exemplarisch aufgezeigt wird.
Volume no. 17 of this periodical contains 18 articles, covering a wide thematic field. However, according to the profile of this journal, the main focus is on contributions to the archaeology of Egypt and surrounding countries. The Austrian excavations at Tell el-Dabca are represented by an up to date preliminary report of the last season in spring 2007 (M. Bietak and I. Forstner-Müller). After an intermission the year before, work concentrated, again, on the palace precinct of the 18th Dynasty at cEzbet Helmi. Likewise, the geophysical survey work of the area of Tell el-Dabca has been continued and the preliminary results of the investigations are published in this volume (I. Forstner-Müller et al.). The excavations of I. Forstner Müller in area A/II of the tell date back to 1997. The lowest stratum reached then dates to the late 12th dynasty and shows good correlation with contemporaneous strata in area F/I and cEzbet Rushdi (“Phase H”). The findings of this stratum are presented by the excavator under the title “The colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its chronological implications”. Eventually, a science orientated contribution by A. Winkels researches Egyptian lime plaster technique according to Thutmoside plaster finds from cEzbet Helmi. Hosam Refai covers a classic Egyptological theme with his article “Zur Entwicklung der königlichen Jenseitsabsicherung in den thebanischen Totentempeln des Neuen Reiches“. However, several other articles deal with marginal themes in Egyptological research. N. Math, for example, examines the possibilities to establish an inner chronology of the Badarian Civilisation according to the example of the one established for the Nagada culture. The annals of Amenemhet II from Memphis are regarded as one of the main historical sources of the 12th dynasty. In a comprehensive article E. Marcus analyses the maritime aspects and implications of this astonishing inscription, thus showing exemplarily the “historical potential” of the inscription. The last mentioned contribution already
12
Vorwort/Introduction
Der letztgenannte Beitrag führt thematisch bereits in den Bereich der Levante. Aber auch mehrere andere Artikel haben die Archäologie des Syrisch-Palästinensischen Raumes und dessen Beziehungen zu Ägypten zum Gegenstand. E. van den Brink et al. berichten über ein frühbronzezeitliches Grab in Azor mit ägyptischem Material, M. Martin und R. Ben-Tov über ägyptische Keramik aus Tel Dan, und J. Hoffmeier und K. Kitchen über die Verehrung der syrischen Götter Reshep und Astarte im N-Sinai anhand einer neugefundenen Stele aus Tell Borg. Obwohl die Funde aus dem “Royal Tomb I” in Byblos bereits 1928 von Montet publiziert wurden, blieben einige im Sarkophag des Königs Abishemu gefundene zerbrochene Fayence-Einlagen in ihrer Form und Funktion bis heute unerklärt. R. Schiestl ist es nun erstmals gelungen, diese Einlagen sinnvoll zu deuten und zu rekonstruieren. Daraus ergibt sich, daß der steinerne Sarkophag einen hölzernen Innensarg ägyptischen Stils enthalten hat. Aus einem ganz anderen Blickwinkel, nämlich dem des Sprachwissenschaftlers, betrachtet N. Allon einen bestimmten Aspekt ägyptisch-levantinischen Kulturkontaktes, indem er aufzeigt, wie der seit der Hyksoszeit bestehende und in der 19. Dynastie kumulierende Synkretismus zwischen Seth und dem semitischen Gott Baal in der Verwendung des Seth-“Classifiers” (“Determinativ”) in der ägyptischen Schrift reflektiert wird. In die Ostwüste und die S-Grenze Ägyptens führt der Beitrag von H. Barnard, der im Anschluß an seinen Artikel in Ä&L 15 nochmals auf die Thematik der sog. “Eastern Desert Ware” und die Problematik der von ihm abgelehnten Zuordnung zu Blemmyern und Beja-Nomaden eingeht. F. Höflmayer versucht anhand einer neuen, sorgfältigen Auswertung von in Kreta gefundenen ägyptischen Skarabäen eine präzise Definition des chronologischen Verhältnisses der altpalastzeitlichen (mittelminoischen) Phasen zum ägyptischen Mittleren Reich zu geben. Schließlich enthält der Band noch einige Artikel, die nicht in direkter Beziehung zu ägyptischem Material stehen. Nachdem M. Novak in Ä&L 14 einen ausführlichen Aufsatz zur Chronologie des Königspalastes von Qatna publiziert hatte, in dem er die Gründung des Palastes aufgrund der damals verfügbaren Evidenz in die sog. “Mari-Periode” setzte, greift nun D. Morandi Bonacossi die Diskussion erneut auf, und stellt anhand der von der italienischen Mission durchgeführten Detailuntersuchungen dar, daß die Gründung des
leads into the area of the Levant. However, several other articles cover aspects of the archaeology of the Syrian-Palestinian area and interconnections with Egypt. E. van den Brink et al. report about an early Bronze Age burial in Azor with Egyptian material. M. Martin and R. BenTov cover Egyptian ceramics from Tel Dan and J. Hoffmeier and K. Kitchen write about the worship of the Syrian gods Reshep and Astarte on Northern Sinai according to a newly discovered stela from Tell Borg. Several broken faience inlays found in the sarcophagus of King Abishemu in Byblos remained unexplained until now, although the finds of the “Royal Tomb I” were already published by Montet in 1928. R. Schiestl succeeds to explain and reconstruct these inlays for the first time in a meaningful way, showing that the stone sarcophagus contained a wooden inner coffin of Egyptian style. From the rather different viewpoint of a philologist N. Allon highlights a certain aspect of Egyptian-Levantine cultural contact. He shows that the syncretism between Seth and the Semitic god Baal, established in Hyksos times and still ongoing in the 19th dynasty, is reflected in the Egyptian script through the use of the Seth“Classifier” (“Determinativ”). H. Barnard’s contribution leads into the Eastern Dessert and to the Southern frontier of Egypt. He covers, in connection with his article in E&L 15, again the topic of the so-called “Eastern Desert Ware” and the problems of the attribution of this ware to the Blemmyes and Bejanomads, which he rejects. F. Höflmayer tries, with a new and thorough evaluation of Egyptian scarabs found on Crete, to come up with a precise definition of the chronological relationship of the Middle Minoan phases with the Egyptian Middle Kingdom. Furthermore this volume contains several articles not directly dealing with Egyptian material. M. Novak published a comprehensive article in E&L 14 on the chronology of the royal palace at Qatna, dating the foundation of the palace, according to the then available evidence, to the so-called “Mari period”. However, D. Morandi Bonacossi takes up the discussion again and shows, that according to detailed studies conducted by the Italian Mission, the foundation of the palace has to be dated after the Mari-period (transition MB/LB).
Vorwort/Introduction
Palastes erst nach der Mari-Periode (im Übergang von MB/LB) erfolgt sein kann. Daraus folgt freilich, daß es einen älteren Königspalast in Qatna gegeben haben muß, dessen Lage bisher unbekannt ist, der jedoch mit Sicherheit nicht unter dem gegenwärtig vorhandenem Palast zu lokalisieren wäre. Nicht minder kontroversiell diskutiert wird derzeit die Frage der Chronologie der Philister (IA IIIA). Hierzu liefern I. Finkelstein und E. Piasetzky neue Diskussionsbeiträge, welche sich auf neu publizierte 14C-Daten beziehen. E. Yannai legt eine quasi monographische Behandlung der ebenfalls sehr unterschiedlich gedeuteten "Grey Lustrous Wheelmade Ware" in Israel vor, und geht dabei ausführlich auf die zahlreichen offenen Fragen ein, die mit dieser wenig erforschten Ware immer noch verbunden sind. T. Mühlenbruch schließlich gibt einen Einblick in ein Sub-Projektes des großen “SCIEM 2000” Forschungsprojekts zur Chronologie des 2. Jahrtausends im östlichen Mittelmeerraum. Dabei soll der Raum der nördlichen Levante und Kilikiens mithilfe mykenischer Importkeramik an die Chronologie der ägäischen Spätbronzezeit angeschlossen werden. Der Herausgeber hofft, daß der vorliegende Band, der sich durch eine Reihe ganz neuer, aktueller Grabungsberichte, sowie durch einige Beiträge zu derzeit heftig diskutierten Themen auszeichnet, das Interesse einer breiten Leserschaft finden wird.
13
Therefore an older royal palace must have existed at Qatna. The location of the older palace, which cannot be localised under the currently existing palace, remains so far unknown. Not less controversially debated is currently the question of the chronology of the Philistines (IAI–IIA). I. Finkelstein and E. Piasetzky present new contributions to the discussion with reference to recently published 14C dates. E. Yannai presents almost a monograph on the also controversial “Grey Lustrous Wheelmade Ware” in Israel. He highlights several still open questions in connection with this little investigated ware. Eventually T. Mühlenbruch gives an insight into a sub-project of the SCIEM 2000 research programme dealing with the chronology of the 2nd millennium in the Eastern Mediterranean. In the framework of this sub-project it is intended to connect the area of the Northern Levant and Cilicia to the Aegean Late Bronze age with the aid of the study of Mycenaean imported ceramics. The editor hopes, that this volume with contributions ranging from up to date excavation reports to articles on currently hotly debated issues, will be interesting to a broad audience.
SETH IS BAAL -– EVIDENCE FROM THE EGYPTIAN SCRIPT By Niv Allon*
1. INTRODUCTION During the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom, some words related to illness and suffering receive the Seth classifier.1 This phenomenon2 disappears after the Middle Kingdom, and is not found in New Kingdom texts. However, the causes of this evolution in the usage of the Seth classifier have remained elusive. In a recent article, “A Metaphor for Troubled Times,” 3 McDonald surveys this evolution, reviewing the preliminary list compiled by Te Velde4 and adding a few new words to the list. McDonald undertakes a diachronic examination of the occurrences of the words (i.e. mostly with the words appearing with the Seth-deity form ), and suggests that the reasons for this evolution be located in the mytho-political sphere. In the First Intermediate Period, Egypt was divided into small political units, and retrospectively, this was considered as a time of instability and even anarchy. According to McDonald, Seth was taken as a symbol of the misfortunes of this period, being the “ultimate and archetypal disturber of the established order,”5 as a part of his mythological role as the unjustified treacherous enemy of
* Hebrew University Jerusalem. I am grateful to Orly Goldwasser for many fruitful conversations, in which many of the ideas presented here were developed. I would like also to thank Eitan Grossman for his important suggestions and his comments on the English. A full discussion of the words and their occurrences will appear in a future article. 1 I use here the term ‘classifier’ as defined by Goldwasser in her series of articles and books (GOLDWASSER 2002; 2005 and forthc.), rather than determinative. 2 Early on, Polotsky remarked in his publication of the stela of %eka-Yeb: “appearing as such with certain words of evil meaning in some texts of the First Intermediate Period and the Early Middle Kingdom.” He also mentions the examples from Hatnub and from the Letter to the Dead; see POLOTSKY 1930:198. 3 MCDONALD 2007. 4 TE VELDE 1977: 22–26. A preliminary list of Sethian words was collected by Zandee already in his article in 1963, which enumerates the words nSn, Xnnw, qrj, shA,
Horus, who tries to attain dominance over Egypt. In this article, I shall try and draw a first sketch of an idea I have been developing and rethinking over the course of the last year regarding this question. I have come to the conclusion that the question itself should be framed differently: instead of asking why the Seth classifier disappeared from the “negative” words after the Middle Kingdom, I suggest that a more revealing question is why the negative words disappeared from the Sethian category, and why other words found their place in this category. In order to answer this question, I shall try and examine the change that the Sethian category undergoes from three distinct but interrelated perspectives: – The extent of the category, i.e., the set of words that are classified by Seth classifier. – The main semantic clusters of the category. – The central members of the category, i.e., what are the “good examples” of the category.6 2. THE EVOLUTION OF THE CATEGORY In Fig. 1 it is attempted to visually present the diachronic evolution of the Sethian category.7
5
6
7
swhA, and khb; Zandee saw the metaphorical-cognitive meaning of this category, saying: “Solche Gedanken wurden also mit Seth assoziiert,” cf. ZANDEE 1963: 147. MCDONALD 2007: 32. McDonald differentiates between the deity form of the god Seth , and its animal forms: , . For central members and fuzzy edges, see GOLDWASSER 2002: 27–29. nbwty, nbwy, nTrwy, RHwy, and ¤tx which McDonald adds to the list are all epithets of the god Seth, and therefore do not stand in the center of our discussion. The case of bal will be discussed below. In other cases words which are included in the list may find their place there because of strong similarity of signs in Hieratic, such are the sign of the donkey (aA and Htrw): Donkey: , (VOGELSANG & GARDINER 1908: R.64) Seth: , (MÖLLER I, 13; no. 144). Other similar cases are Akrw (see MCDONALD 2007: 36, note a), and probably also the Giraffe (sr, cf. MCDONALD 2007: 36, note p, and mmi, see GOLDWASSER, forthc.).
16
Niv Allon
8
nSnj, ‘storm, rage’ sSn, ‘storm’
9
jsd, ‘dribble, saliva’
OK jnD, ‘to be sick’
nqm, ‘to be afflicted’ mr, ‘pain, to be ill’
FIP
MK
10 nSnj, ‘storm, rage’ Xnn(w),‘disruption, rswt, ‘dream’ chaos, tumult’
qrj, ‘storm, clouds’
jh, ‘suffer, feel poorly’11
nSnj, ‘storm, rage’ SIP
nqmt, suffering’
swhi, ‘to vaunt, to 13 boast’
qrj,‘storm, clouds’ 14
naS, ‘to be strong, to 15 roar’
nma, ‘to be partial’ 16 one sided’
hmhmt, ‘war-cry’
12
nSnj, ‘storm, rage’ NK
Xnn(w), ‘disruption, chaos, tumult’
Fig. 1a The Sethian Category according to Chronological Distribution
8
9
10
11
sSn is attested with the Seth classifier twice in PT 1270d and in Urk. I, 183; the word appears only four times according to HANNIG 2003: 1239–1240 and DZA 29.613.350, but in the latter without a Seth classifier. SETHE 1962: 258. The word jsd is attested with the Sethian classifier only in PT 261a in the Unas Pyramid, cf. CF. TE VELDE 1977: 85. This one occurrence has already been discussed at length by SIMPSON 1966, pl IX; SZPAKOWSKA 1999 and MCDONALD 2002, who proved, I believe, the sign to be the deity form of the god Seth. jh appears only once with a Seth-classifier. McDonald dates the occurrences of the word jh in the pEdwin Smith with the Sethian classifier to the Old Kingdom as “it is generally acknowledged that P. Edwin Smith goes back to an older original manuscript” (MCDONALD 2007: 29, note 14). Nevertheless it may be dangerous to date the classifier to a non-existing older manuscript. The Coffin Texts allow us to see many cases in which a classi-
12
13
14
15
16
fier is changed by the copier of the text. Therefore it would be preferred to retain the dating to the end of the Second Intermediate Period (ALLEN 2005: 70). nqm is attested with the Seth classifier only once in the New Kingdom according to MCDONALD 2007: 36, note k. swhi is listed by TE VELDE 1977:23–24; cf. GARDINER 1909: 28 for a discussion on this word. qrj is attested twice in the New Kingdom with the Seth classifier in L. Ahmose-Henut-Tjemehu, Tb 39: 63, and pJwja: 152, Tb 17 (BACKES in TLA, August 2007); qrj appears also with the Seth-deity form in the Amenemope Onomasticon, cf. AEO I: 5*, 10. naS according to TE VELDE 1977:25 and GOLDWASSER forthc; MCDONALD reads this word as aS, cf. MCDONALD 2007:36, note d. Although McDonald refers to sources in which nma appears with a Seth classifier already in the Middle Kingdom, I could not find such examples, cf. MCDONALD 2007: 35.
17
Seth is Baal – Evidence from the Egyptian Script
OK pryt, ‘crisis’(?)17
18
mnt, ‘to suffer’
FIP
MK
Hrrt, ‘Hereret’
20
shA,‘to be in confusion’19
xAt, ‘disease’
21
kAhs, ‘to be harsh’
SIP 22
shA, ‘to be in confusion’
NK
snm, ‘rainstorm’
26
23
pxpx, ‘storm’
srq, ‘snow’
khb(w), ‘to harm, rage’
khA, ‘shout, bellow’
XAXAtj, ‘storm’
nhs,(the Seth 27 animal?)
24
25
nhnh, ‘to roar’
awn , ‘to rob, despoil’ 27a
Fig. 1b The Sethian Category according to Chronological Distribution continued
17
18
19
20
21
pryt is a hapax legomenon, cf. FCD: 91, and MCDONALD 2007: 34 citing POLOTSKY 1930: 23,1.9. MCDONALD enumerates two attestation of Hrrt with the Seth classifier, cf. MCDONALD 2007:28–29. Te Velde names two different words under with a quite similar writing: (10) , shA, ‘to be in confusion, to confound’ (FCD: 237) and (12) swhA, ‘to break up (of ship; FCD:217)’. I agree with McDonald’s decision to treat these two words as one, cf. MCDONALD 2007:36. The only occurrence of the latter is in GARDINER 1909: 2.11, where it is translated as ‘gone adrift.’ GARDINER analyzes the word as the same word as shA, ‘to be in confusion,’ cf. GARDINER 1909: 28 and TE VELDE 1977: 23–24. xAt appears only once with the Seth classifier, in Hatnub, cf. MCDONALD 2007: 30. According to MCDONALD, kAhs can be omitted from the list, because of confusion with the dog classifier, which is the common classifier of the word, cf. MCDONALD 2007: 36, note s.
22
23
24
25
26
27
27a
pxpx appears also only once, according to TE VELDE 1977: 24–25 and DZA 23.463.700. srq is a Semitic loan word cf. HOCH 1994: 264. It appears only once with the Seth classifier in the Amenemope Onomasticon, cf. AEO I, *6, no.20. MCDONALD mentions only the animal form of Seth occurring with XAXAtj. It appears in the Amenemope Onomasticon, with Seth-deity form, cf. MCDONALD 2007: 36; DZA 28.191.780; AEO I: 5*,11. I have found only one occurrence of nhnh with a Seth classifier: Wb II 286; DZA 25.184.010. snm(w) is attested twice, both in the 18th Dynasty cf. Urk. IV, 84 and 386. nhs appears only once with the Seth classifier, cf. MCDONALD 2007: 35, 36 note h. I am not sure that McDonald’s argument concerning the different writing in pNu is relevant, as we may well be dealing with a different version. GOLDWASSER 1995: 103; awn appears in a rather late text pPushkin 127, 2:5, dated to the 21st dynasty, cf. Caminos 1977: 3–4.
18
Niv Allon
2.1 The Extent of the Category During the New Kingdom the number of words which take the Seth classifier increases dramatically (7 in the First Intermediate Period and 5 in the Middle Kingdom versus 16 in the New Kingdom), although one observes the disappearance of words related to disease and suffering. 2.2 The Main Semantic Clusters Whereas after the Middle Kingdom one of the main semantic clusters of the category28 disappears, some old-new clusters emerge in the New Kingdom. The words in the New Kingdom can be divided into two main semantic clusters. One semantic cluster is Aggressive behavior, including words such as Xnn, ‘disrupt,’ khb ‘to harm, rage,’ khA ‘shout, bellow.’ Another -– even bigger -– semantic cluster is Weather Disturbances, reflected in words such as srq, ‘snow,’ smnw ‘rainstorm,’ qrj ‘storm, clouds,’ nSnj ‘storm, rage,’ XAXAtj, and pxpx, both bearing the meaning ‘storm.’ Under the category of weather disturbances one should include the new subcluster of Uproariousness, with such words as hmhm ‘war-
MK
cry,’ nhnh ‘to roar,’ and shA ‘to roar, to disturb,’ through the idea that a common phenomenon of a storm is Thunder. The development in the semantic clusters can also be seen, as we begin to map the adjacent and overlapping categories, through the question which classifier can interchange with the Seth classifier in each period (Fig. 229). The disappearance of the illness-suffering cluster is also indicated by the shift in the possibilities for alternative classification of words from the relevant semantic domains. The Seth classifier no longer interchanges with the “evil bird”30 (GARDINER 1957: 471 G37) or the “pustule” (GARDINER 1957: 539 Aa1), which is an alternative classifier for illnesses. One of the typical features of the Seth classifier during the New Kingdom is that in many of the cases it doesn’t appear alone.31 It is usually accompanied by the [WEATHER] classifier, (GARDINER 1951: 485 N4), or by the (GARDINER 1957: 455 [POWERFUL ACTIVITY], D40) and (GARDINER 1951: 444 A24), the latter stressing the more anthropomorphic attributes of the deity.
NK
Pustule
Weather
Weather
Seth
Evil Inferior
Seth
Powerful Activity
Powerful Activity
Voice and Uproariousness
Fig. 2 The Seth category and its adjacent categories during the Middle and the New Kingdoms.
28
29
Goldwasser discusses the different semantic clusters of the category in GOLDWASSER 1995: 99–103; cf. also MCDONALD 2000: 79 and MCDONALD, 2007. For a further discussion of the Sethian category, cf. GOLDWASSER 2005:107–109. An illustration of the interchangeability of the Sethian category. The bold letters represent the prominence
30
31
and the size represents the amount of words which can be placed in both categories. The category of the “Evil Bird” is discussed thoroughly by DAVID 2000. From the New Kingdom on, many words tend to take a few classifiers instead of one.
Seth is Baal – Evidence from the Egyptian Script
19
When rethinking the material presented here, it seems that the Sethian category undergoes an interesting shift in its size, its semantic clusters, and its prototypical values in the New Kingdom. And although McDonald’s article suggests an interesting explanation for the phenomenon of omission of the negative attributes related to illness and suffering, this is only a partial explanation. The category experiences a more substantial change. The answer, I believe, can be found in the fig-
ure of Seth himself, which undergoes remarkable changes in this period, which reaches its peak apparently during the 19th–20th Dynasty, with three kings naming themselves after him (Sety I, Sety II and also Sethnakhte; however, this rise in his status can be traced already to the Second Intermediate Period, when through a process of syncretism Seth was identified with the god Baal.33 Baal, who is well known by the name BaalHaddu from the texts found at Ugarit (Ras-Shamra), appears originally as an epithet of the god Hadad (or Haddu, Addu etc), whose cult had begun to spread in the ancient Near East as early as the third millennium BCE. Baal has characteristics of the god Hadad, who was known throughout the region for his violent and fierce attributes, but the former also has local attributes associating him strongly with fertility, and as such, comprises both revival and growth on the one hand, and withering and decay on the other. 34 Evidently, Baal was known in Egypt as early as the 13th Dynasty, although possibly by his “former” name as Hadad. Moreover, the Seth-Baal cult in Avaris continued to exist throughout the Hyksos Period into the New Kingdom, as the temple of Seth of Avaris was functioning continuiosly until the Ramesside period.35 According to the 400 Year Stela, it began to function already some 70 years before the Hyksos Period.36 His warrior aspect is expressed in the myth of Baal and Yam, in which Baal defeats the divinity of the seas, rivers, lakes, and the subterranean abyss, Yam, and gains his kingship.37 Papyrus Astarte38 contains an Egyptian version of this myth dated to the reign of Amenophis II, which according to Schneider “seems to sketch Baal as a prototype of belligerent Kingship.”39 Baal was promoted to the status of
32
34
2.3 Central words in the Seth Category32 Although the Seth category exists from the Old Kingdom onward, the center of the category remains weak until the New Kingdom. Only in this period do words begin to move to the center of the category, as most of their occurrences appear with the Seth classifier. During the Middle Kingdom even nSnj, ‘storm, rage,’ which is a constant member in the category, appears only in about a third of the occurrences with the Seth classifier. Other members such as mr, jnD and Xnn are only fringe members in the category, i.e, they are classified mostly by other classifiers and belong to Seth only very marginally. This situation changes in the New Kingdom, as in the center of the category stand the words shA, khA and khb, Xnn and nSnj. These changes indicate that the strengthening semantic clusters result in a change in the prototypical value in the New Kingdom of the category, when Seth becomes a “better example” of two values – Aggressive behavior (shA, khA, khb, Xnn) and Weather disturbances (nSnj, XAXAtj). 3. SETH IS BAAL
33
For a full discussion of the terms ‘central’ words and ‘fringe members’ and their applications to the Egyptian scripts, cf. Goldwassser 2002; for a general discussion of the terms, see LAKOFF 1987. The title Baal derives from the root bal which means “husband,” “owner,” ”Lord” etc, due in part to the storm-god’s exalted position among the gods and his increasing importance, developing from the generic use to the proper name for one specific god, Hadad, cf. GREEN 2003: 173–175. To the question of the possibility of syncretism of Baal with the god Hadad, cf. STADELMANN 1967: 27, but GREEN 2003: 175 and SCHWEMER 2001: 505–511, saying: “All diese Überlegungen verbleiben jedoch im Bereich der Wahrscheinlichkeiten und Plausibilität.”
35
36
37
38
39
GREEN 2003: 170–176. With an interruption only in the Amarna period, BIETAK 1990. BIETAK 1990: 14, for further discussion of the stela cf. MONTET 1933; SETHE 1930; HELCK 1966 and GOEDICKE 1981; STADELMANN 1965. For a thorough discussion of the Baal-Yam myth, cf. GREEN 2003: 179 and UEHLINGER 1990. For its Egyptian implications, cf. STADELMANN 1967: 32–33, and SCHNEIDER 2003: 160–161. COLLOMBERT & COULLON 2000 and SCHNEIDER 2003: 160. SCHNEIDER 2003: 161.
20
Niv Allon
god of Egyptian kingship already by Amenophis II. Related to this myth, Baal was apparently also considered as god of the seamen (mainly in his title Baal-Sapan). A temple for him was held in the harbor of Peru-nefer,40 in the 18th Dynasty. The identification between Baal and Seth was so successful not only because of the latter’s role as the god of the foreign lands,41 but also through his storm-god characteristics, which are common to both gods.42 The depth of this syncretism is indicated by the fact that most of the attestations of the name Baal in Egyptian texts are classified with the Seth sign.43 But it wasn’t just Baal who was identified with Seth, but also Seth was identified with Baal, in a clear case of cultural appropriation,44 or an enrichment of the Seth concept as Te Velde describes it: “It would seem that the foreign god Baal, who is regarded as manifestation of Seth because the latter is the lord of foreign countries, is now enriching the Egyptian concept of Seth with a new function”.45 A stimulating example of the effect this intercultural ligature46 had on Seth can be seen in a figure of Seth from the 400-Year Stela (Fig. 3).47 In his various representations, Baal is mostly depicted in human form. In this stela, the deity figure is shown in an anthropomorphic Baal form, wearing Canaanite and Egyptian symbols. The inscription above reads “Seth of Ramsses”.48 I believe that through the identification with Baal, Seth was “set free” of his negative attributes during the New Kingdom. The common attributes of Seth and Baal were accentuated, shifting the center of the category towards more human features, as indicated by the more frequent usage of the anthropomorphic classifiers ( , and ). The semantic clusters Storm and Aggressive behavior, two attributes which were also an inseparable part of Baal’s character, became very prominent.
When Green describes the theophany of Baal, he enumerates heavy rains, snow, and clouds.49 Stadelmann adds that his voice can be heard in the yell of the thunder.50 Those elements of Baal’s theophany find their clear expression in the Sethian vocabulary: in smnw ‘rainstorm,’ srq ‘snow,’ qrj ‘storm, clouds,’ nSnj ‘storm, rage,’ and in the subcategory of Uproariousness. One should observe that although the Sethian category lost the negative cluster of illness, it still maintained and even augmented the semantic cluster of Aggressive behavior, containing words such as Xnn51 and khb.
40
45
41
42 43
44
HABACHI 2001: 106–108, following DARESSY 1928–29; 1929–31 proposed, that Peru-Nefer was the former Avaris and not Memphis, see also BIETAK 2005. Seth was also identified with the Hittite god Teshub and with the Libyan god Ash, cf TE VELDE 1977: 120. ZANDEE 1963: 148; TE VELDE 1977: 128 and BIETAK 1990: 13. STADELMANN suggest that the Seth-animal sign in the pPetersburg 1116A is to be read as a logogram for Baal, cf. STADELMANN 1967: 35. SCHNEIDER associates this term with the works of Michel de Certeau and Paul Ricoeur and shows its applicability for Egyptology, cf. SCHNEIDER 2003.
Fig. 3 Seth on the 400-Year Stela (after MONTET 1933, pl. XIII)
46
47
48 49 50 51
TE VELDE 1977: 123 “For the particular phenomena of cultural appropriation, the sociolinguistic Hannes Kniffka has coined the apt term of intercultural ligatures” (SCHNEIDER 2003:158). Cf. disscussion in TE VELDE 1977: 124–125; STADELMANN 1967: 41–42 and BIETAK 1990: 11. STADELMANN 1967: 31, 42. GREEN 2003: 194. STADELMANN 1967: 27. It is striking to see that during the New Kingdom the word Xnn “grows” a new semantic cluster, with the meaning of disease – but this time classified without
Seth is Baal – Evidence from the Egyptian Script
But the identification with the cult of the Baal worked both ways, and unfortunately, when different times came by, it proved to be fatal to the cult of Seth.52 The temporary interest in the foreign god changed into hatred as a part of the hatred for foreigners.53 I would like to suggest that even this deterioration is revealed in the script, when some members of the category such as Xnn begin to be classified with the “evil bird” , a classifier that was alien to them until this period.54 4. CONCLUSION The Sethian classifier – and the cultural-cognitive categories it delimits – undergoes subtle but significant shifts over the course of Egyptian history. During the New Kingdom the Sethian category (a) increases its extent, and (b) experiences a shift in its semantic clusters toward notions of aggression and unusual or violent weather phenomena; moreover, the Sethian classifier assumes a more central role as classifier of words from these semantic domains. This shift in the category’s semantic clusters is effected in no small part by the elimination of the sub-categories of suffering and illness, which
21
changes the nature of the category as a whole. Nevertheless, the loss of this domain does not in itself constitute an explanation for the phenomenon. I have argued that this change can be located in the syncretism of Seth and Hadad/Baal, which evidently happened before the Hyksos Period but lasted into the New Kingdom. During the shortlived period of Seth-Baal’s elevated prestige, the Sethian category was purged of its unambiguously negative sub-categories, while the shared domains of the two gods – aggression and weather disturbances – were enhanced. The expansion in its extent reflects, I believe, the increase in the cultural centrality and relevancy of Seth himself. The extent to which Seth-Baal constitutes a real cultural ligature in Hyksos and post-Hyksos Egypt is demonstrated by the deep impact that this syncretism had on Seth and the Sethian category, leading to their positive and extensive transformation, which reaches its peak during the New Kingdom. This change is realized in the classification system of the Egyptian script, which under closer scrutiny reveals, to paraphrase Te Velde, a piece of the history of an Egyptian theologia religionum mirrored in the script.55
Bibliography Bibliographical abbreviations:
ALLEN, J.
AEO = GARDINER, A.H., 1947. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, vol. I,II, London.
2005
The Art of Medicine in Ancient Egypt, New York.
BIETAK, M.
DZA = Digitalisiertes Zettelarchiv des Wörterbuches der ägyptischen Sprache, Berlin (http://aaew.bbaw. de/dza/index.html)
1990
Zur Herkunft des Seth von Avaris, Ä&L I,1, 9–16.
2005
FCD = R.O. FAULKNER, 1962. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, Oxford.
The Tuthmoside Stronghold Peru-nefer, Egyptian Archaeology 27/1.
CAMINOS, R.A.
L.Ahmose-Henut-Tjemehu = L.Kairo J.E. 96810 in: I. MUNRO, 1994.
1977
pJwja = pKairo CG 51189 in I. MUNRO, 1994, pls. 47–49.
COLLOMBERT, PH. & L. COULON,
PT = see SETHE, K. 1910–1922
2000
TLA = Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae (http://aaew. bbaw.de/tla/index.html)
DARESSY, G.
Urk. I = K. SETHE, 1903. Urkunden des Alten Reiches, Leipzig.
A Tale of Woe: From a Hieratic Papyrus in the A.S Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow, Oxford. Les dieux contre la mer. Le début du “papyrus d’Astarté”, BIFAO 100, 193–242.
Urk. IV = K. SETHE, 1927. Urkunden des 18. Dynsatie, Leipzig.
1928–29 Les Branches du Nil sous la XVIIIe dynastie, BSGE 16, 225–254, 293–-329.
Wb = ERMAN, ADOLF & HERMANN GRAPOW, 1926–1963. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache. Leipzig-Berlin.
1929–31 Les Branches du Nil sous la XVIIIe dynastie, BSGE 17, 81–115, 189–223.
52 53
the Seth classifier, as a metaphorical extension of the former cluster of the category. TE VELDE 1977: 109. TE VELDE 2001: 270.
54
55
For example 28.244.530. TE VELDE 1977: 109.
from Edfou after DZA
22
Niv Allon
DAVID, A.
MCDONALD, A.
2000
2000
Tall Tails. The Seth Animal Reconsidered, 75–81, in: A. MCDONALD & C. RIGGS (eds.), Current Research in Egyptology 2000, Oxford.
2002
An Evil Influence? Seth’s Role as a Determinative, Particularly in Letters to the Dead, LingAeg 10: 283–91.
2007
Metaphor for Troubled Times, ZÄS 134: 26–39.
De l’infériorité à la pertubation: L’oiseau du <mal> et la catégorisation en Egypte ancienne. Göttinger Orientforschungen GOF IV4: Ägypten. Bd. 38. Classification and Categorisation in Ancient Egypt, 1. Wiesbaden.
GARDINER, A.H. 1909 1957
Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage, from a Hieratic Papyrus in Leiden, Leipzig. Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, 3rd Edition, Oxford.
MONTET, P. 1933
La stèle de l’an 400 retrouvée, n°4, 191–215, Kêmi 4, Paris.
GOEDICKE, H.
POLOTSKY, H.J.
1981
1930
The “400-Year Stela” Reconsidered, Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 3, 25–42.
GOLDWASSER, O.
The Stela of %eka-Yeb, JEA 16, 188–199.
SCHNEIDER, T. 2003
Foreign Egypt: Egyptology and the Concept of Cultural Appropriation, Ä&L 13, 155–161.
1995
From Icon to Metaphor: Studies in the Semiotics of the Hieroglyphs, OBO 142. Fribourg.
2002
Prophets, Lovers and Giraffes: Wor(l)d Classification in Ancient Egypt (with an Appendix by Matthias Müller), GOF 4: Ägypten. Bd. 38. Classification and Categorisation in Ancient Egypt 3. Wiesbaden.
2001
Where Is Metaphor? Conceptual Metaphor and Alternative Classification in the Hieroglyphic Script, Metaphor and Symbol 20(2), 95–113.
1910–1922 Die altägyptischen Pyramidentexte nach den Papierabdrücken und Photographien des Berliner Museum, 3 Bde., Leipzig.
2005
SCHWEMER, D. Wettergottgestalten: Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen, Wiesbaden.
SETHE, K.
forthc. The Category of Seth in the Script and in the Mind.
1930
Der Denkstein mit dem Datum des Jahres 400 der Ära von Tanis, ZÄS 65, 85–89.
GREEN, A.R.W.
1962
Übersetzung und Kommentar zu den Altägyptischen Pyramidentexten, Hamburg.
2003
The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East, Biblical and Judaic Studies Volume 8, Winona Lake.
HABACHI, L. 2001
Tell El-Dabca and Qantir: the Site and its Connection with Avaris and Piramesse. Aus dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von EVA MARIA ENGEL. Unter Mitarbeit von PETER JÁNOSI und CHRISTA MLINAR, Wien.
HANNIG, R. 2003
Ägyptisches Wörterbuch I: Altes Reich und Erste Zwischenzeit, Mainz am Rhein.
HELCK, W. 1966
1966
Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, Princeton.
MÖLLER, G.
The Letter to the Dead from the Tomb of Meru (N 3737) at Nagc ed-Deir, JEA 52, 39–50.
STADELMANN, R. 1967
Syrisch-palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten, Leiden.
1965
Die 400-Jahr Stele, CdE 40: 46–60.
SZPAKOWSKA, K. 1999
A Sign of the Times, LingAeg 6, 163–166.
TE VELDE, H. 1977
Seth: God of Confusion: A Study of his Role in Egyptian Mythology and Religion, Probleme der Ägyptologie 6, Leiden (Reprint).
2001
Seth, in: D.B. REDFORD (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, New York.
Noch einmal zur 400-Jahr-Stele, CdE 41, 234–241.
HOCH, J. E. 1994
SIMPSON, W.K.
UEHLINGER, C. 1990
1909–12 Hieratische Paläographie, 3 vols., Leipzig.
Leviathan und die Schiffe in Ps. 104, 25–26, Biblische Notizen 71/4 (1990), 499–526.
MUNRO, I.
VOGELSANG, F. & GARDINER, A.H.
1994
1908
Totenbuch-Handschriften der 18. Dynastie im Museum Cairo, ÄA 54.
LAKOFF, G. 1987
Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind, Chicago - London.
Die Klagen des Bauern, Literarische Texte des Mittleren Reiches I = Hieratische Papyrus aus den königlichen Museen zu Berlin, Bd. IV, Leipzig.
ZANDEE, J. 1963
Seth als Sturmgott, ZÄS 90, 144–156.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS ON BLEMMYES, BEJA AND EASTERN DESERT WARE By H. Barnard 1
In the 2005 issue of this journal we wrote, in an article on the pottery corpus now identified as Eastern Desert Ware, that “... recovered data, however, leaves the former scholarly association of these vessels with the Blemmyes less plausible (BARNARD et al. 2005:49).” In his summary of the article the editor wrote in his introduction that “[t]hese ceramics are very probably ascribable to the Blemmyes, Nomads of the Eastern Desert ... (BIETAK 2005:13).” Here I would like to elucidate these seemingly contradictory statements, and try to find common ground between them, by presenting an overview of what is currently known about Blemmyes, Beja and Eastern Desert Ware. Eastern Desert Ware vessels are hand-made cups and bowls with a careful surface treatment and remarkable decorations (Fig. 1). They are found in 4th–6th entury CE contexts in the Nile Valley between the first and the 5th cataract, as well as in the Eastern Desert between there and the Red Sea coast. Eastern Desert Ware sherds and vessels invariably form only a small percentage of the ceramic finds from the same and associated contexts, the majority being the remains of wheel-thrown vessels from the Nile Valley. These usually include C-ware and R-ware, associated with the Nubian Late Meroitic and X-group (Fig. 2; STROUHAL 1984), or ERSA and ERSB, associated with Late Roman Egypt (Fig. 3; TOMBER 1998; 1999).2 A selection of Eastern Desert Ware sherds from Egypt and Sudan has recently been studied in some detail, the result of which is published in a series of articles (BARNARD 2002; BARNARD et al. 2005; BARNARD 2006; BARNARD and MAGID 2006; BARNARD and STROUHAL 2004; STROUHAL 1984). The preliminary conclusion of this research is that Eastern
Desert Ware was made and used by one of the indigenous groups in the area at the time. This is concurrent with earlier assumptions, based on more cursory studies of the material (LUFT et al. 2002:384; RICKE 1967:34; ROSE 1995:43; SIDE-
1
2
Hans Barnard MD, Research Associate; Cotsen Institute of Archaeology; University of California, Los Angeles; P.O.-Box 951510; Los Angeles, CA 90095-1510; USA; fax: +1 (310) 206 4723; E-mail:
[email protected]. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, Toledo (Ohio), 20–22 April 2007.
Fig. 1 Eastern Desert Ware from different sites in Egypt and Sudan, on the left, compared with vessels excavated in Wadi Qitna (after STROUHAL 1984), on the right
C-ware = cream ware; R-ware = red ware (cf. STROUHAL 1984:103–129, 144–154; also ADAMS 1986; TRIGGER 1967); ERSA = Egyptian red slip A; ERSB = Egyptian red slip B (cf. TOMBER 1998:170–177; 1999:146–151; also HAYES 1995).
24
Hans Barnard
Fig. 2 Selection of Late Meroitic C-ware, at the top, and X-group R-ware, at the bottom, excavated in Wadi Qitna (after STROUHAL 1984). The presence of these vessels indicates contacts with areas to the south (the kingdoms of Meroe, Nobatia or Makuria, Table 1)
and W ENDRICH 1996:16; 2001:256). More definite conclusion will be presented in a future monograph on the subject. The identification of this group and their motivations to start and stop producing their own pottery, however, remain problematic. First is the dearth of archaeological and historical information. Lower Nubia was lost under Lake Nasser in the 1960’s and a similar fate awaits the areas upstream of the 4th cataract, where another dam across the Nile is now under construction. Research in the region has been focussed on pre-historic and early historic remains, taken here as before the Common Era, rather than the period in which Eastern Desert Ware was produced and used, and necessarily BOTHAM
Fig. 3 Selection of ERSA, at the top, and ERSB, at the bottom, excavated in Shenshef (after TOMBER 1998; 1999). The presence of these vessels indicates contacts with areas to the north (Late Roman or Byzantine Egypt, Table 1)
entailed many rescue excavations. The more recent history of the area is characterized by the fact that the region has been on the fringes of, or between large cultural spheres to the north or to the south during most of the Common Era (Table 1). During this period the region was apparently invaded from as far as the Arabian Peninsula (by Banu Kanz, Macaza and Rashaida tribes, in the 10th, 18th and the 19th century respectively) and the Sudd (by the Funj, which later established the Sultanate of Sinnar), as well
Additional remarks on Blemmyes, Beja and Eastern Desert Ware
SOUTHEAST EGYPT
Pharaonic Egypt
NORTHEAST SUDAN
Late Period (25th–30th Dynasty) 715–343 BCE 2nd Persian Period 343–332 BCE
Kingdom of Meroe (Kushite Kingdom) ca. 800 BCE–350 CE
Ptolemaic Empire 332 BCE–30 CE Graeco-Roman Egypt
25
Roman Empire 30–330 CE EASTERN DESERT WARE Byzantine Empire 330–616 CE
Byzantine Egypt
Persian Invasion 616–628 CE Byzantine Empire 629–641 CE
Kingdom of Nobatia (Ballana Culture) ca. 300–700 CE
Kingdom of Makuria (protected by the baqt) ca. 500–1323 CE
Rashidun caliphs 641–658 CE Umayyad Caliphate 658–750 CE
Islamic Egypt
Abbasid Caliphate 750-969 CE Fatimid caliphs 969–1171 CE Ayyubid Sultanate 1171–1250 CE Mamluk sultans 1250–1517 CE
Ottoman Egypt
Modern Egypt
Banu Kanz (Awlad Kenz, Beni Kenz) 1323–1517 CE
Ottoman Empire 1517–1798 CE
Sultanate of Sinnar (Funj) 1504–1821 CE
Invasion of Napoleon 1798–1801 CE Khedives and kings of the Dynasty of Mohamed Ali Mohamed Ali (1805–1848) – Fucad II (1952–1953) increasingly controlled by the British Empire Mahdi Revolt 1883–1898 CE Unilateral independence 22 February 1922 Republic of Egypt 18 June 1953 Full independence 18 June 1956
Anglo-Egyptian Sudan 1899–1956 CE Republic of Sudan 1 January 1956
Table 1 Chronologic overview of historic events with a direct influence on life in the Eastern Desert (after ADAMS 1984). The period in which Eastern Desert Ware occurs in the archaeological record is marked in grey
as armies from the Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman and British Empires (ADAMS 1984; CAPPERS 2006; DAHL and HJORT-AF-ORNAS 2006; HOBBS 1990; KRZYWINSKI and PIERCE 2001; MURRAY 1935; PAUL
1954). Archaeological research in the Eastern Desert has understandably concentrated on the Pharaonic, Ptolemaic and Roman quarries, mines and harbours as well as the numerous pre-
26
Hans Barnard
historic and Pharaonic inscriptions in the region, at the detriment of the more ephemeral traces of the nomadic inhabitants of the Eastern Desert. These nomadic inhabitants are often identified as the Blemmyes, a group mentioned in several of the contemporary ancient sources, but also both before and after the 4th–6th centuries CE (KRALL 1900; UPDEGRAFF 1988). The most influential remark about the Blemmyes has been the first century CE statement by Pliny the Elder that „[t]he Blemmyes are reported have no heads, their mouths and eyes being attached to their chests (Natural History 5,46, translation H. Rackham 1961).“ This bizarre image has made its way onto medieval mappae mundi,3 and manuscripts,4 as well as into later literary works of, for instance, William Shakespeare (Othello,5 Act I, Scene II) and Umberto Eco (Baudolino).6 It has been suggested by Dr. Eugen Strouhal that this remark may be traced back to the large shields that were used to protect the body from the nose down to the knees (BARNARD 2005:34; PLUMLEY 1975:24). Around the same time as Pliny the Elder, the geographer Strabo (Strabo 17.1.53–54) described the Blemmyes as „... nomads and neither many nor warlike, although they were believed to be so by the ancients because of their frequent raids on defenceless people (EIDE et al. 1998:830).“ In an earlier text (Strabo 16.4.8–13, 17) he has already provided a list of people living in the desert between the Nile and the Red Sea with fanciful names such as Rhizophagoi (Root-eaters), Spermaphagoi (Seedeaters), Kynamolgoi (Dog-milkers), Elephantophagoi (Elephant-eaters), Strouthophagoi (Ostrich-eaters), Akridophagoi (Locust-eaters), Ichthyophagoi (Fish-eaters), Kreophagoi (Meateaters) and Troglodytes (Cave-dwellers) or Trogodytes (EIDE et al. 1998:823–826).7 The two most reliable ancient sources on the Blemmyes are the reports of the Egyptian diplomat Olym-
piodorus, who visited Lower Nubia around 420 CE (quoted by Photius in Bibliotheca 80, 62a9–26), and the historian Procopius, who described the Roman retreat from the area by Emperor Diocletian in ca. 298 CE (De Bellis 1,19.27–37), albeit about 250 years after this took place. Olympiodorus informs us that he met with the chiefs and priests of the Blemmyes in Talmis (Kalabsha), who convinced him that they controlled the area as far as Prima (Qurta or Qasr Ibrim) as well as the emerald mines (Mons Smaragdus) in the vicinity (EIDE et al. 1998:1127), although in reality a considerable distance to the northeast (BARNARD 2005:33–34). Procopius tells us that Diocletian (284–305 CE) ordered the Roman troops to retreat from Hiera Sycaminos (Maharraqa in Lower Nubia) to Syene (Aswan), while asking the Nobatai to move from around the city of Oasis (Kharga?) to the deserted Nile Valley in order to prevent further attacks from the Blemmyes. Both the Blemmyes and the Nobatai were given a yearly amount in gold on the condition that they would stop attacking Roman property. This agreement was subsequently broken by both the Nobatai and the Blemmyes, still according to Procopius, showing that they should not be trusted. Procopius implies that things were even worse by stating that although Emperor Justinian (527–565 CE, a contemporary of Procopius) ordered the temple in Philae to be closed, both groups still revere pagan gods (Isis, Osiris and especially Priapus), while the Blemmyes also make human sacrifices to the sun (EIDE et al. 1998:1188–1193). All relevant ancient sources on the Middle Nile region have been collected in the four volumes of the Fontes Historiae Nubiorum (EIDE et al. 1994; 1996; 1998; 2000). According to the indices, these contain 73 texts that somehow refer to the Blemmyes or the Beja. The editors consider these names as more of less synonymous, an assumption that will be discussed later.
3
6
4
5
World maps, such as the map drawn on vellum around 1290 CE by Richard de Bello of Haldingham, which is kept in Hereford Cathedral, Great Britain. Such as Cotton Tiberius B. V, part 1, Marvels of the East, f. 82 (before 1025 CE) and Royal 15 E. VI, Shrewsbury Talbot Book of Romances, f. 21v (before 1445 CE). Othello: It was my hint to speak, such was the process / and of the Cannibals that each other eat / the Anthropophagi and men whose heads / do grow beneath their shoulders.
7
Then, receiving a shy reaction from the panotian he tried to approach, he took a fancy to a blemmy female. He found that, apart from the lack of a head, she had a slender waist, an inviting vagina, and furthermore it would be great to kiss a woman on the mouth as if he were kissing her womb (translation William Weaver 2002). For the spelling of Trog(l)odytes see BURSTEIN 1989:109; MURRAY and WARMINGTON 1967:24.
Additional remarks on Blemmyes, Beja and Eastern Desert Ware
The texts are written in hieroglyphic Egyptian, Demotic, Coptic, Greek, Latin and the only partially understood Meroitic language and script. Indications for a Blemmyan language are limited to unusual names of persons and gods (300, 306, 310–315, 319, 321, 331–343) and the use of ‘pidgin Greek’ in some of the texts (310–313; see also EIDE et al. 1998:1135).8 Of these 73 texts (100%), 37 (42%) can possibly contain firsthand knowledge on the subject matter, as the author may have visited the area, while only 31 (42%) mention the Blemmyes or the Beja by name. In 37 texts (51%) they can be considered active participants, in the remaining 36 they are mentioned in the context of a geographical description or as the enemies of the state or the religion of the author. Only 13 texts (18%) meet all three criteria (BARNARD 2005). In the same way that the most reliable textual sources (Strabo, Olympiodorus and Procopius) do not seem to agree on the lifestyle or territory of the inhabitants of the region, other texts portray them as living in the Nile Valley (308, 311), pastoral nomads (56, 109, 189, 190, 274, 296, 309), subjects of overlords (278, 283, 293), ruled by chiefs, kings or queens (294, 301, 310–311, 319, 320); pagans (324), enemies of Christianity (278, 293, 296, 301), Christians (327); barbarians (282, 296, 309, 328) or parties in contracts for marriage or loans (123, 331–343). It is noteworthy that the son of the Blemmyer mentioned in PHauswaldt VI (123) is identified as a Megabaroi in PHauswaldt XV (E IDE et al. 1996:579–580). This is only one of many tribal names from other sources that can be added to Strabo’s list above. Others include Adulites (202), Aithiopians (56, 57, 66, 109, 116, 171, 189, 190, 218, 224, 233, 274, 279, 280, 281, 293, 294, 298, 303, 307, 308, 317), Aksumites (298, 299), Annoubades (314, 320), Arabs (218, 274), Balahau (34), Beja (234), Bougaites (298, 299), Catadupians (303), Himyarites (298, 299, 327), Indians (57, 280, 283, 293), Nobatai (328), Noubades (317, 318, 327), Noubai (109, 190), Nubians (302) and Saracens (283, 303). Some of these names, such as Indians, appear to refer to modern groups but are placed in northeast Africa by the ancient authors (MAYERSON 1993). This is another warning, more subtle than the fantastic description of Pliny, that the ancient
8
27
textual sources should be read with a healthy dose of scepticism (BARNARD 2005; BURSTEIN, in press; ROSEN 2006; WENDRICH et al. 2006). Archaeological artefacts that have been linked to the Blemmyes include Eastern Desert Ware (BIETAK 2005; SIDEBOTHAM and WENDRICH 1996:16; 2001:256), a number of petroglyphs in the Nile Valley as well as in the Eastern Desert (WINKLER 1938:15–17) and a series of tumulus graves (ekratels) scattered throughout the region (KRZYWINSKI and PIERCE 2001:113; SADR et al. 1994). The relation between these diverse finds, however, remains unclear as does their connection to the Blemmyes or to any other of the many groups mentioned in the ancient sources. It is evident that the cultural and ethnic landscape of the Middle Nile region in ancient times was as much a patchwork of interlinking groups as it is today (HUYGE 1998; MURRAY 1935; PAUL 1954; WENDRICH, in press). It may be possible to extract the history of one specific group from the limited historical and archaeological data (U PDEGRAFF 1988), but this should be approached with the appropriate care. Labelling
Fig. 4 Petroglyphs depicting a camel, in the forecourt of the temple of Shesmetat in Elkab, and a lion in Wadi al-Qash (cf. DERCHAIN 1971, pl. 24; WINKLER 1938, pl. III), on the left, and incised drawings of a cow, a fish and an ostrich on Eastern Desert Ware (cf. STROUHAL 1984:160, 164), on the right, showing great variety in style and subject matter (cf. Fig. 1).
The numbers in parenthesis refer to those given to the texts in the Fontes Historiae Nubiorum (see also BARNARD 2005).
28
Hans Barnard
all archaeological artefacts of unclear origin as Blemmyes does not add to our understanding of the complex history of the region and should be abandoned until more firm associations can be established. This is especially true in the case of Eastern Desert Ware that seems to appear during a much shorter time period than Blemmyes are mentioned in the historical sources, but at the same time in a much larger geographical area than traditionally assigned to the Blemmyes (BARNARD 2002; BARNARD et al. 2005; BARNARD 2006; BARNARD and MAGID 2006; BARNARD and STROUHAL 2004). Linking an ancient name with a modern group may likewise prove difficult as can be demonstrated with the case of the Beja. The phonetic similarity between blhm (EIDE et al. 1994:297), Balahau, Bougaites, Blemmyes and Beja is tempting, but hardly sufficient to connect these groups over large extents of space and time. It is often stated that “[t]he Beja (...) have literally since ‘time immemorial’ occupied the Eastern deserts of Sudan, Egypt and possibly Eritrea (DAHL and HJORT-AF-ORNA 2006:473; cf. CAPPERS 2006:39; KEIMER 1951; 1952a; 1952b; 1953a; 1953b, 1954a; 1954b; KRZYWINSKI and PIERCE 2001:35–36).” If this is indeed the case, the ‘heraldic’ petroglyphs (HUYGE 1998:1380), the ekratels and also Eastern Desert Ware should be ascribed to the Beja rather than the Blemmyes. This solution obviously disregards the historical, cultural and ethnic developments that the people living in the desert attained in the course of the past two millennia. Even if the modern Beja are the genetic descendents of the Eastern Desert Dwellers of 2000 years ago, which they are probably not (DAHL and HJORT-AF-ORNAS 2006; CHRISTIDES 1980; DAFA’ALLA 1987; Table 1), they have implemented many changes to their way of life to create what is now perceived as the Beja culture. Obvious examples include their constant adaptation to the changing climate and the ecological degradation of the desert environment (BURCKHARDT 1822; CAPPERS 2006; COLSTON 1879; FLOYER 1893; KRZYWINSKI and PIERCE 2001; VERMEEREN 1999; 2000), as well as the introduction of the camel (ARNOLD 1995; BULLIET 1975; DAVIS 1978; MIDANT-REYNES and BRAUNSTEIN-SILVESTRE 1977; ROWLEY-CONWAY 1998; WILSON 1984), of the ‘coffee ceremony’ that is so important to modern Bedouin life (BARAM 1999; BIRNBAUM 1956; KRZYWINSKI and PIERCE 2001; RACY 1996), of Islam and the Arabic language
(DE JONG 2002; HOBBS 1990; MURRAY 1935), and more recently also of cars, plastic containers, radio, television and mobile telephones. Contacts with Graeco-Roman miners and quarrymen (C APPERS 2006:39), Christianity (E IDE et al. 1998:1185–1188), Macaza and Rashaida Arabs, which invaded the area in the 18th–19th centuries CE (HOBBS 1990; KRZYWINSKI and PIERCE 2001), and especially with the Banu Kanz, an Arab group that mixed with the dwellers of the Eastern Desert during the 11th–16th centuries CE (ADAMS 1984), will have had profound effects on those living in the area. The successive Christian (the Kingdoms of Nobatia and Makuria), Funj (the Sultanate of Sinnar), Ottoman, British, Egyptian and Sudanese governments (ADAMS 1984), although relatively distant, also left their traces in past and present desert societies and cultures (Table 1). The modern inhabitant of the Eastern Desert form an amalgam of different clans and tribes (MAGID, in press; MURRAY 1935; PAUL 1954; WENDRICH, in press), including the Ababda, Amarar, Beni Amr, Bishareen, Hadendowa, Ma’aza, Otman and the Rashaida. Many speak Arabic as a first or a second language (DE JONG 2002; MORTON 1988), others the Cushitic (Afro-Asiatic) Beja language (To-Badawi) or the Semitic Tigre (Xasa). Some are pastoral nomads, herding sheep, goats and camels; many others are seminomadic cattle herders, settled agriculturalists or day-labourers. They tend to mystify their history, alternatively claiming to be descendants of a variety of common ancestors (MURRAY 1935; WENDRICH, in press), often close to the prophet Mohamed, or to be the heirs of an ancient empire such as the Kushite Kingdom or Pharaonic Egypt. Within this universe of clans, tribes and cultures, being a Beja seems to be mostly a matter of self-definition. It is often heard that the typical Beja culture, as it is perceived by outsiders, is disappearing because of increasing influences from the outside world or other reasons. Such observations echo the notion of the ‘noble savage’ and implicitly deny the Beja access to cars, television and the Internet (COLE and ALTORKI 1998; WENDRICH, in press), but also modern education and healthcare (BARNARD 2000). The fact that the culture of the Beja can ‘disappear’, or rather change to be part of our ‘global village’, illustrates how similar changes happened in the past. Equating the Beja with the Blemmyes is like thinking of
Additional remarks on Blemmyes, Beja and Eastern Desert Ware
the Belgiums, Flemish and Walloon alike, as ‘the bravest of all Gauls’ (De Bello Gallico book I: 1–2, see also BARNARD 2005), completely ignoring Saint Hubertus (patron saint of hunters, mathematicians, metalworkers and opticians); Nobel laureates Jules Bordet, Albert Claude, Maurice Maeterlinck and Corneille Heymans; artists like Pieter Breughel, James Ensor, René Magritte and Peter Paul Rubens; inventors like Leo Baekeland, Gerardus Cremer (Mercator) and Adolphe Sax; athletes like Kim Clijsters, Justin Henin, Jacky Ickx and Eddy Merckx; and many others that had a profound influence on the
29
development of humankind. The society and culture of the dwellers of the Eastern Desert should be considered no more rigid or frozen in time than the Belgium. The Beja definitely deserve the study and recording of their culture and history (WENDRICH, in press), such as the recently opened Bayt al-Ababda Museum in Wadi Gamal (Egypt). They also deserve to be the agents of their own destiny, the main opposition against which may be regional and national authorities, but also the persistent scholarly misconceptions on their past and present state of affairs.
Bibliography ADAMS, N.Y.
BARNARD, H. and STROUHAL, E.
1984
Nubia: Corridor to Africa, Princeton - London.
2004
1986
Ceramic Industries of Medieval Nubia: Memoirs of the UNESCO Archaeological Survey of Sudanese Nubia, Lexington.
BIETAK, M. 2005
Wadi Qitna Revisited, Annals of the Náprstek Museum Prague 25: 29–55. Introduction, Ä&L 15: 11–13.
ARNOLD, D.
BIRNBAUM, E.
1995
1956
An Egyptian Bestiary, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, New Series 52,4: 7–64.
Vice Triumphant: The Spread of Coffee and Tobacco in Turkey, Durham University Journal 48: 21–29.
BARAM, U.
BULLIET, R.W.
1999
1975
Clay Tobacco Pipes and Coffee Cup Sherds in the Archaeology of the Middle East: Artifacts of Social tension from the Ottoman Past, International Journal of Historical Archaeology 3,3: 137–151.
The Camel and the Wheel, Cambridge Mass.
BURCKHARDT, J.L. 1822
Travels in Nubia, London.
BARNARD, H.
BURSTEIN, S.M.
2000
1989
Geneeskunst geïnspireerd door armoede [Medicine inspired by poverty], Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde 144: 949–951 (in Dutch with an English abstract).
Agatharchides of Cnidus: On the Erythrean Sea, London.
in press Trogodytes=Blemmyes=Beja? The Misuse of Ancient Ethnography, in: H. BARNARD and W.Z. WENDRICH (eds.), The Archaeology of Mobility: Old World and New World Nomadism, Los Angeles.
2002
Eastern Desert Ware: A first introduction, Sudan & Nubia 6: 53–57.
2005
Sire, il n’y a pas de Blemmyes. A Re-evalualation of Historical and Archaeological Data, 23–40, in: J.C.M. STARKEY (ed.), People of the Red Sea: Proceedings of the Red Sea Project II, Held in the British Museum, October 2004. Society for Arabian Studies Monographs Number 3. BAR International Series 1395. Oxford.
CAPPERS, R.T.J.
Eastern Desert Ware: Fine Pottery from an Arid Wasteland, Egyptian Archaeology 28: 29–30.
1980
2006
2006
CHRISTIDES, V.
BARNARD, H., DOOLEY A.N. and FAULL K.F. 2005
New Data on the Eastern Desert Ware from Sayala (Lower Nubia) in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Ä&L 15: 49–64. Eastern Desert Ware from Tabot (Sudan): More Links to the North, Archéologie du Nil Moyen 10: 15–34.
Ethnic movements in southern Egypt and northern Sudan: Blemmyes-Beja in Late Antique and Early Arab Egypt until 707 A.D, Listy Filologické 103,3: 129–143.
COLE, D.P. and ALTORKI, S. 1998
BARNARD, H. and MAGID, A.A. 2006
Roman Foodprints at Berenike: Archaeobotanical Evidence of Subsistence and Trade in the Eastern Desert of Egypt, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 55, Los Angeles.
Bedouin, Settlers, and Holiday-makers: Egypt’s Changing Northwest Coast, Cairo.
COLSTON, R.E. 1879
Life in the Egyptian Deserts, Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York 11: 301–333.
30
Hans Barnard
DAFAcALLA, S.B. 1987
The Historical Role of the Blemmyes in Late Meroitic and Early X-Group Periods, Beiträge zur Sudanforschung 2: 34–40.
DAHL, G. and HJORT-AF-ORNAS, A. 2006
Precolonial Beja: A Periphery at the Crossroads, Nordic Journal of African Studies 15,4: 473–498.
1953b Notes prises chez les Bišarîn et les Nubiens d’Assouan: Cinquième partie (1), BdE 34: 401–449. 1954a Notes prises chez les Bišarîn et les Nubiens d’Assouan: Cinquième partie (2), BdE 35: 447–470. 1954b Notes prises chez les Bišarîn et les Nubiens d’Assouan: Sixieme partie, BdE 35: 471–533. KRALL, J.
DAVIS, W.M.
1900
1978
KRZYWINSKI, K. and PIERCE, R.H. (eds.)
Dating Prehistoric Rock Drawings in Upper Egypt and Nubia, Current Anthropology 19,1: 216–217.
DE JONG, R. 2002
Notes on the Dialect of the Ababda, 337–359, in: W. ARNOLD and H. BOBZIN (eds.), Sprich doch mit deinem Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen es: Festschrift für Otto Jastrow, Wiesbaden.
2001
Elkab I: Les monuments religieux à l’entrée de l’Ouady Hellal, Bruxelles: 76–77.
EIDE, T., HÄGG, T., PIERCE, R.H. and TÖRÖK, L. 1994
Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Volume I: From the Eighth to the Mid-fifth Century BC, Bergen.
1996
Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Volume II: From the Midfifth Century BC to the FIrst Century AD, Bergen.
1998
Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Volume III: From the First to the Sixth Century AD, Bergen.
2000
Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Volume IV: Corrigenda and Indices, Bergen.
Deserting the Desert: A Threatened Cultural Landscape Between the Nile and the Sea, Bergen.
LUFT, U., ALMÁSY, A., FARKAS, M.A., FURKA, I., HORVÁTH, Z. and LASSÁNYI, G. 2002
DERCHAIN, P. 1971
Beiträge zur Geschichte der Blemyer und Nubier, Vienna.
Preliminary Report on the Fieldwork at Bir Minih, Arabian Desert, MDAIK 58: 373–390.
MAGID, A.A., in press History of the Nomadic Architecture of the Hadendowa in Northeast Sudan, in: H. BARNARD and W.Z. WENDRICH (eds.), The Archaeology of Mobility: Old World and New World Nomadism, Los Angeles. MAYERSON, PH. 1993
A confusion of Indias: Asian India and African India in the Byzantine sources, JAOS 113,2: 169–174.
MIDANT-REYNES, B. and BRAUNSTEIN-SILVESTRE, F.
FLOYER, E.A.
1977
1893
MORTON, J.
Étude sur le Nord-Etbai entre le Nil et la Mer Rouge, Le Caire.
1988
HAYES, J.W. 1995
Summary of Pottery and Glass Dinds, 33–40, in: S.E. SIDEBOTHAM and W.Z. WENDRICH (eds.), Berenike 1994. Preliminary Report of the 1994 Excavations at Berenike (Egyptian Red Sea Coast) and the Survey of the Eastern Desert, Leiden.
HOBBS, J.J. 1990
Le chameau en Egypte, Or 46: 337–362. Sakanab: Greeting and Information Among the Northern Beja, Africa. Journal of the International African Institute 58: 423–436.
MURRAY, G.M. 1935
Sons of Ishmael, London.
MURRAY, G.M. and WARMINGTON, E.H. 1967
Bedouin Life in the Egyptian Wilderness, Cairo.
Trogodytica: The Red Sea Littoral in Ptolemaic Times, The Geographical Journal 133,1: 24–33.
HUYGE, D.
PAUL, A.
1998
1954
Art on the Decline? Egyptian Rock art Drawing from the Late and Graeco-Roman Periods, 1377–1392, in: W. CLARYSSE, A. SCHOORS and H. WILLEMS (eds.), Egyptian Religion: The Last Thousand Years: Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Jan Quaegebeur: Part II: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 85, Leuven.
PLUMLEY, J.M. 1975
Notes prises chez les Bišarîn et les Nubiens d’Assouan: Première partie, BdE 32: 49–101.
1996
Heroes, lovers, and poet-singers: The Bedouin ethos in the music of the Arab Near-East, The Journal of American Folklore 109,424: 404–424.
RICKE, H.
1952a Notes prises chez les Bišarîn et les Nubiens d’Assouan: Deuxième partie, BdE 32: 42–84.
1967
1952b Notes prises chez les Bišarîn et les Nubiens d’Assouan: Troisième partie, BdE 33: 85–136.
1995
1953a Notes prises chez les Bišarîn et les Nubiens d’Assouan: Quatrième partie, BdE 34: 329–400.
Qasr Ibrim 1974, JEA 61: 5–17.
RACY, A.J.
KEIMER, L. 1951
A History of the Beja Tribes of the Sudan, Cambridge.
Ausgrabungen van Khor-Dehmit bis Bet el-Wali, Chicago.
ROSE, P.J. Report on the Handmade Sherds, 41–43, in: S.E. SIDEBOTHAM and W.Z. WENDRICH (eds.), Berenike 1994. Preliminary Report of the 1994 Excavations at Berenike (Egyptian Red Sea Coast) and the Survey of the
Additional remarks on Blemmyes, Beja and Eastern Desert Ware
Eastern Desert, Leiden. ROSEN, S.A. 2006
The Tyranny of Texts: A Rebellion Against the Primacy of Written Documents in Defining Archaeological Agendas, 879–893, in: A.M. MAEIR and P. DE MIROSCHEDJI (eds.), I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar: Volume 2, Winona Lake.
UPDEGRAFF, R.T. 1988
1999
Wood and Charcoal, 307–324, in: S.E SIDEBOTHAM and W.Z. WENDRICH (eds.), Berenike 1997: Report of the 1997 Excavations at Berenike and the Survey of the Egyptian Eastern Desert, Including Excavations at Shenshef, Leiden.
2000
Wood and Charcoal, 311–342, in: S.E SIDEBOTHAM and W.Z. WENDRICH (eds.), Berenike 1998: Report of the 1998 Excavations at Berenike and the Survey of the Egyptian Eastern Desert, Including Excavations in Wadi Kalalat, Leiden.
The Camel in the Nile Valley: New Radiocarbon Accelerator (AMS) Dates from Qasr Ibrim, JEA 74: 245–248.
SADR, K., CASTIGLIONI, ALF., CASTIGLIONI, ANG. and NEGRO, G. 1994
Archaeology in the Nubian Desert, Sahara 6: 69–75.
SIDEBOTHAM, S.E. and WENDRICH, W.Z. 1996
Berenike: Roman Egypt’s Maritime Gateway to Arabia and India, EA 8: 16–17.
2001
Berenike, Roms Tor am Roten Meer nach Arabien und Indien, Antike Welt 32,3: 251–263.
STROUHAL, E. 1984
Wadi Qitna and Kalabsha-South: Late Roman-Early Byzantine Tumuli Cemeteries in Egyptian Nubia: Volume I, Archaeology, Prague: 101–194.
TOMBER, R.S. 1998
The Pottery, 163–180, in: S.E. SIDEBOTHAM and W.Z. WENDRICH (eds.), Berenike 1996: Report of the 1996 Excavations at Berenike (Egyptian Red Sea Coast) and the Survey of the Eastern Desert, Leiden.
1999
The pottery, 123–159, in: S.E. SIDEBOTHAM and W.Z. WENDRICH (eds.), Berenike 1997: Report of the 1997 Excavations at Berenike and the Survey of the Egyptian Eastern Desert, Including Excavations at Shenshef, Leiden.
TRIGGER, B.G. 1967
The Late Nubian Settlement at Arminna West: Publications of the Pennsylvanian-Yale Expedition to Egypt: Number 2, New Haven and Philadelphia.
The Blemmyes I: The rise of the Blemmyes and the Roman withdrawal from Nubia under Diocletian, 44–97, in: W. HAASE and H. TEMPORINI (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römische Welt: Volume II, Berlin, New York.
VERMEEREN, C.E.
ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 1988
31
WENDRICH, W.Z. in press From objects to agents: The Ababda nomads and the interpretation of the past, in: H. BARNARD and W.Z. WENDRICH (eds.), The Archaeology of Mobility: Old World and New World Nomadism, Los Angeles. WENDRICH, W.Z., BAGNALL, R.S., CAPPERS, R.T.J., HARRELL, J.A., SIDEBOTHAM, S.E. and TOMBER, R.S. 2006
Berenike Crossroads: The Integration of Information, 15–66, in: N. YOFFEE and B.L. CROWELL (eds.), Excavating Asian History: Interdisciplinary Studies in Archaeology and History, Tucson (an earlier version of this chapter appeared in 2003 in the Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 46,1: 46–87).
WILSON, R.T. 1984
The Camel, London, New York.
WINKLER, H.A. 1938
Rock-drawings of southern Upper Egypt: Volume I: Sir Robert Mond Desert Expedition: Season 1936–1937: Preliminary report, London: 15–24.
AUSGRABUNG EINES PALASTBEZIRKES DER TUTHMOSIDENZEIT BEI cEZBET HELMI/TELL EL-DABcA, VORBERICHT FÜR DAS FRÜHJAHR 20071 Von Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller I. EINLEITUNG Die Ausgrabungen im großen Palastbezirk der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi (Fig. 1),2 etwa 1 km westlich von Tell el-Dabca, wurden vom 1. März bis 25. Mai 2007 fortgesetzt, nachdem im vergangenen Jahr diese Untersuchungen durch eine andere Grabung östlich der Autostraße nach Husseiniya und Tanis, im Areal F/II, mit einer Untersuchung eines hyksoszeitlichen Palastbezirkes unterbrochen worden war.3 In den letzten Wochen dieser Kampagne wurden auch Surveys mit Magnetometer und Georadar fortgesetzt, über die gesondert berichtet wird.4 Die Unternehmungen wurden vom Österreichischen Archäologischen Institut Kairo und dem Institut für Ägyptologie der Universität Wien mit Unterstützung der Kommission für Ägypten und Levante der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften durchgeführt. Die Finanzierung erfolgte in dankenswerter Weise durch das Österreichische Archäologische Institut, die Universität Wien, den Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung und mit Unterstützungen der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und dem Institute for Aegean Prehistory, Philadelphia, für die Bearbeitung der ägäischen Fresken.5 An dieser Stelle sei für die Zusammenarbeit vor Ort dem ägyptischen Supreme Council of Antiquities und dessen Generalsekretär Dr. Zahi Hawass sowie dem Generaldirektor für das Delta Dr. cAbd el-Maqsoud unser besonderer Dank ausgesprochen. Ebenso seien die Inspektoren der Antikenbehörde Meselhi cAli Mohamed und cAbd el-Salâm Mansûr cAbd es-Salâm, die mit den Ausgrabungen unmittelbar kooperierten, bedankt.
1
2 3
Für die Auswahl und Herstellung der Abbildungen möchten wir Nikky Math sehr danken, für das Layout Angela Schwab. Die photographischen Aufnahmen stammen von Michael Weissl. S. zuletzt BIETAK & FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2005. S. BIETAK & FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2006; BIETAK, FORSTNERMÜLLER & HERBICH 2006; BIETAK & FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2007.
Ende März erhielten wir den Besuch der Vertreter des Spezialforschungsbereichs SCIEM 2000 (Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung) an der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften unter deren Vizepräsidenten Herbert Matis und deren Zentrumssprecherin für Altertumswissenschaften Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy. Dieser Spezialforschungsbereich, der die Synchronisierung der divergierenden Chronologien im östlichen Mittelmeerraum zum Ziele hat, arbeitet seit Jahren engstens mit den Ausgrabungen in Tell el-Dabca zusammen.6 II. GRABUNGSTEILNEHMER Manfred Bietak Irene Forstner-Müller
- Grabungsleiter - Stellvertretende Grabungsleiterin David Aston - Ägyptologe Bettina Bader - Ägyptologin Michaela Binder - Anthropologin Pieter Collet - Zeichner Delphine Driaux - Studentin Anne-Catherine Escher - Architektin Perla Fuscaldo - Ägyptologin Astrid Hassler - Archäologin Felix Höflmayer - Archäologe Günther-Karl Kunst - Archäozoologe Manfred Ecarius - Fotograf Nicola Math - Ägyptologin Miriam Müller - Ägyptologin Sandra Müller - Ägyptologin Wolfgang Müller - Archäologe Maria Antonia Negrete Martinez - Zeichnerin Erico Peintner - Restaurator Robert Pronck - Student Gerald Schmied - Student
4 5
6
S.u. FORSTNER-MÜLLER et al. 2007. Dafür möchten wir uns sehr bei den Herren Malcolm Wiener, Connecticut, und Philipp Betancourt, Philadelphia, persönlich sehr bedanken. Information über Ziele und Tätigkeit dieses Spezialforschungsbereichs s. BIETAK (ed.) 2000; BIETAK (ed.) 2003; BIETAK 1999; BIETAK & CZERNY (eds.) 2007; BIETAK & KLEINSGÜTL 2000.
34
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Rudolfine Seeber Annette Sorensen Constance Von Rüden Michael Weissl Alexandra Winkels
- Restauratorin - Archäologin - Archäologin - Archäologe - Restauratorin
Survey Tomasz Herbich Michal Kurzyk Christian Schweitzer David Swiech Siri Seren Erol Bayirli Hervé Tronchere
- Magnetometer-Survey - Magnetometer-Survey - Magnetometer-Survey - Magnetometer-Survey - Georadar - Georadar - Hafenprojekt
III. ÜBERSICHT
GRABUNGSOBJEKTE ÜBERSICHT (Fig. 1)
ÜBER DIE
STRATIGRAPHISCHE
UND
Das Grabungsgelände befindet sich im Agrarland südlich der Zufahrt zum Dorf cEzbet Helmi, im Besitz von cAbd-el-Sabûr Selim. Infolge der Ackerund Sebbach-Tätigkeit war eine ganze Stratigraphie von jüngeren Schichten abgegraben worden, von denen sich nur Gruben, Gräber und tief reichende Fundamentgräben fanden. Ziel dieser Kampagne war der Abschluss der Untersuchungen des großen Gebäudes L, das sich unmittelbar neben dem großen Palast G befindet. Es wurde z.T. bereits im Jahre 2005 frei-
Fig. 1 Übersicht über den tuthmosidischen Palastbezirk mit dem eingezeichneten Grabungsareal Frühjahr 2007
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
gelegt und scheint eine besondere öffentliche Funktion innerhalb dieses Bezirkes gehabt zu haben.7 Dabei zeigte sich noch eine eigene Umfassungsmauer des Gebäudes L im Osten und im Süden. Südlich des Gebäudes L, das aus mehreren Phasen besteht, kamen ältere Schichten zum Vorschein: ein Garten des Str. d, der mit der Frühphase des Gebäudes L in Verbindung zu stehen scheint, ferner diverse Umfassungsmauern des Palastbezirkes (Str. d und c), eine Schmelzbatterie des frühen Str. d, schließlich Häuser, Gräber und zwei Opfergruben, die vermutlich zu einem Militärlager des Str. e/1.1, der frühen 18. Dynastie, gehören. Darunter kamen wieder die charakteristischen Rundbauten des Str. e/1.2 und eine große, tief fundamentierte Umfassungsmauer zutage, die zur Zeit der Str. d–c als Umfassungsmauer des Palastbezirkes immer noch in Verwendung war. Es ist unwahrscheinlich, dass ein Teil der oben genannten Häuser von Str. e/1.1 bereits in dieser frühesten Schicht der 18. Dynastie errichtet worden war, da sie die genannten Speicher/Rundbauten überdecken. Im äußersten Süden des Grabungsareals, südlich des Palastbezirkes, fand sich eine differenzierte Stratigraphie einer dicht verbauten Siedlung mit Gräbern der mittleren bis späten Hyksoszeit (Str. e/2–h). Es ist derzeit noch nicht geklärt, ob diese die dichten Siedlungsflächen südlich des Palastbezirkes datieren, die sich deutlich im Magnetometerbild abzeichnen.8 Über den Siedlungsanlagen der 2. Zwischenzeit fand sich dicht gepackter Siedlungsschutt der 18. Dynastie, allerdings ohne architektonische Relikte. Da der Boden hier tief abgegraben war, wäre ein Siedlungskontinuum von der Hyksoszeit bis in die 18. Dynastie möglich. Diese differenzierte Stratigraphie der 2. Zwischenzeit fand sich bisher nicht im Palastareal selbst, so dass vielleicht der Schluss berechtigt ist, dass man sich für die Silo-Einfriedung und schließlich für das spätere Palastareal ein weniger dicht bebautes Gelände ausgewählt hatte, das größtenteils in das Gartenareal und die weitgehend leeren Einfriedungen der HyksosZitadelle hineinfiel. Die Frage nach der Position des Palastes der späten Hyksoszeit (nicht zu verwechseln mit dem weiter östlich liegenden älteren Palast, der 2006
7
8
BIETAK & FORSTNER&MÜLLER 2005, 90–95, figs. 19, 22–25. S. auch FORSTNER-MÜLLER et al. 2007.
35
in F/II angeschnitten wurde)9 könnte sich vielleicht nach Auffindung einer NNO-SSW verlaufenden dicken Lehmziegel-Umfassungsmauer mit Parapet (Fig. 2) und einem davor befindlichen Badehaus geklärt haben. Hier ist ein Eingang in eine innere Einfriedung zu vermuten. Das Badehaus mit gestucktem Boden scheint nach unseren Erfahrungen mit dem Palastbezirk der Tuthmosidenzeit für einen Palasteingang zu sprechen. Der Kern des Gebäudes würde freilich weiter östlich unter der Asphaltstraße Faqûs – Husseiniya und im Bereich des El-Didamun-Kanals liegen und ist wohl durch die Aushubarbeiten für den Kanal größtenteils zerstört worden. Relikte der Festung des Haremhab bzw. eines Vorgängerbaues, die bereits auf dem Magnetometerbild festgestellten worden waren, fanden sich in Form einer starken Umfassungsmauer knapp südlich der Palastumfassungsmauer der 18. Dynastie. Die Ziegel der Mauer waren gänzlich beraubt, es wurde nur mehr der Fundamentgraben (M4233/L6783) vorgefunden. Knapp südlich und parallel dazu verlief ein tiefer O-W verlaufender Graben (L6932), der von einer großen aus Kalkstein gemauerten Wasserleitung stammt, die jedoch völlig ausgerissen und ausgeplündert worden war (Fig. 31, 32). Aufgrund der abgeackerten Oberfläche ist ihre Originaloberkante nicht mehr erhalten, sie könnte von Str. e/1 (frühe 18. Dynastie) bis in die Zeit des Str. b/3 (Haremhab) datieren. Eine Bierflasche innerhalb des gestörten Grabens datiert die Plünderung der Steinplatten der Wasserleitung in die Zeit Ramses’ II. Diese monumentale Wasserleitung könnte daher der Wasserversorgung des Tuthmosidenpalastes ebenso gedient haben wie der Festung südlich des Erweiterungsbaues des Haremhab (möglicherweise aus der Zeit Zeit Amenophis’ III.–Echnaton). In die Hyksoszeit datiert die Wasserleitung trotz ihrer Ähnlichkeit mit einer bereits gefundenen Wasserleitung der Hyksoszeit10 aber sicherlich nicht, da sie bereits Mauern der späten 2. Zwischenzeit durchschlägt. Als späteste Belegung dieses Areals setzt sich der im Jahr 2005 gefundene Friedhof aus der Zeit Ramses II.11 weiter nach Süden fort. Seine Grabgruben schneiden in den Ostteil des Gebäudes L und in dort anstehende ältere Schichten ein.
9 10 11
S. Fn. 3. BIETAK, DORNER & JÁNOSI 2001, 50–55. BIETAK & FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2005, 95–98.
36
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Stratigraphische Übersicht des Grabungsplatzes H/VI (Tabelle 1) Ph. B/2 Str. b/1
Ramessidischer Friedhof mit einfachen Grubenbestattungen, “slipper coffins” und Kinderbestattungen in Tongefäßen
Ph. B/3–C/1 Str. b/2–3
Umfassungsmauer einer Festung möglicherweise aus der Zeit vor Haremheb, abgeackert, nur Reste (M4233) und der Fundamentgraben L6783 erhalten. Möglicherweise gehört die monumentale Wasserleitung L6932 dazu
Hiatus
Relikte pastoraler Tätigkeit, Bestattungen von Schafen oder Ziegen (vermutlich durch Mnmn.t - Hirten) (L6737, L6760)
Ph. C/2 Str. c
Späte Phase des Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit, vor allem spätere Phase des Gebäudes L, dessen jüngere Umfassungsmauer (M4210 u. M4212); die Umfassungsmauer (M4229/L6745) des Werkstattbezirkes W2 setzt sich von Westen her fort12
Ph. C/3 Str. d
Frühe Phase des Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit, frühe Phase des Gebäudes L, ältere Phase der Umfassungsmauer des Gebäudes L (M4280, M4281), Gartenanlage mit Tongefässen für Setzlinge in regelmäßigen Abständen, Baumgruben (L6989 u. L6990), gewundener Kanal (L6882), Umfassungsmauer (M4234) südlich des Gebäudes L, südliche Umfassungsmauer des Palastbezirkes (M4234), in Str. e/1.2 errichtet, bis Str. c in Verwendung; unmittelbar südlich des Gebäudes L eine Schmelzbatterie (M4289), sie ist später als die Südwand des Gebäudes L errichtet und älter als die späte Phase der Südwand
Ph. D/1.1 Str. e/1.1
Opfergruben in w/23 (L6885, L6946) mit Tongeschirr und Tierknochen, letztere schneidet in Mauer M4254 (Str. e/1.1 oder e/1.2) ein, gehören vielleicht zu Gräbern, Bestattung L6992 (stratigraphisch nicht gesichert) und die Kinderbestattung L7075 entlang der Umfassungsmauer M4234. Kleine Gebäude südlich von Gebäude L, überbauen die Rundbauten von Str. e/1.2 und werden vom Kanal L6882 mehrfach durchschnitten, vermutlich Teil eines Heerescamps der frühen 18. Dynastie
Ph. D/1.2 Str. e/1.2
Südliche Umfassungsmauer M4234 eines großen Speicherbezirkes der frühen 18. Dynastie, bis Str. c als südliche Palastumfassungsmauer in Verwendung, Rundspeicher (M4260, M4276, M4339, M4340, M4299?) mit den üblichen 10 Ellen Durchmesser, dicht gesetzt, südlichste Reihe entlang Umfassungsmauer M4234. Sie werden teilweise mehrfach erneuert, möglicherweise einige Siedlungsmauern in Plq. y/22, aa/22 und ein Abfallhaufen in bb/22
Ph. D/2 Str. e/2
Dicke Umfassungsmauer mit Parapet (M4231), hat 2 Phasen, außerhalb befindet sich ein freistehendes Badehaus (L7056); möglicherweise Teil eines Palastbezirkes der Hyksoszeit
Ph. D/2–3 Str. e/2 –h
Im Süden (aa/22, bb/22) eine Stratigraphie von Siedlungsbauten und Siedlungsablagerungen, sowie Gräber, die mindestens bis in die mittlere Hyksoszeit zurückgehen Tabelle 1
Im folgenden werden die wichtigsten Objekte noch näher beschrieben. IV. DIE UMFASSUNGSMAUER MIT PARAPET AUS DER SPÄTEN HYKSOSZEIT, PH. D/2, STR. e/2 (Fig. 2) Die 6 Stein (c. 2,80 m) starke Umfassungsmauer M4231 ist NNW-SSO orientiert, ihre Außenseite liegt im SW (Fig. 3). An der Innenseite war ein kasemattenartiges aufgefülltes Parapet, c. 1,80 m breit, angefügt, später wurde dieses durch eine Mauer (M4262) auf über 3 m Breite erweitert, so dass die Gesamtbreite der Umfassungsmauer
12
BIETAK & DORNER 2001, 91, fig. 46.
samt der aufgefüllten Wehrplattform etwa 6 m betrug. Im NW-Eck des Planquadrates ist eine NNO-SSW orientiert Mauer, M4293, im Verband mit ihr gemauert. Ob es sich um ein Gebäudeeck handelt, werden zukünftige Grabungen zeigen. Ein großer Teil der Mauer wurde durch spätere Bautätigkeit, vor allem durch die tiefen Fundamente des Gebäudes L, zerstört. Unmittelbar südwestlich dieser Umfassungsmauer fand sich ein freistehendes etwa quadratisches Badehaus, L7056, aus Lehmziegeln mit Boden und Wänden aus Kalkstuck. Sein östlicher
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
37
Fig. 2 Übersicht über die Anlagen der späten Hyksoszeit mit der neu gefundenen Umfassungsmauer mit Parapet
Teil ist noch nicht freigelegt worden. Da sowohl in Palast G als auch Palast J bei den Eingängen Badezimmer untergebracht waren, könnte man anzunehmen, dass sich hier in unmittelbarer Nähe ein Eingang befunden hat, der noch zu suchen sein wird. Ein freies Badehaus gab es auch im Südwesten des tuthmosidischen Palastes G in der Nähe der großen Werkstätten W2 .13
13
Ibidem, 97–100.
Die Datierung dieser Anlage ergibt sich aus den Störungen der darüber liegenden Schichten Str. d und der Nutzung der Mauer durch die Silos Str. e/1.2, die das Badehaus zerstören. Eine nähere Datierung kann erst durch Keramikauswertung erfolgen. Das Problem ist in der Orientierung dieser Mauer, die weder mit der nördlichen Umfassungsmauer gut in Einklang zu bringen ist, noch mit dem Herrenhaus weiter im Westen konform geht (Fig. 2). Das könnte jedoch topographische Gründe haben.
38
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 3 Umfassungsmauer mit einer angebauten kasemattenartigen Kostruktion für ein Parapet (Str. e/2, späte Hyksoszeit)
Fig. 4 Siedlungsanlagen der späten Zweiten Zwischenzeit
V. DIE SIEDLUNGSRELIKTE DER HYKSOSZEIT IM SÜDEN DES PALASTBEZIRKES
37–38 × 18–19 cm tritt hier wieder auf. Die Eingangsschwellen der Häuser waren manchmal mit Kalksteinen verstärkt. Bei den Gebäuden waren Öfen (L6991) (Fig. 5) und Speicher errichtet. Häufig wurden Gefäße (Modellvasen, Näpfe) eingemauert, was auf eine rege Kulttätigkeit dieser Zeit im Siedlungsbereich schließen lässt. Neben Kleinkindbestattungen (L7049) fand sich auch ein Grubengrab (L7087) (Fig. 6). Diese Bestattung gehörte einem jungen Mann, der Spuren schlechter Ernährung aufweist.
Außerhalb der Umfassungsmauern des Palastbezirkes erstreckt sich im Süden ein dicht bebautes Gebiet. Ein Ausschnitt dieser Siedlung wurde während dieser Kampagne ausgegraben (Planquadrat bb/22 und Testschnitt in diesem Planquadrat14 entlang des S-Profils) (Fig. 4). Die untersten Schichten wurden in dieser Kampagne nicht erreicht. Unter einer Vorratsgrube der Spätzeit und Siedlungsabfall des Neuen Reiches mit Skarabäen (Fig. 13) und Tonfiguren von Beischläferinnen kamen massive Siedlungsschichten der späten Zweiten Zwischenzeit zu tage. Die Gebäude aus Lehmziegeln wurden in rascher Folge übereinander gebaut, die Mauerstärken variieren von ½ bis ein Stein stark (18–19 cm × 36–38 cm), das für diese Zeit in Tell el-Dabca typische Ziegelmaß von
14
Dieser Schnitt wurde von N. Math beaufsichtigt.
VI. DER GROSSE SPEICHERBEZIRK DER FRÜHEN 18. DYNASTIE (PH. D/1.2, STR. e/1.2) (Fig. 7) Als früheste Belegung der 18. Dynastie nach der Eroberung von Auaris wurde nördlich der oben behandelten Siedlungsrelikte der Hyksoszeit eine große Einfriedung (M4234) aus Lehmzie-
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
Fig. 5 Siedlung der späten Hyksoszeit, Brotofenanlage L6991
Fig. 6 Grubengrab der späten Hyksoszeit, L7087
39
40
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 7 Übersicht über den großen Speicherbezirk der frühen 18. Dynastie
geln errichtet, die dann als südliche Umfassungsmauer für die nächsten drei Schichten, also mindestens für ein Jahrhundert, stehen blieb. Ob auch die anderen drei Seiten der Palasteinfriedung auf diese Umfassungsmauer des Str. e/1.1 zurückgehen, konnte nicht verifiziert werden, ist aber denkbar. Die Funktion dieser mächtigen Umfassungsmauer war der Schutz eines gewaltigen Speicherbezirkes, der mit Rundspeichern mit innerem, genormten Durchmesser von 10 Ellen und mit rechteckigen Magazinen angefüllt war.15 Der Bezirk war durch innere Trennmauern
in mehrere Speichereinheiten unterteilt. Möglicherweise war es damals bereits ein Palastbezirk, da nahe an der Südumwallung, unmittelbar unter dem Palast J der Tuthmosidenzeit, Relikte eines älteren Palastes zum Vorschein kamen, der zu Str. e/1.2 gehört.16 In dieser Kampagne fand sich in z/22 die östliche Fortsetzung dieser südlichen Umfassungsmauer M4234. Dicht daran zeigten sich wieder die charakteristischen Rundspeicher (M4339, M4340). Weiter im Norden kamen in w/23 und w/24 weitere Rundspeicher (M4260 und M4276)
15
16
Ibidem, 60–67. Damals war die Zusammengehörigkeit der Palastumwallung und des Speicherbezirkes noch nicht erkannt worden.
Ibidem 65, fig. 22.
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
41
zum Vorschein (Fig. 8). Manche Rundspeicher wurden offenbar erneuert, was auf eine längere Funktionsdauer des Bezirkes hinweisen könnte. VII. DIE NUTZUNG DES AREALS ALS CAMP UND ALS FRIEDHOF IN DER FRÜHEN 18. DYNASTIE (PH. D/1.1, STR. e/1.1)
Fig. 8 Relikte von Rundspeichern der frühen 18. Dynastie
In der Folgezeit scheint nach Verfall oder der Einebnung der Rundspeicher das Areal der Einfriedung als ein großes Armeelager genutzt worden zu sein.17 Anzeichen dafür sind Pfostenlöcher für Zelte, Lagerfeuer, ein Model für eine Streitaxt und Bestattungen von einigen Pferden und Mulis.18 Ebenso fanden sich auch große Brotöfen, die die Größe eines Haushaltes bei weitem übersteigen.19 Vor allem gab es auch eine Reihe von nach und nach angelegten Gräbern, in denen vorwiegend junge Männer beigesetzt worden waren. Sie fanden sich meist entlang von Mauern innerhalb des Bezirkes und auch entlang der südlichen Umfassungsmauer.20 Dieses Jahr fand sich in Plq. z/22 entlang der Umfassungsmauer M4234 ebenfalls eine Bestattung (L7095), die jedoch überraschenderweise einem Kind gehörte (Fig. 9). Weitere Gräber sind entlang dieser Mauer in beiden Richtungen zu erwarten. Gleich in direkter Nachbarschaft kam das Relikt eines Lagerfeuers (L6995) zum Vorschein. Weiters fanden sich drei
Fig. 9 Kinderbestattung (L7095) an der südlichen Umfassungsmauer M4234 des Camps des Str. e/1.1
17 18
Ibidem, 67–74. Ibidem; s. auch VON DEN DRIESCH & PETERS 2001.
19 20
BIETAK & FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2005, 69–70. S. BIETAK & DORNER 2001, 67–74.
42
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 10 Opfergruben (L6946 und L6885)
Fig. 11 Hausbauten des Str. e/1.1
Fig. 12 Bestattung eines Schweines (L6836), vermutlich Str. e/1.1
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
43
Fig. 13 Plq. bb/22, Skarabäen der frühen 18. Dynastie aus Siedlungsschutt über der Siedlung der späten Hyksoszeit
Die in 2005 begonnenen Grabungen wurden in dieser Kampagne innerhalb des 5,5 ha großen tuthmosidischen Palastbezirkes im Südostbereich fortgesetzt. Dabei fand sich östlich des Hauptpalastes G ein über 3.200 m2 großer trapezförmiger
Bau L aus Lehmziegeln, (72–77 × 42,5 m groß), der mit dem östlichen Nebeneingang des Palastes über ein Seitentor in Verbindung war (Fig. 19). Er ist daher als öffentliches Gebäude anzusprechen. Ebenso wie der Palastbezirk hatte auch Gebäude L zwei Bauphasen (Str. d und c), die anhand von zwei separaten Fundamentgräben an der Südmauer und an zwei verschieden starken Umfassungsmauern festgestellt werden konnten. In seiner früheren Phase wurde südlich des Areals des Gebäudes L eine Gartenanlage mit systematisch in Töpfen gepflanzten Setzlingen und ein gekrümmter Kanal (L6882), der vielleicht der Wasserförderung in der Bauzeit des Gebäudes L diente, angelegt (Fig. 15). Zu dieser Frühphase, aber bereits später als die Setzlinge des Gartens fand sich eine Schmelzbatterie aus Lehmziegeln (Figs. 26–28), die Ähnlichkeiten zu jener Anlage aus der Ramessidenzeit aufweist, die Edgar Pusch in Qantir freigelegt hatte.22 Diese Frühphase hatte auch eine noch anders verlaufende mehr orthogonale Südwand für Gebäude L, wie im Bereich von Plq. v/24 festgestellt werden konnte. Insgesamt hatte daher Gebäude L vier Bauschichten, von denen die unteren beiden vermutlich Str. d und die beiden oberen vermutlich Str. c entsprechen. Das Gebäude L ist in seinem Raumprogramm noch nicht eindeutig geklärt. Es ist aus massiven Ziegelmauern errichtet und besitzt gestuckte Böden und Wände. Insofern ähnelt es sehr der Palastarchitektur. Es besitzt im Süden und im Osten eigene, 6 Ziegel (ca. 2,6 m) starke Umfassungsmauern (Figs. 15, 16), wobei es auch Vorgänger dieser Einfriedungen in der Frühphase des
21
22
Opfergruben mit zerbrochener Keramik und Tierknochen gefüllt (Fig. 10), deren Verbindung mit Architekur oder Gräbern ist zur Zeit unklar. Nach unseren bisherigen Beobachtungen im Areal H/III dürften sie summarisch zu Bestattungen zählen.21 Tatsächlich fanden sich Reste menschlicher Knochen, die vermutlich Relikte von Bestattungen sind, welche durch einen gekrümmten Kanal des frühen Str. d gestört worden waren. Weiters fanden sich das erste Mal Hausbauten, die mit diesem Lager in Verbindung zu bringen sind (Fig. 11). Es handelt sich um unregelmäßige windige Vierecksbauten, meist eineinhalb Lehmziegelstein stark ohne besondere Fundamentierung gemauert, die auch Spuren einer Erneuerung zeigen. Sie befinden sich südlich des Gebäudes L und des daran anschließenden Gartens des Str. d und sind durch einen gekrümmten Kanal (frühes Str. d) gestört worden (s.u.). Vermutlich zu dieser Schicht gehört auch die Bestattung eines Schweines (L 6836), das man aus unbekannten Gründen nicht verzehrte, sondern verscharrte (Fig. 12). Die Bestattung lag unterhalb des Gebäudes L und wurde durch einen Fundamentgraben desselben leicht beschädigt. VIII. DER SÜDOSTTEIL DES PALASTBEZIRKES UND DAS GEBÄUDE L (PH. C/3–2, STR. d–c) (Fig. 14) ÖFFENTLICHE
Ibidem, 67–69, fig. 25, L1016, L1017, L021, im Bereich einer Gräbergruppe derselben Zeit.
PUSCH 1990; 1994; 1996.
44
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 14 Detailplan des großen öffentlichen Gebäudes L, Str. d–c
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
Fig. 15 Gebäude L
Fig. 16 Gebäude L
45
46
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 17 Gebäude L, östlicher Eingang, Blick nach Süden
Fig. 18 Gebäude L, östliche Magazine
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
Gebäudes L gegeben hat (Str. d, Fig. 16). Gegenüber dem Palast G war es durch eine dünne Ziegelmauer abgetrennt. Seine Südmauer weicht sehr deutlich von einem rechten Winkel ab. In seiner Südhälfte befand sich ein großer trapezförmiger Empfangsraum mit ziegelgepflastertem, gestucktem Boden und gestuckten Wänden. Der Boden ist nur in Randbereichen erhalten und muss durch eine von Säulen getragene Decke abgestützt worden sein. Einige tief reichende runde Gruben könnten Fundamente solcher Säulen gewesen sein, doch muss erst studiert werden, ob sich ein System erkennen lässt. Der Großteil dieses Empfangsraumes ist durch eine spätere Grube gestört, wobei diese Störung alt ist, da die damit zusammenhängende Steinsplitterschicht durch eine Schaf/Ziegenbestattung des Brachliegehorizontes zwischen Str. c und b durchschnitten ist. Dieser Raum besitzt einen offiziellen bzw. öffentlichen Eingang von Osten her (Fig. 17), der dadurch ersichtlich wird, dass die Ostmauer des Gebäudes L und die Umfassungsmauer durch eine Quermauer miteinander verbunden sind. Diese Quermauer formt die südliche Wange der Eingangspassage in den Empfangsraum. Im Westen besteht etwas weiter südlich des Eingangs von Osten her eine Passage in Richtung zum Nebeneingang des Palastes G. Unmittelbar südlich dieser Passage fand sich in der westlichen Außenmauer des Gebäudes L ein Bauopfer aus Tongefäßen, die
47
Fig. 19 Bauopfer in Form einer kleinen Kammer mit Keramik südlich des Tores, das eine Verbindung zum Palast G herstellt
hier in einem engen freigelassenen Schlitz deponiert worden waren (Figs. 19–20). An der Außenseite des Gebäudes L, unweit des Westportals zum Palast G fand sich ein Hortfund mit einem Bündel
Fig. 20 Bauopfer in Form einer kleinen Kammer mit Keramik südlich des Tores, das eine Verbindung zum Palast G herstellt
48
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 21 Deponierung von Skarabäen an der Außenmauer des Gebäudes L
von Fayence-Skarabäen, möglicherweise ebenfalls eine Art Opferdeponierung (Fig. 21). Im Nordwesten des großen Empfangsraumes bestand nach Tradition der Palastarchitektur ein Relikt eines intimen Empfangsraumes, der durch eine Quermauer von dem großen Empfangssaal abgetrennt worden war. Dieser Bereich wurde bereits 2005 freigelegt, doch ist seine Bedeutung erst jetzt erkennbar. An der Nordseite dieses Raumes fand sich ein gestucktes rundes aus Schlammziegeln gemauertes Podium. Nördlich des großen Empfangsraums fand sich ein Badezimmer mit gestucktem Boden und spärlichen Relikten von ornamentaler Wandmalerei.23 Diese Nachbarschaft ähnelt sehr der Situation in den Palästen. Von der Mitte der Nordwand des Bereiches des Empfangsraumes führt ein gepflasterter Korridor nach Norden, der schließlich in einen couloir à chicane mündet, der diese N-S Achse durch das Gebäude L bricht. Die Mauern nördlich dieses Korridors scheinen Stützmauern einer Plattform zu sein, die Architektur auf erhöhter Ebene trug. Die Räume westlich des Korridors könnten Unterbauten für Terrassen gewesen sein, da
23
BIETAK & FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2005, 92, fig. 94.
sowohl Türen als auch eine Begehoberfläche im Bereich des Erdgeschosses fehlten. Die Räume östlich dieser untersten Ebene hatten einen mit Kalkstuck überzogenen Lehmziegelboden. Entlang des gesamten Oststreifens des Gebäudes L waren Magazine untergebracht (Fig. 18), wobei jeder einzelne Raum ursprünglich mit einem gestuckten Boden ausgestattet worden war. Der Südabschnitt des Gebäudes L wurde später in Form eines Einbaues mit 5 parallelen Kammer-Systemen umgebaut (Figs. 22–25). Hier könnte es sich auch um die Reste von Speichern oder Kellern handeln, die auch nach der Verwendungszeit des Gebäudes L datieren könnten. Das Gebäude dürfte einem hohen Verwaltungsbeamten des Palastbezirkes gedient haben, der ständigen Zugang zum Inhaber des Palastes G hatte. Insgesamt scheint der Palastbezirk eine Replik eines Residenzpalastes gewesen zu sein, wobei Gebäude L etwa die Position des Gebäudes des höchsten Verwaltungsbeamten eingenommen zu haben scheint. In der Residenz war es der Wezir, hier war es wohl der Vorsteher dieser Stadt, bzw. dieser Militärbasis. IX. BRACHLIEGEHORIZONT MIT RELIKTEN PASTORALER TÄTIGKEIT NACH DER TUTHMOSIDENZEIT Auch in dieser Kampagne konnten nach dem Verfalle des tuthmosidischen Palastbezirkes Spuren einer Brachliegezeit nachgewiesen werden.24 Die Ruinen wurden offenbar immer wieder von Hirten mit ihren Kleinviehherden frequentiert, die eingegangene Tiere, meist Lämmer oder Zicklein, mit viel Mühe in ausgehobenen Gruben beisetzten. Diese respektvolle Behandlung der Tiere legt nahe, dass es sich um eine Menmenet-Herde handelte, die einem Tempel und damit einer Gottheit gehörten. Einstweilen steht nur fest, dass diese Bestattungen nach Str. c erfolgten. Es ist derzeit noch nicht gesichert, ob sie vor die Zeit des Festungsbaues der späten 18. Dynastie fallen. Dies ist jedoch wahrscheinlich, da keine Störungen der Haremhab-Mauer durch solche Bestattungen festgestellt wurden. Eine Datierung in die Ramessidenzeit kann ausgeschlossen werden, da, wie in einer früheren Grabungskampagne festgestellt, eine solche Bestattung durch eine ramessidische Grube gestört worden war. Im Frühjahr 2007 fanden sich wie-
24
Ibidem 93–95; s. auch BIETAK, DORNER & JÁNOSI 2001, 45; BIETAK 2006.
49
Fig. 22 Plan des Gebäudes L mit den eingezeichneten nachträglich eingebauten 5 Kammersystemen
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
50
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 23 Relikte von nachträglich in das Gebäude L eingebauten Kammern, wobei die Mauern ausgerissen worden sind
Fig. 24 Relikte von nachträglich in das Gebäude L eingebauten Kammern, wobei die Mauern ausgerissen worden sind
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
Fig. 25 Ostprofil von Planquadrat u/22 mit ausgerissener Kalkstein-Pflasterung und Relikten von Einbauten des Gebäudes L, Str. c und später
Fig. 26 Schmelzbatterie des frühen Str. d
51
52
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 27 Schmelzbatterie des frühen Str. d
Fig. 28 Schmelzbatterie des frühen Str. d, Schnitt
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
53
Der geomagnetische Survey hatte gezeigt, dass die über 10 Ziegelstein (c. 4,50 m) starke mit Bastionen versehene Festungsmauer des Haremhab (M1204)25 aus einer mächtigen Lehmziegelmauer (M4233) hervorzugehen, diese sogar in gleicher Richtung zu überbauen scheint,26 um dann in einer Krümmung im stumpfen Winkel in Richtung ONO zu verlaufen (Fig. 30). Das würde bedeuten, dass die Mauer M4233 älter als die Mauer des Haremhab und dass die HaremhabMauer eine Erweiterung einer bereits vorher bestehenden Festung sein dürfte. Relikte dieser NNO-SSW verlaufenden Mauer wurden Frühjahr
2007 in den Planquadraten z/22–aa/22 freigelegt. Sie war nur mehr in der untersten Lage erhalten (Breite nicht messbar) und stand in einem über 4 m breiten, mit Sand gefüllten Fundamentgraben (L6783). Die Stratigraphie zeigte, dass diese Mauer tatsächlich später als die südliche Umfassungsmauer des Tuthmosiden Palastes datiert. Man kann vermuten, dass sie vor Haremhab, also in die Zeit Amenophis’ III. oder Tutanchamuns anzusetzen ist. Mauern, die in die Zeit Amenophis’ III. datieren, wurden bereits früher in diesem Areal (HVI) festgestellt.27 Knapp südlich und parallel zu dieser Umfassungsmauer M4233 fand sich der ausgerissene Graben einer Wasserleitung (L6932), die aus Kalksteinspolien errichtet worden war (Figs. 31–32). Die inneren Maße des Kanals betragen exakt eine Elle. Eine Unterlagsplatte aus Kalkstein war noch in situ verblieben. Sie zeigt auf einer Schmalseite in Flachrelief den Ausschnitt einer Königsdarstellung mit zeremoniellem Schurz mit Vorbau und Stierschwanz bekleidet (Fig. 33). Dieser Reliefblock lässt vermuten, dass zur Herstellung dieser Wasserleitung memphitische Denkmäler, vermutlich aus der Zeit des hohen oder des späten Alten Reiches, geplündert und ins Delta verlagert worden waren. Die Bauweise entspricht einem Wasserkanal der späten Zweiten Zwischenzeit, der im Areal H/III weiter im Norden entdeckt worden war.28 Da das Areal abgeackert worden war, ist das genaue stratigraphische Verhältnis der Wasserleitung zur Festungsmauer nicht geklärt, da beide Objekte in ihrem Grabenansatz unterschnitten worden waren. Die Wasserleitung schneidet lediglich in Gebäude der späten Hyksoszeit ein. Sowohl ein Zusammenhang mit der genannten Festung als auch mit dem tuthmosidischen Palastbezirk ergäbe Sinn. Da die Wasserleitung in ramessidischer Zeit ihrer Steinbauteile beraubt wurde, muss ihre Position noch bekannt gewesen sein. Insgesamt sieht der Befund so aus, als ob einige Zeit nach dem Verlassen des tuthmosidischen Palastbezirkes (nach Amenophis II) südlich der Palastruine eine Festung errichtet worden wäre, die dann von Haremhab nach Nordosten erweitert wurde.
25
27
Fig. 29 Bestattung eines Ziegenbockes in der Brachliegezeit nach Verlassen des tuthmosidischen Palastbezirkes
der drei Bestattungen von Kleintieren, eine davon stammte von einem stattlichen Ziegenbock (Fig. 29). X. DIE FESTUNG DER SPÄTEN 18. DYNASTIE (PH. B/3–C/1, STR. b/2–3)
26
S. BIETAK & DORNER 2001, 101–102. Eine endgültige Klärung der stratigraphischen Situation muss noch in Zukunft erfolgen.
28
Ibidem 2001, 101; ASTON 2001, 194 (dort relativstratigraphisch als Str. b bezeichnet). BIETAK, DORNER & JÁNOSI 2001, 50–55.
54
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 30 Geomagnetischer Survey mit Spuren einer mit Bastionen ausgestatteten Festungsmauer aus der Zeit des Haremhab, die eine ältere Umfassungsmauer zu überdecken scheint
XI. DAS RAMESSIDISCHE GRÄBERFELD (PH. B/2, STR. b/1) (Figs. 34–36) In den Planquadraten v/24–25 und w/24–25 fand sich der bereits aus früheren Kampagnen bekannte Friedhof der Ramessidenzeit.29 Dieser erstreckte sich möglicherweise nach Westen hin, die entsprechenden Kulturschichten sind dort nicht erhalten. Nach Osten hin zum modernen ElDidamun-Kanal nimmt seine Belegungsdichte zu.
29
BIETAK & FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2005, 95–98.
Die Gräber sind N-S oder O-W orientiert, die Bestattungsart variiert von einfachen Grubengräbern zu Tonsärgen (Figs. 36–37), manchmal wird der Verstorbene in einer Art Sparvariante in einem großen Tongefäß beisetzt, das den aufwendigeren und vermutlich auch teureren Sarg ersetzen soll. Dass es sich bei den Bestatteten um eine sozial niedrig stehende Schicht handelt, zeigt sich auch an der geringen Anzahl an Beigaben. Wenn überhaupt, wurde dem Toten ein einziges Tongefäß (Vase oder Bierflasche) mitgegeben, das in der Regel in der Nähe des Kopfes deponiert war.
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
Fig. 31 und 32 Graben mit den Relikten einer Wasserleitung, vermutlich aus der Zeit eines Festungssystems der späten 18. Dynastie (Str. b/3 = Ph. C/1) stammend
Fig. 33 Kalksteinspolie für den Unterbau einer Wasserleitung, Reliefdarstellung eines Königs mit zeremoniellem Schurz mit Vorbau und Stierschwanz, vermutlich von einem memphitischen Bau des Alten Reiches stammend
55
56
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 34 Ramessidischer Friedhof
Fig. 35 Ramessidischer Friedhof
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht 2007
Fig. 36 Ramessidische Bestattung im Ton-Sarkophag, erste Situation
Fig. 37 Ramessidische Bestattung im Ton-Sarkophag, zweite Situation
57
58
Manfred Bietak und Irene Forstner-Müller
Bibliographie ASTON, D. 2001
The Pottery from H/VI Süd Strata a and b: Preliminary Report, Ä&L 11, 167–196.
(Areal F/II) Vorläufige Ergebnisse der Grabungskampagne 2006 in Tell el–Dabca, Ä&L 16, 63–78. 2007
BIETAK, M. (ed.) 2000
2003
The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean, Papers of Conferences held at Schloß Haindorf 15th–17th November 1996 and Vienna 10th–11th May 1998, CChEM 1, Wien.
BIETAK, M., FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I.& HERBICH, T. 2006
The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC II, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–Euro Conference, Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, CChEM 4, Wien.
BIETAK, M. 1999
2006
Die Synchronisierung der Hochkulturen im östlichen Mittelmeerraum im zweiten Jahrtausend v. Ch., Anzeiger der Philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 134 (1997–1999), 5–14. Nomads or Mnmn.t-Shepherds in the Eastern Nile Delta in the Late New Kingdom, 124–136, in: A. MAEIR & P. DE MIROSCHEDJI (eds.), I Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times (Ps. 78:2b): Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasionof his Sixtieth Birthday, Winona Lake, Ind.
BIETAK, M. & CZERNY, E. (eds.) 2007
The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC III, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–Euro Conference, Vienna, 2nd of May–7th of May 2003, CChEM 9, Wien.
BIETAK, M. & DORNER, J. 2001
3. Ausgrabungen in den Arealen H/II–III und H/VI, Ä&L 11, 48–104.
BIETAK, M., DORNER, J. & JÁNOSI, P. 2001
2000
2006
Eine palatiale Anlage der frühen Hyksoszeit
The Synchronization of Civilizations in the Second Millennium BC, 99–107, in: P. MATTHIAE, A. ENEA, L. PEYRONEL & F. PINNOCK (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18th–23rd 1998, vol. I, Rom.
FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., HERBICH, T., MÜLLER, W., SCHWEITZER CH. and WEISSL, M. 2007
Geophysical Survey 2007 at Tell el- Dabca, Ä&L 17, 97–106.
PUSCH, E.B. 1990
Metallverarbeitende Werkstätten der frühen Ramessidenzeit in Qantir – Piramesse/Nord, Ein Zwischenbericht, Ä&L 1, 75–113.
1994
Divergierende Verfahren der Metallverarbeitung in Theben und Qantir? – Bemerkungen zu Konstruktion und Technik, Ä&L 4, 145–170.
1996
High Temperature Industries in the Late Bronze Age Capital Piramesse Qantir: II. A Quasi Industrial Bronze Factory, 121–132, in: F.A. ESMAEL, Z. HAWASS (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Ancient Egyptian Mining & Metallurgy and Conservation of Metallic Artifacts, Cairo, 10–12 April 1995, Kairo.
Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris, Vorbericht Tell el-Dabca/cEzbet Helmi 1993–2000, mit einem Beitrag von A. von den Driesch, Ä&L 11, 27–129. Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht für Herbst 2004 und Frühjahr 2005, Ä&L 15, 65–100.
Discovery of a New Palatial Complex in Tell elDabca in the Delta: Geophysical Survey and Preliminary Archaeological Verification, 119–126, in: Z. HAWASS, & J. RICHARDS, (eds.), The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt, essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor, Kairo.
BIETAK, M. & KLEINSGÜTL, D.
BIETAK, M. & FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I. 2005
Ein Opfermahl und das Ende eines Palasts in Tell el-Dabca/Ägypten, Fs für Hermann Hunger zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet von seinen Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, WZKM 97, 211–234.
VON DEN DRIESCH, A., J. PETERS 2001
Frühe Pferde- und Maultierskelette aus Auaris (Tell el-Dabca), östliches Nildelta, Ä&L 11, 301–311.
BURIAL CAVE 2 IN THE AZOR-HOLON CEMETERY: AN EARLY BRONZE AGE I TOMB WITH EGYPTIAN FINDS By Edwin C.M. van den Brink, Ram Gophna and Asher Ovadiah
INTRODUCTION This is the final report of a late Early Bronze Age I (henceforth EB I) burial cave at Azor (Fig. 1). The cave is one of two adjoining, artificial burial cavities simultaneously investigated in 19681 by Asher Ovadiah on behalf of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums (henceforth IDAM).2 HISTORY OF EXCAVATION In May 1968 the late Moshe Dayan, while clandestinely excavating this cave (Fig. 2), was injured when its roof collapsed and partially buried him. Dayan, then Minister of Defense, was rushed to the hospital, at which time the IDAM became aware of his unauthorized excavation. Subsequently Asher Ovadiah was assigned to complete the excavation on behalf of the IDAM and a license (A-163/1968-013) was eventually issued him ex post facto. Ovadiah’s investigation of the tomb indicated Dayan had virtually finished looting it. All that was left to do was to sift Dayan’s spoil tip at the entrance to the cave. Nothing is known about the finds removed by Dayan from this cave prior to its collapse.4 OVADIAH (1968) was able to retrieve only a limited number of small items by sieving Dayan’s spoil heap at the entrance to the cave (Fig. 3a–b), to be presented below. THE SITE This tomb is one of fifteen artificial burial caves hewn into the local kurkar sandstone, some few outcrops of which are to be found in the environs of Tel Azor. The site is located in the Lod Valley, central coastal plain (Fig. 1) about 6 km from the present-day Mediterranean seashore, just southeast of Yafo (Jaffa; ORNI and EFRAT 1976).
1
2
3
The second cave yielded sparse finds of the Intermediate Bronze Age and is the subject of another report. IDAM is the forerunner of the Israel Antiquities Authority. For a history of the IDAM, see KLETTER 2006. This is an Israel Antiquities Authority (the statutory body that replaced the IDAM in 1990) License no.
Fig. 1 Map showing location of Azor
DESCRIPTION OF THE CAVE The cave, measuring ca. 3 m × 2 m and 1.2–1.5 m in height was quarried into the slope of a kurkar
4
For Dayan’s involvement in the excavation of other parts of this cemetery, see e.g. PERROT 1961: note 1, with reference to the «Dayan Collection» (see also ORNAN 1986).
60
Edwin C.M. van den Brink, Ram Gophna and Asher Ovadiah
Fig. 2 General view of the excavation area
a)
b) Fig. 3a–b View of Cave no. 2, with Dayan’s dump in foreground
Burial Cave 2 in the Azor-Holon Cemetery: An Early Bronze Age I Tomb with Egyptian Finds
61
a)
b)
Fig. 4. Azor. Cave no. 2 with bilobate burial chamber
c)
hill (Fig. 4:a–c). It has two rooms separated by a ‘pillar’ left in the kurkar that supported a roughly vaulted roof. The general layout of the cave with its two relatively small burial chambers separated by such a pillar, is typical of other, late EB I tombs in the same cemetery.5 Presentation of the Finds from Burial Cave no. 2
sutures indicates that this individual was between 25–35 years old. Due to the very bad state of bone preservation it was not possible to restore the skull. No further conclusions, therefore, could be drawn. Pottery This tiny assemblage includes fragments of a small, hemispheric bowl with a pierced lug-han-
Human Remains6 Remains of a human skull were retrieved from the cave’s spoil heap. They are small parts of the crown and frontal cranium as well as a small part of the left eye socket (Fig. 5). Based on the thickness of the bone fragments (between 8–9mm), the skull is assumed to be that of a male. The condition of the closure of the
5 6
See, for instance, BEN-TOR 1975, in particular note 5. This section is based on an internal report dated October 29th, 1970 written by David Westler, Tel Aviv University, School of Medicine, Dept. of Anatomy and Anthropology.
Fig. 5 Photograph of the human bone fragments
62
Edwin C.M. van den Brink, Ram Gophna and Asher Ovadiah
Fig. 6 Azor. Cave 2. Pottery finds: 1) Small hemispheric bowl with lug handle (cf. BEN-TOR 1975: fig. 5:9); 2) Small carinated bowl (cf. KOCHAVI et al. 2000: fig. 8.5:19–20; GOPHNA 1996: figs. 39:6, 46:1); 3) Jar with pillar-spout (cf. BEN-TOR 1975: fig. 9:6, pl. 16:1); 4) Pillar-spout; 5) Shoulder fragment of jar with ledge handle; 6) Ledge handle
Burial Cave 2 in the Azor-Holon Cemetery: An Early Bronze Age I Tomb with Egyptian Finds
63
Fig. 7 Azor. Cave 2. Pottery finds: 1) Loop-handled jar (cf. BEN-TOR 1975: fig. 6:6–8, pl. 8:4); 2) Loop-handle fragment; 3) Loop-handled jar; 4) Loop-handled cup with punctured design on rim (cf. BEN-TOR 1975: fig. 6: 6–7; for the mode of decoration cf. BEN-TOR 1975: fig. 6:3; 5) jar
dle (Fig. 6.1), a small carinated bowl (Fig. 6.2), two pillar-spouted jars (Figs. 6.3 and 6.4) and two plain ledge-handles (Fig. 6.5–6). These last three fragments probably belong to one and the same jar. Fragments of at least three loop-handled jugs and juglets (Fig. 7:1–3), a small loop-handled cup with impressed decoration on its rim (Fig. 7.4) and portions of another jar (Fig. 7.5) complete this very tiny assemblage. With the exception of the carinated bowl, all diagnostic forms have clear parallels in pottery assemblages from two other burial caves at Azor (BEN-TOR 1975) and Stratum V–IV of Tel Dalit (GOPHNA and IRON-LUBIN 1996). They are dated to an advanced phase of EB I. The carinated bowl is of a type dated to the very end of EB I period (cf. BECK 1985:17–20; KOCHAVI et al. 2000: fig. 8.5:19–20) or EB II. 7
This type of blade is reminiscent of few other blades possibly produced by the same technique, found in EB I settlement contexts at Tel Erani (ROSEN 1988), cEn Besor (GOPHNA and FRIEDMAN 1993), Tel Halif Terrace (LEVY et al.1997: 42), and most recently at Tel Lod (H. Khalaila, pers. comm.) and Megiddo (BLOCKMAN and GROMANYEROSLAVSKI, forthcoming). They are considered to be Egyptian or Egyptianized, although most of the above mentioned blades were probably pro-
A Flint Sickle Blade A single flint sickle blade was recovered from the spoil tip. It concerns a straight, truncated and retouched blade. One edge has been worked bifacially (Fig. 8), creating a finely denticulated edge marked by sickle gloss.
7
Fragments of similar, carinated bowls were uncovered in two additional, nearly contemporary burial caves (Tombs 40 and 60) excavated by A. DRUKS in 1969 for
Fig. 8 Azor. Cave 2. Flint blade
IDAM (fig. 11:3; DRUKS, BEN-DOV and in prep.).
VAN DEN
BRINK,
64
Edwin C.M. van den Brink, Ram Gophna and Asher Ovadiah
duced in Israel. The specimen from Cave no. 2 at Azor is the only example of such a blade found in a burial context. Jewelry A few beads were retrieved from the spoil heap. They include three near-cylindrical beads of bone (Fig. 9:1), one of carnelian, a perforated discshaped bead (Fig. 9:2) and two perforated conical shells made into beads (Fig. 9:3). Bone beads very similar to those illustrated in Fig. 9:1 were uncovered e.g. in burial contexts in Cave no.1 at Sha’ar Ephraim (cf. VAN DEN BRINK 2005). Carnelian beads similar to the one represented here were discovered in an EB I cemetery in the Qiryah Quarter of Tel Aviv (BRAUN and VAN DEN BRINK 2005). Two shells retrieved from the spoil belong to the genus Conus.8 Both have man-made holes in their tops, probably created by rubbing the apex of the shell over a firm object such as a stone. In this way the shells were converted into beads. The specific identity and origin of the shells is prob-
Fig. 9 Azor. Cave 2: 1) Three bone beads; 2) Carnelian bead; 3) Two Cones shell beads
lematic. Only one species is known to live in the Eastern Mediterranean and not less than 28 species in the northern part of the Red Sea, i.e.,
Fig. 10 1) Azor. Cave 2. Bull’s head amulet-pendant ; 2) cEn Besor, Stratum III. Bull’s head amulet-pendant; 3)Barkai/cEin Assawir. Bull’s head amulet-pendant
8
Identification and description of the Cones was kindly provided by Prof. Henk K. MIENIS, the National Mollusc Collection, Tel Aviv University, based upon a drawing and photograph of the actual specimens.
Burial Cave 2 in the Azor-Holon Cemetery: An Early Bronze Age I Tomb with Egyptian Finds
the Gulfs of Aqaba and Suez. The form of the shell (more or less straight conical sides with a flat top) rules out its identification with the Mediterranean species Conus mediterraneus (HWASS, 17929). Several Conus species from the Red Sea are more likely candidates of having served as the raw material for these shell-beads, especially Conus flavidus (Lamarck, 1810). The lack of traces of the color pattern and more details of the original microsculpture of the top whorls, however, does not allow a more specific identification. In respect to C. flavidus, it is noteworthy that 12 shells belonging to that species, all with man-made holes in their apexes, have been found in burial cave no. 1 near Shacar Ephraim (MIENIS, in press), the very same cave that also yielded several bone beads similar to the ones found in Azor cave No. 2. Cone shells holed in a similar way have been reported also from a number of other EB I sites in Israel. For example shell beads made from Conus mediterraneus have been reported from Tell Tacannach (EZZUGHAYYAR and AL-ZAWAHRA 1996) and Megiddo (BAR-YOSEF MAYER 2000), while a bead made from Conus textile neovicarius DA MOTTA, 1982, a Red Sea species, has been excavated at Gesher HaBesor (HORWITZ et al. 2002). Notable is the presence of an Egyptian bull’s head amulet-pendant retrieved from the cave’s spoil tip. This minute item (Fig. 10:1) was carved from Chalcedonian jaspis and measures 22 mm (L) × 27mm (W) × 7mm (thickness). In comparison with other known specimens of this type of amulet from Egypt (see, e.g., PETRIE 1914:44, pl. 38:212 a–m), it is somewhat atypical. In contrast to most others, in this specimen the ‘bull’s eyes’ are pierced all the way through and a horizontally perforated ‘pillar’, usually forming the back of this type of amulet-pendant, is absent. It is, therefore, unlikely that it was worn as a pendant but rather must have formed part of a necklace of beads. The choice of material for this particular object is also unique amongst this group of artefacts. Additional bull’s head amulets-pendants found in Israel To date, only two other, comparable specimens are known to have been found in Israel, both deriving from late EB I contexts (Table 1 below). One derives from a settlement context at cEn Besor, Stratum III (Fig. 10:2; GOPHNA 1980: fig. 5:
9
65
no. 1, Pl. III, no. 4), while the other was uncovered in a karstic burial cave, excavated by DOTHAN (1970; 1993a) at Barkai, near cEin Assawir (Fig. 10:3). Notably, a necklace of 23 stone beads and pendants, including two conical pendants of Egyptian calcite (DOTHAN 1970: pl. 8: 2–3), was uncovered in that same cave. The latter are very similar to two other stone pendants deriving from two additional EB I burial caves in the same Barkai cemetery (Tombs 3 and 20; see YANNAI 2002: fig. 22.1:25–26). Bull’s head amulets-pendants from Egypt Over forty specimens belonging to this generic type, made of ivory, bone and a wide variety of stones (Table 2 below), are known in Egypt to date. They derive from Predynastic and Early Dynastic burial and domestic contexts in (mainly) Upper Egypt (HENDRICKX 2002). Discussing the representation of bovines in Egyptian Pre- and Early Dynastic iconography in a recent paper, HENDRICKX (2002) suggested that the so-called bull’s head amulets at issue could have been worn either as a distinct pendant or as part of a necklace. In Egypt this type of amulet-pendant occurs as early as during Naqada IC (synchronous with the Levantine Late Chalcolithic period), is most common during Naqada II and continues to be used well into Naqada IIIC (cf. Table 2; terminology after HENDRICKX 1996), the later phase being partially synchronous with the late EB I. In Egypt most examples of this type of amulet were found in tombs, but they appear also in temple and settlement contexts (HENDRICKX 2002: 285; and see Table 2). HENDRICKX (2002: 287) argues that “the bull’s head amulet is a combination of female elements, with the emphasis on fertility, and the bull”, whereby the arms of women curved underneath their breasts – as represented in early ceramic statuettes also starting from Naqada I – coincide with the downward-curved horns and eyes of the bull. This apparently finds its clearest expression in the earliest ‘bull’s head’ amulets. He also states that the original symbolism expressed in the ‘bull’s head amulets’ might have been lost during Naqada III, because of a stark degradation of its original shape. This degradation is especially notable in the Azor specimen discussed above (Fig. 10:1).
This species has a more pointed, conic apex and should have revealed a much larger hole in the top if ground down to its present level.
66
Edwin C.M. van den Brink, Ram Gophna and Asher Ovadiah
Fig. 11 Map showing the location of EB I burial and settlement remains at Azor/Holon [Legend: 1) two burial caves (Tombs 1 and 4; BEN-TOR 1975); 2) three burial caves (SHAPIRA 1963); 3) four burial caves (DRUKS and ZAFIRIS 1970a, b); 4) one burial cave (DAVIES 1975); 5) Burial Cave 2 (this volume; OVADIAH 1968); 6) one burial cave (BUSHERI 1969); 7) five burial caves (NEGBI 1975); A: ‘Installation C’ (USSISHKIN 1961), settlement remains (DOTHAN 1958); B: settlement remains (GOPHNA and BUSHERI 1967; GOPHNA 1974); C: settlement remains (GOLANI and VAN DEN BRINK 1999); D: various pits (RAND 1999); E: washed-in pottery (SHAPIRA, not published)]
Burial Cave 2 in Context The Azor-Holon EB I cemetery The burial cave described above is but one of fifteen EB I burial caves excavated in the 1960’s
10
11
Cf. SHAPIRA (1963), DRUKS and TZAFERIS (1970a, b), BUSHERI (1969), BEN-TOR (1975), NEGBI (1975), DAVIES (1975), RAND (1999) and DRUKS, BEN-DOV and VAN DEN BRINK (in prep.). Since the early 1920s, archaeological research in the
and 1970’s10 within the Azor-Holon cemetery. They clearly form part of an extensive burial ground11 that most likely served the inhabitants of the EB I settlements situated only few hundreds of meters northeast of the burial site and
region of Azor (Arabic:Yazûr) and the present-day Holon industrial area zone adjoining immediately to its south has yielded numerous sites and finds dating from the Chalcolithic period onwards. On the identification and history of Azor see PERROT 1993: 125 and for a sum-
Burial Cave 2 in the Azor-Holon Cemetery: An Early Bronze Age I Tomb with Egyptian Finds
Fig. 12 Tel Azor. Gophna/Busheri probe (cf. Fig. 11: B)
is separated from them by a topographic depression or saddle. The EB I settlement remains at Azor (Fig. 11: A,C–D) Sporadic remains of an early EB I settlement at Azor were exposed in the past over a limited area on a kurkar outcrop by PERROT and USSISHKIN (“installation C”: USSISHKIN 1961)12 and DOTHAN (1958:272). GOPHNA and BUSHERI (1967; GOPHNA 1974: 38–40; pl. 7) uncovered additional in situ late EB I settlement remains in a 6 × 5 m probe (Stratum IV) on the edge of Tel Azor itself (Figs. 11:B, 12). The findings consist of a pavement with a spread of late EB I pottery above kurkar bedrock at a depth of 2.5 m below present surface. Notably, two Early Dynastic Egyptian potsherds were noted in this probe by one of the authors (R.G.); one from Stratum IV and possibly another one from higher up in the probe. In 1968 Shapira made a probe about 200 m northwest of Tel Azor, in an area adjacent to the
mary on the excavations of the various ancient tombs see PERROT 1993: 125–126, BEN-TOR 1993: 126–127 and DOTHAN 1993b: 127–129. For the location, brief listing of finds and references to the excavations carried out between the years 1923 and 1998 at Azor and the adjoining Holon industrial area, see GOLANI and VAN DEN BRINK 1999:1–2, plan 1 and Appendix 1. Between the years 1998 and 2004 an additional seven excava-
67
floodplain of the Ayalon river (Fig. 11:E). In a 3 m high cross-section three layers of washed-in soil could be distinguished. Within two of these layers EB I sherds could be identified, probably washed down from the adjacent tell. These sherds were similar to some of those exposed previously by Gophna and Busheri in 1966 on the tell (Gophna, pers. obs.). Based on the position of the locations where in situ early and late EB I settlement remains have been uncovered, it is possible to estimate the extent of the site in these periods to have covered at least 50–60 dunams. As a result of subsequent salvage excavations at Azor in more recent years (cf. GOLANI and VAN DEN BRINK 1999; RAND 1999), it is now clear that the EB I settlement was not a continuous one that would have covered this whole area, but may have consisted of a series of smaller settlements. Azor’s nearest-neighbor with attested Egyptian affiliations in the central coastal plain is the late EB I settlement at Tel Lod (cf. VAN DEN BRINK 2002, VAN DEN BRINK and BRAUN 2002, PAZ et al. 2005, YANNAI and MARDER 2000). A contemporary cemetery that could be associated with that settlement has, however, not yet been located. Additional Egyptian Finds from the EB I AzorHolon Cemetery Apart from the bull’s head amulet presented above, additional Egyptian finds were uncovered in at least five other tombs in this cemetery. Two Egyptian cylindrical jars and about 16 diminutive, Egyptian ceramic vessels were uncovered in nearby Caves 10, 40 and 60 excavated by A. Druks in 1968 (DRUKS, BEN-DOV and VAN DEN BRINK in prep.). Cave 40 also yielded an Egyptian slate palette, published by AMIRAN (1985) as well as an amphibolite bowl. Three small Egyptian ceramic vessels, some Nilotic shells (Chambardia rubens arcuata, formerly known as Aspatharia rubens) and an Egyptian flint knife were uncovered in burial Caves 1 and 4 excavated in 1971 by A. BEN-TOR (1975: 29).
12
tions were undertaken at Azor (cf. VAN DEN BRINK and KAPITAIKIN, in press: plan 1), none of which yielded EB I remains or materials. In 1958/59 J. PERROT excavated a large Chalcolithic cave at this spot (PERROT 1958; 1959). ‘Installation C’ was erected on the debris of this very cave during the early EB I after its roof had caved-in.
68
Edwin C.M. van den Brink, Ram Gophna and Asher Ovadiah
Egyptian finds from the EB I Barkai/ cEin Assawir cemetery The only other EB I cemetery known to date that yielded sporadic Egyptian artifacts in EB I context is a group of karstic burial caves at Barkai, located in Israel’s northern coastal plain, ca. 7km east of Hadera at the western entrance to Nahal ‘Eron (Wadi cArah; see Fig. 1). One such burial cave, excavated by DOTHAN (1970), also yielded an Egyptian bull’s head amulet-pendant (Fig. 10:3), similar to the one discussed above, together with a bead necklace with two conical Egyptian stone pendants (DOTHAN 1970: pl. 8: 2–3). Three nearby tombs (nos. 3, 20, 40), excavated by E. Yannai, yielded three, possibly four Egyptian and Egyptianized ceramic vessels, few Egyptian stone pendants, a rectangular graywacke palette and a small, calcite jar (YANNAI 2002: fig. 22.1:12–13, 15, 21–22; HENDRICKX and VAN DEN BRINK 2002). This burial ground most likely once served the population of the nearby EB I settlement at Tel Assawir, Stratum 2 (cf. YANNAI 2002:334). In contrast to the EB I settlement probed at Tel Azor in near vicinity of the Azor-Holon EB I burial ground, no Egyptian materials have been uncovered to date in the EB I settlement at Tel Assawir, even though the latter site has been excavated much more extensively than the EB I settlements at Azor.
The finds from this late EB I burial ground seem to reflect the situation of the associated, nearby settlement, probed so far only to a very limited extent. This settlement can be considered part of the hinterland of ancient Yafo (Jaffa; see GOPHNA and LIPHSCHITZ, 1996). Ein Assawir/Barkai in the northern coastal plain is the only other late EB I burial ground that has yielded a variety of Egyptian finds, including Egyptian pottery and local imitations thereof, a stone palette and stone vessel, beads, and a bull’s amulet. In contrast to the Holon/Azor burial ground, the Assawir burial finds are not reflected in the associated, contemporary settlement. In conclusion it should be noted that although Chalcolithic and late EB I burial caves were discovered at Azor, no early EB I burial caves have yet been found associated with the site (but see RAND 1999). The few Egyptian finds, however, found in association with early EB I Installation C (USSISHKIN 1961) at Azor could indicate possible interrelations already during early EB I at the site. Hardly any EB II materials have been found in the burial caves at Azor,13 although EB II sherds were encountered by Gophna and BUSHERI in their probe (see above). The EB Age cemetery at Azor/Holon, therefore, seems to postdate early EB I, was in use during the late EB I and may have been abandoned during early EB II.
CONCLUSIONS
Acknowledgements
The burial cave presented above is part of an extensive, late EB I burial ground in the AzorHolon region. To date fifteen late EB I burial caves have been excavated in that cemetery. Egyptian finds were uncovered in six of them. These include Egyptian pottery vessels and local imitations thereof, a palette, a flint knife and the bull’s head amulet from Cave no. 2 at issue here.
Osnat Misch Brandl kindly provided new drawings of all three bull’s head amulets currently at display in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. Henk K. Mienis kindly gave his expertise concerning the two Cone shells. Eliot Braun commented on an earlier draft of this text. Stan Hendrickx provided additional information concerning the bull’s head amulets found in Egypt proper.
13
For a carinated bowl of the ‘Aphek family’, with irregular burnish inside deriving from Cave 60 and most probably dating from the EB II, see DRUKS et al. in prep.
Burial Cave 2 in the Azor-Holon Cemetery: An Early Bronze Age I Tomb with Egyptian Finds
69
Site
Context
Period
Material
IAA license
Measurements
IAA reg. no.
Azor
Burial cave
Late EB I
Chalcedonian jaspis
A-1968-01
22 × 27 × 7 mm
72-63
Besor Stratum III
Settlement
Late EB I
Carbonate rock, metamorphic marble [limestone]
A-653/1976
31 × 24 × 7.5mm
76-1186 [7237]
Barkai/ Assawir
Burial cave
Late EB I
Carnelian
6-24/1953
17 ×15 × ? mm
1953-568 (71130)
cEn
cEin
Table 1 Bull’s head amulets found in Early Bronze Age I contexts in Israel
Cemetery site
Period
Material
Abadiya Abusir el-Meleq Abusir el-Meleq Abusir el-Meleq Abusir el-Meleq Abydos Badari Ballas Debod Gerza Helwan Hemamiya Hemamiya Hemamiya Hu (2) Matmar Matmar Mediq Mediq MAO (several) Nagada Nagada Naqa ed-Deir Shellal Sialy Tarkhan Zawiyet el-Aryan
Nagada IIC–D? ? Nagada IIC–III Nagada IIC–II Nagada IIIA2? Nagada IIIC1/Djer ? ? Nagada IIIA–B Nagada IIC–IID2? Nagada IIIC–D Nagada IIIC2 Nagada II Nagada II–IIIA Nagada IIIA1–A2? Nagada IIIA2 Nagada IIC ? Nagada IIIA1–A2 ? Nagada IC–IIB? Nagada IC–IIB 2nd Dyn. Nagada IIIA2? Nagada IIIA–B Nagada IIIA2–IIIC2 ?
Serpentine Limestone Ivory Calcite Stone ? ? (UC.10328) Serpentine Stone Gypsum Green diorite Black limestone Limestone Limestone Stone + ivory Amethyst Malachite Serpentine ? Green stone ? Elephant ivory, eyes filled in with paste Hippopotamus ivory Limestone Green steatite Green stone Green serpetine Ivory (Boston 11.2641)
Habitation site
Period
Material
Hemamiya Hierakonpolis Hierakonpolis
Nagada IIC–IID? Nagada II–IIIA2 Nagada II–IIIA2
White limestone Diorite Serpentine
Temple site
Period
Material
Abydos Abydos Abydos Abydos Hierakonpolis
? ? 1st dynasty ? Main deposit
Green serpentine Green serpentine Stone Graywacke Limestone
Table 2 Bull's head amulets found in Pre- and Early Dynastic contexts in Egypt (after HENDRICKX 2002 and supplemented by Hendrickx, pers. comm., 2004 and 2007)
70
Edwin C.M. van den Brink, Ram Gophna and Asher Ovadiah
Bibliography AMIRAN, R.
DAVIES, D.
1985
1975
Canaanite Merchants in Tombs of the Early Bronze Age I at Azor. cAtiqot 17: 190–192.
BAR-YOSEF MAYER, D.E. 2000
Mollusc Shells, 478–486, in: I. FINKELSTEIN, D. USSISHKIN and B. HALPERN (eds.), Megiddo III – The 1992–1996 Seasons. Monographs Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, 18.
BEN-TOR, A. 1975 1993
DOTHAN, M. 1958
Azor. In Notes and News, IEJ 8: 272–274.
1970
A Burial Cave near Tel Esur, Ezur Menashe 2: 1–15. (Hebrew)
1993a Esur, Tel. NEAHL 2: 426–428. 1993b Azor, NEAEHL 1: 127–129.
Two Burial Caves of the Proto-Urban Period at Azor (1971), Qedem 1:1–53.
DRUKS, A. and TZAFERIS, V.
Azor, NEAEHL 1: 126–127.
1970a Ancient Tombs at Azor, HA 33: 21. (Hebrew)
BECK, P. 1985
1970b Azor, RB 77: 578. An Early Bronze Age “Family” of Bowls from Tel Aphek, Tel Aviv 12: 17–28.
BLOCKMAN, N. and GROMAN-YEROSLAVSKI, I. forthc. The Early Bronze Flint Assemblage. Chapter x in Megiddo IV.
DRUKS, A., BEN-DOV, R. and VAN DEN BRINK E.C.M. in prep. The Azor Burial Caves. Final Report. EZZUGHAYYAR, A. and AL-ZAWAHRA, M. 1996
BRAUN, E. and VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. 2005
2007
Tel Aviv, Ha-Qirya. HA/ESI 117 (December 7, 2005).http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/report_deta il_eng.asp?id=275&mag_id=110&previewit=TrUe (accessed December 19, 2005) Appraising South Levantine-Egyptian Interaction: Recent Discoveries from Israel And Egypt, in: B. MIDANT-REYNES, Y. TRISTANT, J. ROWLAND and S. HENDRICKX (eds.), Egypt at Its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), 5th–8thSeptember 2005, OLA 172, Leuven.
BRINK, E.C.M. VAN DEN 2002
2005
An Egyptian Presence at the End of the Late Early Bronze Age I at Tel Lod, Central Coastal Plain, Israel, 286–305, in: E.C.M. VAN DEN BRINK and T.E. LEVY (eds.), Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the 4th Through Early 3rd Millennium BCE, London. Shacar Efrayim. HA/ESI 117 (April 2005) http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng. asp?id=170&mag_id=110 (accessed December 20, 2005).
BRINK, E.C.M. VAN DEN and BRAUN, E. 2002
Wine Jars with Serekhs from Early Bronze Lod: Appellation Valleé du Nil Controlée, but for whom?, 167–192, in: E.C.M. VAN DEN BRINK and E. YANNAI (eds.), In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Ram Gophna. Tel Aviv.
in press Remnants of a Hypocaust dating from the Late Byzantine–Early Islamic Periods and Sporadic Earlier Remains at Azor, Central Coastal Plain. cAtiqot. BUSHERI, M. A Burial Cave at Azor, HA 30: 16 (Hebrew).
Molluscan Fauna from Tell Tacannek (Northern West Bank – Palestine), Archaeozoologia 8 (1–2): 71–88.
GOLANI, A. and VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. 1999
Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age IA Settlement of Azor, cAtiqot 38: 1–49.
GOPHNA, R. 1974
The Settlement of the Coastal Plain of Eretz-Israel during the Early Bronze Age, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertatio), Tel Aviv University (Hebrew).
1980
Second Preliminary Report: Excavations at cEn Besor, 1976. cAtiqot 14:9–16.
1996
Excavations at Tel Dalit, Tel Aviv.
GOPHNA, R. and BUSHERI, M. 1967
Azor, HA 21: 7–8 (Hebrew).
GOPHNA, R. and FRIEDMAN, E. 1993
The Flint Implements from Tel cEn Besor,Tel Aviv 20:147–162.
GOPHNA, R. and IRON-LUBIN, M. 1996
Chapter 4. The Pottery Assemblages, 81–134, in: R. GOPHNA, Excavations at Tel Dalit, Tel Aviv.
GOPHNA, R. and LIPHSCHITZ, N. 1996
The Ashkelon Trough Settlement at the Onset of the Early Bronze Age (EB Ia, ca. 3500–3350 BCE): New Archaeological Evidence to a Maritime Trade, Tel Aviv 23: 143–153.
HENDRICKX, S. 1996
The Relative Chronology of the Naqada Culture: Problems and Possibilities, 36–69, in: J. SPENCER (ed.), Aspects of Early Egypt, London.
2002
Chapter 16. Bovines in Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic Iconography, 275–318, in: F.A. HASSAN (ed.), Droughts, Food and Culture. Ecological Change and Food Security in Africa’s Later Prehistory, New York.
BRINK, E.C.M. VAN DEN and KAPITAIKIN, L.
1969
Tombs at Holon – Industrial Zone, HA 56: 30 (Hebrew).
Burial Cave 2 in the Azor-Holon Cemetery: An Early Bronze Age I Tomb with Egyptian Finds
HENDRICKX, S. and VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M.
PAZ, Y., ROSENBERG, D. and NATIV, A.
2002
2005
Appendix A, 340–341, in: YANNAI 2002.
HORWITZ, L.K., TCHERNOV, E., MIENIS, H.K., HAKKERORION, D. and BAR-YOSEF MAYER, D. 2002
The Archaeozoology of Three Early Bronze Age Sites in Nahal Besor, North-Western Negev, 107–133, in: E.C.M. VAN DEN BRINK and E. YANNAI (eds.), In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes, Tel Aviv.
2006
A Very General Archaeologist – Moshe Dayan and Israeli Archaeology. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, vol. 4: Article 5 (2003), available on web-page http:// www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_ 27.htm Just Past? The Making of Israeli Archeology, London.
KOCHAVI, M., BECK, P., and YADIN, E.
1958
Azor. Notes and News, IEJ 8:133
1959
Azor. Notes and News, IEJ 9:266–267.
1961
Une tombe à ossuaries du IVe millénaire à Azor près de Tel-Aviv. Rapport préliminaire, cAtiqot 3 (English Series): 1–83.
1993
Azor, NEAEHL 1: 125–126.
PETRIE, W.M.F. 1914
Aphek-Antipatris I. Excavations of Areas A and B, the 1972–1976 Seasons. Tel Aviv.
LEVY, T. E., Alon, D., SMITH, P., YEKUTIELI, Y., ROWAN, Y., GOLDBERG, P., Porat, N, VAN DEN BRINK, E. C. M., WITTEN, A. J., GOLDEN, J., GRIGSON, C, DAWSON, L., HOLL, A., MORENO, J. and KERSEL, M.
1983
1997
1988
Egyptian-Canaanite Interaction at Nahal Tillah, Israel (ca. 4500–3000 B.C.E.): An Interim Report on the 1994–1995 Excavations, BASOR 307: 1–52.
Amulets, London.
RAND, Y. 1999
2000
Excavations at Lod: Neolithic and Chalcolithic Remains and an Egyptian Presence in the Early Bronze Age, Salvage Excavation Reports 2: 114–154
PERROT, J.
KLETTER, R. 2003
Azor, ESI 19: 41*.
REESE, D.S. The Use of Cone Shells in Neolithic and Bronze Age Greece, BSA 78: 353–357.
ROSEN, S.A. A Preliminary Note on the Egyptian Component of the Chipped Stone Assemblage from Tel Erani, IEJ 38: 105–116.
MIENIS, H.K.
SHAPIRA, Y.
in press The Mollusc Remains, in: E.C.M. VAN DEN BRINK, A Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I Burial Ground near Shacar Ephraim in the Sharon Valley, Israel. cAtiqot.
1963
NEGBI, O. 1975
Tombs at Holon – Industrial Zone, HA 56: 29–30 (Hebrew).
1961
L’installation C, 19–21, in: PERROT 1961.
YANNAI, E. 2002
A Man and His Land. Highlights from the Moshe Dayan Collection, Jerusalem.
ORNI, E. and EFRAT, E. 1976
Tombs of the Early Bronze Period at Azor, HA 5: 16 (Hebrew).
USSISHKIN, D.
ORNAN, T. 1986
Geography of Israel, Jerusalem.
Chapter 22. Imported Finds from the cEin Assawir Tombs (Israel) and Their Significance in Understanding the Chronological Synchronization between Israel, Egypt, and Eastern Anatolia, 334–345, in: E.C.M. VAN DEN BRINK and T.E. LEVY (eds.), Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE, London.
OVADIAH, A.
YANNAI, I. and MARDER, O.
1968
2000
Ancient Tombs at Azor, HA 27: 8–9 (Hebrew).
71
Lod, Hadashot Arkheologiyot 112: 63–65
RADIOCARBON DATING AND PHILISTINE CHRONOLOGY with an Addendum on el-Ahwat By Israel Finkelstein and Eliazer Piasetzky
Results of the first phase of the Iron Age radiocarbon dating program, with a large number of new readings, have recently been published (SHARON et al. 2007). Some of the newly published measurements shed light on several debated issues related to the archaeology of southern Israel in the period covering the Iron I and the Iron IIA. In what follows we deal with some of these issues, mainly the date of the monochrome phase of the Philistine settlement and the date of two transitions: first, from the Iron I to the Iron IIA and next, from the Iron IIA to the Iron IIB. In an addendum we comment on the Iron I site of el-Ahwat in northern Israel in relation to the excavator’s proposal to identify its inhabitants with a northern group of Sea Peoples. RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE DATES IN SOUTHERN ISRAEL: POTTERY SERIATION AND 14C DATES Pottery assemblages from clearly defined stratigraphical contexts provide the anchors for relative chronology. The latter can be tied to an absolute ladder by historical data and radiocarbon dating. Only one reasonably reliable historical anchor is available for southern Israel in the Iron I and Iron IIA: the destruction of Tell es-Safi (Gath) by Hazael king of Aram Damascus in the second half of the 9th century BCE (MAEIR 2004). This emphasizes the importance of connecting the relative sequence to a detailed absolute ladder based on 14C readings. The following sequence of Iron I–IIA pottery phases in southern Israel is well-established stratigraphically and typologically; almost each of these phases has now been sampled for radiocarbon dating (SHARON et al. 2007, table 1 in this article): – The monochrome phase in Philistia, representing the initial stage of Philistine settlement in particular and the early Iron I in general. It is best represented at Tel Miqne-Ekron Strata VIIB-VIIA (DOTHAN and ZUKERMAN 2004: 3, 5; GITIN et al. 2006: 29). 14C dates for Stratum VIIB have now been published. – The bichrome phase in Philistia (middle Iron I).14C measurements for Strata VIB–VB at Tel Miqne and Strata 6 and 5 at Beth-shemesh
have just been published (for the sites and their stratigraphy see BUNIMOVITZ and LEDERMAN 2006; DOTHAN and ZUKERMAN 2004: 4-6 and GITIN et al. 2006: 44, 53 respectively). – The late-Philistine phase (late Iron I) represented by Stratum X at Tel Qasile (MAZAR 1985; for the difficulty with the 14C results see below), Stratum IV at Tel Miqne and Stratum 4 at Bethshemesh (DOTHAN et al. 2006: 94; BUNIMOVITZ and LEDERMAN 2006: 418-419 respectively). – The Iron IIA, divided into two phases – early and late (MAZAR and PANITZ-COHEN 2001: 275; HERZOG and SINGER-AVITZ 2004). The early Iron IIA is best represented by Lachish V, Masos II and the Negev Highlands sites. A single date for Lachish V was published a few years ago (CARMI and USSISHKIN 2004). The Late Iron IIA is best represented by Lachish IV and Tell es-Safi IV. 14C dates for this phase are available from the destruction layers of Tell es-Safi IV and Tel Zayit (for the latter see TAPPY et al. 2006: 15); two dates for Lachish IV were published by CARMI and USSISHKIN (2004). – A transitional Iron IIA/B phase, represented by Stratum 3 at Beth-shemesh (BUNIMOVITZ and LEDERMAN 2006: 419–420). Table 1 presents all 14C readings from southern Israel now available for these phases and thus used in this article. Following our method (FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY 2006a) all short-lived samples from safe stratigraphical contexts were included except for outliers which are different by more than 5 s from the average. The uncalibrated dates for each phase shown in Table 1 were checked for consistency by fitting to a constant. The result of the fit was used as the combined uncalibrated date for that phase (Table 2). In cases where cn > 1 for the fit, we increased the error by the square root of the cn . The calibrated dates were obtained using the IntCal04 atmospheric calibration curve (REIMER et al. 2004) by means of the OxCal V 4.0 computer program of BRONK RAMSEY (1995; 2001). In cases where the program yielded close ranges we took the full 1s range for each phase. In some cases historical and
74
Israel Finkelstein and Eliazer Piasetzky
Pottery Phase
Stratum sampled
Monochrome (Early Iron I)
Miqne VIIB
BS** 6
BS 5 Bichrome (Middle Iron I)
BS 5
Miqne VIB Miqne VB
Late Philistine (Late Iron I)
Early Iron IIA
Qasile X
Lachish V
Safi IV
Late Iron IIA
Zayit
Lachish IV
Iron IIA/B
BS 3
Sample no. 4286.3 4286.4 4286.5 3934.3 3934.4 3934.5 3935.3 3935.4 3935.5 3936.3 3936.4 3936.5 4283.3 4283.4 4283.5 4284.3 4284.4 3853.3 3853.4 3953-1 3931.1 3931.3 3931.4 3931.5 3931-1 A25535 A25710 A25768 3932.3 3932.4 3932.5 3932.6 3932a 3932aa 3933a 3933aa 3159 4409.3 4409.4 4409.5 4410.3 4410.4 4410.5 A25536 A25711 A25770 1 2 4275-1.3 4275-1.4 4275-1.5
Lab. And Method*
Type of sample
R AMS
Seeds
R AMS
Olive pits
R AMS
Olive pits
R AMS
Olive pits
R AMS
Olive pits
R AMS
Seeds
R AMS R AMS T AMS RW LSC R AMS R AMS R AMS T AMS Gr AMS Gr AMS Gr AMS R AMS R AMS R AMS R AMS T AMS T AMS T AMS T AMS RW LSC R AMS R AMS R AMS R AMS R AMS R AMS Gr AMS Gr AMS Gr AMS Gr Gr AMS
Lathyrus
Lathyrus
Lathyrus
Seeds Seeds Seeds
Seeds
Seeds Seeds
R AMS
Seeds
4275-2.3
R AMS
Olive pits
2908
RW LSC
1418
H GPC
Olive pits Pomegranate seeds
3937.1 3937.3 3937.4 3937.5 3938.3 3938.4 3938.5
RW LSC R AMS R AMS R AMS R AMS R AMS R AMS
Olive pits
Olive pits
Uncalibrated results 2950±55 2900±40 2870±60 2830±50 2925±50 2810±50 2830±53 2750±55 2770±65 2810±50 2850±55 2855±65 2915±45 2960±45 2880±45 2835±45 2830±45 2680±35 2747±35 2884±45 2853±20 2820±55 2930±56 2936±41 2852±45 2864±40 2818±38 2897±44 2745±50 2765±75 2685±50 2650±40 2780±35 2862±40 2885±40 2878±40 2775±55 2630±45 2693±60 2679±55 2748±60 2671±45 2712±45 2700±42 2733±38 2780±44 2750±20 2730±40 2640±40 2646±45 2745±55 2616±40
Source SHARON et al. 2007
SHARON et al. 2007
SHARON et al. 2007
CARMI and USSISHKIN 2004
SHARON et al. 2007
TAPPY et al. 2006 TAPPY et al. 2006 SHARON et al. 2007 TAPPY et al. 2006 SHARON et al. 2007 TAPPY et al. 2006
2715±40 2650±90 2500±35 2524±36 2427±35 2478±34 2390±65 2425±40 2505±40
CARMI and USSISHKIN 2004
SHARON et al. 2007
* Tu = Tucson; Gr = Groningen; R = Sample prepared in Rehovot and measured in Tucson; RW = Rehovot; H = Helsinki. AMS = Accelerator Mass Spectrometry; LSC = Liquid Scintillation Counting; GPC = Gas Proportional Counting ** BS = Beth-shemesh Table 1 14C readings for the Iron I and Iron IIA from southern Israel
Radiocarbon Dating and Philistine Chronology with an Addendum on el-Ahwat
75
14
Pottery phase
Strata (those providing C results are underlined)
Uncalibrated date
Calibrated date
Monochrom
Miqne VIIB
2907±28
1125–1050
Bichrome
BS 6, 5; Miqne VIB, VB
2853±16
1050–995
Late Philistine
BS 4; Miqne VA, IV; Qasile X
2850±24
995–946*
Early Iron IIA
Lachish V
2775±55
Late Iron IIA
Safi IV; Tel Zayit; Lachish IV
2706±16
Transitional Iron IIA/B
BS 3
2505±30
996-844 894–820 (842–820)* 766–745**
* Constrains were imposed to limit the range yielded by the radiocarbon measurements (see text for details) ** Constrain imposed on the date of destruction of Tell es-Safi - not before the accession of Hazael (see below) Table 2 Relative pottery phases and absolute dates (14C) in southern Israel
archeological constrains were used in order to limit the range of the 14C results; these cases are discussed in detail below. Table 2 specifies the pottery phases and their absolute chronological range according to the 14C results. Two issues should be taken into consideration: A) Qasile X: The results assemble into two clear groups quite apart from each other and therefore posing a problem (SHARON et al. 2005: 84–87). The two lower dates fall in the 9th century BCE and are impossible even according to the low chronology system. Averaging the two sets of high readings one gets an uncalibrated date of 2867±12 – too high compared to the bichrome phase of Beth-shemesh 6–5 and Miqne VIB–VB. Assuming that the samples indeed originated from the well-defined destruction of Stratum X (MAZAR 1980: 33, 46; 1985: 127), we averaged all readings and reached an uncalibrated date of 2850±24. This is an example of cn > 1(cn . 4.8); the great uncertainty reflects the quality of the fit. The calibrated date – 1050–946 BCE – can be limited to 995-946 BCE if one accepts that Qasile X postdates the bichrome phase (needless to say, since we are dealing with a range, a date shortly before 995 cannot be excluded). This is especially true because the samples of Qasile X come from its destruction layer, that is, from the end-days of this layer. B) Beth-shemesh 3 presents a classical case in which the combination of 14C results and historical consideration provides a better result than each of them separately. The broad calibrated range for this stratum can be narrowed by entering the datum of ca. 750 BCE as the latest possible date for this phase (see below).
These results reflect on a few of the problems related to the history and archaeology of southern Israel in the 12th to 8th centuries BCE. II. THE DATE OF THE MONOCHROME PHASE (THE PHILISTINE SETTLEMENT) The date of the Philistine settlement in Canaan has been debated in recent years. Supporters of the conventional chronology accept the Philistine Paradigm (ALBRIGHT 1932: 58; ALT 1944), according to which the Philistines were settled by Ramesses III in Egyptian strongholds in the southern coastal plain of Canaan following his battles against the Sea Peoples in 1175 BCE. Accordingly, they date the earliest Philistine strata, characterized by monochrome pottery (also known as locally made Myc. IIIC: 1b), to ca. 1175–1150/40/30 BCE and the beginning of the second phase of Philistine settlement, characterized by bichrome pottery, to ca. 1150/40/30 BCE (e.g., MAZAR 2007; DOTHAN and ZUKERMAN 2004: 6; SHERRATT 2006 [for the monochrome phase]). Other scholars have noted that monochrome pottery does not appear in the many strata that represent the last phase of Egyptian domination in southwestern Canaan, and that Egyptian pottery of the 20th dynasty (we refer to vessels, to differ from stray sherds) does not appear in the monochrome strata. Accordingly, they date the monochrome phase of the Philistine settlement to ca. 1125–1100 BCE (following the Egyptian withdrawal: USSISHKIN 1985: 223; 2007; FINKELSTEIN 1995; NAÝAMAN 2000 [for the monochrome phase]) and the bichrome phase from ca. 1100 BCE (FINKELSTEIN 1995). The latter scholars do not accept the explanation of the traditionalists – that the utter separation between the two cultures represents decades of coexistence of contained communities at sites located only a few kms distance from each other (e.g., Lachish VI and Miqne VIIB),
76
Israel Finkelstein and Eliazer Piasetzky
Laborat. and method*
Site
R AMS R AMS
Tu AMS Megiddo K-6
R AMS
Tu AMS
R AMS
Sample no. 4501.3** 4501.4 4501.5 4499.3 4499.4 4499.5 4499a 4499aa 4500.3 4500.4 4500.5 4500a 4500aa 5080 5081 5082 5083
Type of sample
Dates
Olive pits
Olive pits
Olive pits
Olive pits
5084 Lachish VI
RW LSC RW LSC H GPC
2912 2755 1417
2790±40 2764±50 2767±40 2880±40 2865±45 2925±40 2907±40 2876±40 2940±40 2906±37 2909±37 3018±60 2947±40 2965±30 2955±35 2975±55 3030±150
Average
Sharon et al. 2007
2928±11
Boaretto unpublished (preliminary results)
2980±60 Olive pits Olive pits Seeds
2915±25 2955±25 2810±100
Source
2931±21
CARMI and USSISHKIN 2004
* For legend see Table 1 ** Though consistent with each other, the three measurements of Sample 4501 yielded an average uncalibrated date which is ca. 150 years (six standard deviations) younger than the average of the other samples from this stratum. We therefore removed this sample from our analysis Table 3
14C
results from Megiddo Level K-6 (=Stratum VIIA of the University of Chicago excavations) and Lachish VI
without exchange of pottery (e.g., FINKELSTEIN 2002a contra DOTHAN 1992: 97; BUNIMOVITZ and FAUST 2001). With no new material from the field, the debate has reached a stalemate. The Miqne VIIB 14C dates (Table 1) may shed new light on this debate when supplemented by new readings from Megiddo and Lachish. We refer to samples from Level K-6 at Megiddo, which equals the University of Chicago’s Stratum VIIA (BOARETTO unpublished – Table 3).1 This stratum represents the last phase of the EgyptoCanaanite system (Late Bronze III according to USSISHKIN 1985; 1995; Iron IA according to MAZAR, e.g., 2005: 24). Level VI at Lachish represents the same horizon. Its three 14C determinations are consistent with those from Megiddo K-6. The calibrated dates for Megiddo K-6 and Lachish VI are 1193–1113 and 1208–1112 BCE
1
2
We wish to thank Ilan Sharon, Ayelet Gilboa and Elisabetta Boaretto for providing us with these preliminary results; the measurements are part of a research project supported by the Israel Science Foundation and the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities (grant No. 141/04). For Megiddo K-6, 42.8% + 20% probability together,
respectively.2 The uncalibrated date for the two sites combined is 2929±9, which provides a calibrated date of 1194–1114 BCE. Looking at the uncalibrated dates, contemporaneity between Megiddo K-6 and Lachish VI on one hand and Miqne VIIB on the other hand cannot be excluded. This is due to the large uncertainty in the measurements compared to the small time difference between the strata (only 22 years difference between the two readings – smaller than 1 s). Yet, the radiocarbon data point to the sequential solution as the most probable one (Fig. 1). According to this scenario the two groups represent sequential horizons: Stratum VIIB at Miqne is later than Level K-6 (Stratum VIIA) at Megiddo, and Level VI at Lachish. In other words, according to this solution Miqne VIIB postdates the collapse of Egyptian rule in
excluding the 5.3% probability which falls in the 11th century BCE – too low according to what we know about this city from Egyptian finds and historical sources (e.g., SINGER 1988–89; USSISHKIN 1995). For Lachish VI, 57.85% probability, excluding the 7.7% and 2.7% probabilities for the same reason (USSISHKIN 2004: 69–70).
Radiocarbon Dating and Philistine Chronology with an Addendum on el-Ahwat
77
Fig 1 The uncalibrated and calibrated dates of Megiddo K-6 and Lachish VI, Miqne VIIB and the bichrome strata superimposed on the calibration curve. Egyptian finds and historical sources make it clear that Megiddo K-6 and Lachish VI (Late Bronze III) cannot be dated much later than 1130 BCE (SINGER 1988–89; USSISHKIN 1995 for Megiddo; USSISHKIN 2004: 69–70 for Lachish). We entered the 1130 limit into the figure as a vertical red line; it eliminates the possibility of some of the later Megiddo K-6 and Lachish VI solutions (red crosses)
Canaan (USSISHKIN 1985: 223; 2007; FINKELSTEIN 1995). THE BICHROME PHASE AND THE IRON I/IIA TRANSITION Beth-shemesh 6 and 5 and Tel Miqne VIB and VB – the only bichrome strata which provided radiocarbon results thus far – make one group with results in the same range which postdates the Tel Miqne VIIB horizon. This phase, which should be classified as ‘middle Iron I’ (contemporary to Shiloh V in the highlands – FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY 2006b), falls in the second half of the 11th century BCE. The radiocarbon dates for these strata have implications for the debate on the date of transition from the Iron I to the Iron IIA. Mazar’s Modified Conventional Chronology (2005) would place it at ca. 980 BCE, while supporters of the Low Chronology would put it in the late-10th century BCE (e.g., FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY 2003; FINKELSTEIN 2005; SHARON et al. 2007).
3
In order to absorb the meaning of these results, one needs first to look at the stratigraphy and chronology of Beth-shemesh and Tel Miqne – the two sites that provided the dates (Tables 4–5): Beth-shemesh 4 and Tel Miqne VA and IV are late Iron I strata. They postdate the bichrome layers at these sites, which are radiocarbon dated to ca. 1050–995. They should therefore be placed in the 10th century BCE (dark-gray cells in Tables 4-5). This would render the dating of the Iron I/IIA transition to ca. 980 BCE unlikely (only 70–15 years left for the late Iron I strata – Fig. 2). Another clue comes from Beth-shemesh 3, which was probably destroyed during the 766–745 range (see below). Even if this stratum, with some monumental construction (BUNIMOVITZ and LEDERMAN 2006: 415–418) was long-lived, placing the Iron I/IIA transition at ca. 980 BCE would make it a more than 200 year-long stratum, which is also unlikely (Fig. 2).3
The single date from early Iron IIA Lachish V is of no help due to its large uncertainty.
78
Israel Finkelstein and Eliazer Piasetzky
Str. 6 5 4 3
Period
14
Middle Iron I, bichrome
C Date
Comments
1050–995
Late Iron I Iron IIA, destroyed during Iron IIA/B transition
766–745
BUNIMOVITZ and LEDERMAN 2006: 411, 418–419 th Destruction in the “first half of the 8 century” BUNIMOVITZ and LEDERMAN 2006: 419
Table 4 Beth-shemesh stratigraphy
Str.
Period
VIIB
Early Iron I, monochrome appears Early Iron I, monochrome, still preBichrome Middle Iron I, bichrome
VIIA VIB–VB VA IV
14
C Date
Comments
1125–1050 Also down to 1050?
DOTHAN and ZUKERMAN 2004: 3
1050–995 e.g., DOTHAN 2003: 194–195; DOTHAN et al. 2006: 94
Late Iron I Table 5 Tel Miqne stratigraphy
IR I (Bichrome) (Bichrome) Modified Conventional Chronology
Only space left for Late Philistine phase according to the Modified Conventional Chronology
Low Chronology Period of time for BS 3 according to the Modified Conventional Chronology
BS 3 destruction
Fig 2 Unlikely consequences of the Modified Conventional Chronology hypothesis. The proposed dates for the Iron I/IIA transition according to the Modified Conventional Chronology and the Low Chronology are shown as dashed lines. Dates of strata are shown as gray areas
THE IRON IIA/B
TRANSITION IN THE
SOUTH
There can be no doubt that the assemblage of Tell es-Safi IV (e.g., SHAI and MAEIR 2003) belongs to the late Iron IIA horizon. It is radiocarbon dated to 2707±27, which translates to a calibrated range of 895–820 BCE. Historically, it seems safe to assume that Gath (identified with Tell es-Safi) was assaulted and destroyed by Hazael king of Damascus sometime in the second half of the 9th century BCE (MAEIR 2004), after 842 BCE. Therefore, the combination of the 14C results and the historical argument defines the
destruction of Tell es-Safi IV to the 842–820 BCE range. From the perspectives of both pottery typology and radiocarbon results the destruction of Bethshemesh 3 is later than that of Tell es-Safi IV. Typologically, this stratum already carries Iron IIA/B transition forms (for the pottery see BUNIMOVITZ and LEDERMAN 2006: 419–420). The 14C results from this stratum – 2505±30 – is significantly lower than that of Tell es-Safi IV. Due to the nature of the calibration curve, Beth-shemesh 3 provides a very broad absolute date of 766–551 BCE (Fig. 3). But this can be narrowed to 766–745 if one introduces an historical consideration (Fig. 3). The Lachish III assemblage in Judah, which is typical of the Iron IIB, originates from destruction layers that represent Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah in 701 BCE. But the appearance of this assemblage must be dated earlier, probably no later than ca. mid-8th century BCE (see vertical red line in Fig. 3). This eliminates the calibrated possibilities of 688–664 and 647–551 BCE (red crosses in Fig. 3). The date of the Iron IIA/B transition in the south has been fixed between ca. 800 and 760 BCE (see recent summaries in HERZOG and SINGER-AVITZ 2004: 230; FANTALKIN and FINKELSTEIN 2006: 22–24). The 14C results support the archaeological observations by showing that the assemblage from a destruction that occurred in the 766–745 range is already characterized by transition forms.
Radiocarbon Dating and Philistine Chronology with an Addendum on el-Ahwat
79
Fig 3 Calibration dates for Beth-shemesh 3. The vertical red line marks the year 750 BCE – the approximate beginning of the Lachish III assemblage (Iron IIB) – limiting Beth-shemesh 3 to the early option in the curve (766–745 BCE)
ADDENDUM: EL-AHWAT We wish to comment here on the date of the Iron I site of el-Ahwat, located on a ridge overlooking Wadi Ara in northern Israel, in the context of Zertal’s proposal (e.g., ZERTAL 2001) to identify it as a site founded by a northern group of Sea Peoples. One of us has already rejected this interpretation on purely material culture grounds (FINKELSTEIN 2002b). The 14C date provided for el-Ahwat by a relatively large number of consistent readings (SHARON et al. 2007) adds another argument against Zertal’s theory. ZERTAL (2001: 215) dated the foundation of the site to ca. 1230 BCE according to the “XIXth dynasty” glyptic material (ZERTAL 1999: 34), and its latest phase of occupation before abandonment some 50-60 years later, according to his reading of the Iron I pottery found at the site. Only two of the scarabs have been published to date. Brandl dated them to the 19th dynasty, in the 13th century BCE, “since this is the period of time when the frequency of scarabs bearing the name of Amon-Re is the greatest” (BRANDL 1996: 75). Yet, according to another view, their date cannot be fixed more accurately than to the period of the late 19th and 20th Dynasties, ca. 1230–1075 BCE (KEEL 1997: 526). Elsewhere, BRANDL (1997) reported briefly on the entire collection of glyptic material from el-Ahwat, which includes “Hyksos”, 19th Dynasty and 20th Dynasty scarabs. Thus, from the chronological point of view the glyptic assemblage ostensibly points to a foundation date in the early 12th century. Yet,
even this is not mandatory, as the scarabs could have been brought to the site as amulets at a somewhat later date. Most of the el-Ahwat pottery has not yet been published. Elsewhere, one of us noted (FINKELSTEIN 2002b) that from the few vessels which have thus far been presented (ZERTAL and MIRKAM 2000: 137), from ZERTAL’s description (mainly 1996: 44–45) and from what he presented during a visit to the site, they seem to be similar to the Iron I pottery found in scores of hill country sites. Late Bronze vessels of the 13th century and cooking pots in the Late Bronze tradition are absent (ZERTAL 2001: 219–220). The assemblage is dominated by collared rim jars, erect or slanted cooking pots with elongated rim, crude round bowls, Iron I jugs, etc. FINKELSTEIN (2002b: 194) suggested that the pot-
Fig 4
14C
results for el-Ahwat
80
Israel Finkelstein and Eliazer Piasetzky
Laboratory and method*
R AMS
Sample no. 4270.3 4270.4 4270.5 4271.3 4271.4 4271.5 4272.3 4272.4 4272.5 4273.3 4273.4 4273.5
Type of sample
Dates
Average
Date BCE
Olive pits
2828±40 2807±40 2809±40 2858±40 2854±40 2868±40 2822±40 2838±40 2935±40 2847±40 2819±40 2780±40
2840±12
1016–942 (68%) 1016–975 (56%)
* R = Sample prepared in Rehovot and measured in Tucson Table 6
14C
results from el-Ahwat
tery of el-Ahwat postdates Megiddo VIIA and that the few published vessels should be dated to the time-frame of Stratum VI at Megiddo. Recently published 14C dates from el-Ahwat (SHARON et al. 2007) seem to resolve this issue (Table 6, Fig. 4). The dates for el-Ahwat are somewhat later than those obtained for Shiloh V (2888±12: FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY 2006b). Megiddo K-5 (=Stratum VIB of the University of Chicago excavation) has recently provided an uncalibrated date of 2885±40 (BOARETTO unpublished, see
n. 1), while a large set of readings from Megiddo K-4 (=Stratum VIA of the University of Chicago dig) gave an average uncalibrated date of 2848±20 (FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY 2006b). ElAhwat falls close to Megiddo VIA, in the later phase of the Iron I. Even if the el-Ahwat samples represent the end-days of the site, it is clear that it was founded much later than proposed by the excavator. From this point of view as well, elAhwat is unrelated to the settlement of the Sea Peoples on the coast of the Levant in the 12th century BCE.
Bibliography ALBRIGHT, W.F. 1932
The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, I: The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns, AASOR 12, New Haven.
BRONK RAMSEY, C.
ALT, A. 1944
Mediterranean in the End of the Late Bronze and the Beginning of the Iron Age – New Evidence. Abstracts of lectures in a colloquium held at the University of Haifa, December 1997.
Ägyptische Tempel in Palästina und die Landnahme der Philister, ZDPV 67, 1–20.
1995
Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program, Radiocarbon 37, 425–430.
2001
Development of the Radiocarbon Program OxCal, Radiocarbon 43, 355–363.
BOARETTO, E. n.p.
Unpublished Preliminary Report on 14C Measurements from Megiddo, 2004 Season.
BRANDL, B. 1996
1997
Two Scarabs from Area C at el-Ahwat: A Preliminary Report, 75–78, in: A. ZERTAL (ed.), El-Ahwat: A Fortified Sea People Site near Nahal ‘Iron, A Preliminary Report of the Three First Seasons 1993–1995, Haifa (Hebrew). The Glyptic Finds from el-Ahwat, in: West and East: Connections between the Western and the Eastern
BUNIMOVITZ, S. and FAUST, A. 2001
Chronological Separation, Geographical Segregation, or Ethnic Demarcation? Ethnography and the Iron Age Low Chronology, BASOR 322, 1–10.
BUNIMOVITZ, S. and LEDERMAN, Z. 2006
The Early Israelite Monarchy in the Sorek Valley: Tel Beth-Shemesh and Tel Batash (Timnah) in the 10th and 9th Centuries BCE, 407–427, in: A.M.
Radiocarbon Dating and Philistine Chronology with an Addendum on el-Ahwat
MAEIR and P. DE MIROSCHEDJI (eds.), I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar, Winona Lake.
tecture, 27–67, in: M.W. MEEHL, T. DOTHAN and S. GITIN, Tel Miqne-Ekron Excavations 1995–1996: Field INE East Slope Iron Age I (Early Philistine Period), Jerusalem.
CARMI. I. and USSISHKIN, D. 2004
14C
Dates, 2508–2513, in: D. USSISHKIN (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), vol V, Tel Aviv.
HERZOG, Z. and SINGER-AVITZ, L. 2004
Redefining the Centre: The Emergence of State in Judah, Tel Aviv 31, 209–244.
DOTHAN, T.
KEEL, O.
1992
1997
2003
Social Dislocation and Cultural Change in the 12th Century B.C.E., 93–98, in: W.A. WARD and M. SHARP JOUKOWSKY (eds.), The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, Dubuque (Iowa). The Aegean and the Orient: Cultic Interactions, in: W.G. DEVER and S. GITIN (eds.), Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palestine, Winona Lake, 189–213. The Pottery: Canaanite and Philistine Traditions and Cypriote and Aegean Imports, 71–101, in: M.W. MEEHL, T. DOTHAN and S. GITIN, Tel MiqneEkron Excavations 1995–1996: Field INE East Slope Iron Age I (Early Philistine Period), Jerusalem.
2004
1980
Excavations at Tell Qasile Part One, The Philistine Sanctuary: Architecture and Cult Objects, Qedem 12, Jerusalem.
1985
Excavations at Tell Qasile Part Two, The Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds, The Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes, Qedem 20, Jerusalem.
2005
The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant: Its History, the Current Situation, and a Suggested Resolution, 15–30, in: T.E. LEVY and T. HIGHAM (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, London.
2007
Myc IIIC in the Land Israel: Its Distribution, Date and Significance, 571–582, M. BIETAK and E. CZERNY (eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May–1st of June 2003, Vienna.
A Preliminary Study of the Mycenaean IIIC:1 Pottery Assemblages from Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashdod, BASOR 333, 1–54.
FANTALKIN, A. and FINKELSTEIN, I. 2006
8th
Century The Sheshonq I Campaign and the BCE Earthquake: More on the Archaeology and History of the South in the Iron I–IIA, Tel Aviv 33, 18–42.
FINKELSTEIN, I. 1995
The Date of the Philistine Settlement in Canaan, Tel Aviv 22, 213–239.
2002a Chronology Rejoinder, PEQ 134, 128–139. 2002b El-Ahwat: A Fortified Sea People City? IEJ 52, 187–199. 2005
A Low Chronology Update: Archaeology, History and Bible, 31–42, in: T.E. LEVY and T. HIGHAM (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, London.
FINKELSTEIN, I. and PIASETZKY, E. 2003
Recent Radiocarbon Results and King Solomon, Antiquity 77, 771–779.
2006a
14C
and the Iron Age Chronology Debate: Rehov, Khirbet en-Nahas, Dan and Megiddo, Radiocarbon 48, 373–386.
2006b The Iron I–IIA in the Highlands and beyond: 14C Anchors, Pottery Phases and the Shoshenq I Campaign, Levant, 38, 45–61. GITIN, S., MEEHL, M. and DOTHAN, T. 2006
Occupational History – Stratigraphy and Archi-
The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2: An Archaeological Perspective from Tell esSafi/Gath, Vetus Testamentum 54, 319–334.
MAZAR, A.
DOTHAN, T. and ZUKERMAN, A. 2004
Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palastina/Israel. Von den Anfangen bis zur Perserzeit. Catalogue Volume I, OBO, Series Archaeologica 13, Fribourg.
MAEIR, A.M.
DOTHAN, T., GITIN, S. and ZUKERMAN, A. 2006
81
MAZAR, A. and PANITZ-COHEN, N. 2001
Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE, Text, Qedem 42, Jerusalem.
NAÝAMAN, N. 2000
The Contribution of the Trojan Grey Ware from Lachish and Tel Miqne-Ekron to the Chronology of the Philistine Monochrome Pottery, BASOR 317, 1–8.
REIMER, P.J. et al. 2004
INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 26-0 ka BP, Radiocarbon 46, 1029–1058.
SHAI, I. and MAEIR, A.M. 2003
Pre-lmlk Jars: A New Class of Iron Age IIA Storage Jars, Tel Aviv 30, 108–123.
SHARON, I., GILBOA, A., BOARETTO, E. and JULL, T.A.J. 2005
The Early Iron Age Dating Project: Introduction, Methodology, Progress Report and an Update on the Tel Dor Radiometric Dates, 65–92, in: T.E. LEVY and T. HIGHAM (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, London.
82
Israel Finkelstein and Eliazer Piasetzky
SHARON, I., GILBOA, A., JULL, T.A.J. and BOARETTO, E. 2007
SHERRATT, S. 2006
2004
A Synopsis of the Stratigraphical, Chronological and Historical Issues, 50–190, in: USSISHKIN (ed.) D. USSISHKIN (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), vol. I, Tel Aviv.
2007
Lachish and the Date of the Philistine Settlement in Canaan, 601–608, in: M. BIETAK and E. CZERNY (eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May–1st of June 2003, Vienna.
Report on the First Stage of the Iron Age Dating Project in Israel: Supporting A Low Chronology, Radiocarbon 49, 1–46. The Chronology of the Philistine Monochrome Pottery: An Outsider’s View, 361–374, in: A.M. MAEIR and P. DE MIROSCHEDJI (eds.), I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar, Winona Lake.
SINGER, I.
ZERTAL, A.
1988–89 The Political Status of Megiddo VIIA, Tel Aviv 15–16, 101–112
1996
El-Ahwat: A Fortified Sea People Site near Nahal ‘Iron, A Preliminary Report of the Three First Seasons 1993–1995, Haifa (Hebrew).
1999
El-Ahwat – 1993–1996, Hadashot Arkheologiyot Excavations and Surveys in Israel 110, 32*–34*.
2001
The ‘Corridor-builders’ of Central Israel: Evidence for the Settlement of the ‘Northern Sea Peoples’?, 215–232, in: V. KARAGEORGHIS and C.E. MORRIS (eds.), Defensive Settlements of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean after c. 1200 B.C., Nicosia.
TAPPY, R.E., MCCARTER, P.K. LUNDBERG, M.J and ZUCKERMAN, B. 2006
An Abecedary of the Mid-Tenth Century B.C.E. from the Judaean Shephelah, BASOR 344, 5–46.
USSISHKIN, D. 1985
Levels VII and VI at Tel Lachish and the End of the Late Bronze Age in Canaan, 213–228, in: J.N. TUBB (ed.), Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell, London.
1995
The Destruction of Megiddo at the End of the Late Bronze Age and Its Historical Significance, Tel Aviv 22, 240–267.
ZERTAL, A. and MIRKAM, N. 2000
The Manasseh Hill Country Survey: From Nahal ‘Iron to Nahal Shechem, Tel Aviv (Hebrew).
THE COLONIZATION/URBANIZATION OF THE TELL AREA A/II AT TELL EL-DABcA AND ITS CHRONOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS By Irene Forstner-Müller
INTRODUCTION
EGYPTIAN SHAPES
The area A/II is particularly important at a time when the sacred precinct with its temples of Egyptian and Near Eastern types covered that part of the town.1 In an earlier period (late 12th dynasty, MBIIA) (Fig. 1) the site was used as a settlement area. During spring 1997 a new investigation was initiated in which the lowest levels could be reached.2
Nile clay3
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT The layers presented here are the first traces of settlement on the Tell Area A/II, however, other parts of Tell el-Dabca like F/I and A/IV had already been occupied by settlers before (Fig. 2). This stratum, relativ k (major stratum H) (Fig. 1), was reached only in square p/14. Two systems of pits and postholes which partly cut into those pits were found immediately on top of the gezira (Fig. 3). The large pits vary in their diameter from around 1 m to 2,4 m and had been filled with mud and sand. The postholes vary from 19 to 26 cm in their diameter. In the middle of this posthole system a pit with a square column base of limestone set into it was found (base 22 cm, diameter of column 14 cm). The column itself was probably made of wood. One could imagine some kind of workmen shelters for the settlers, the larger pits perhaps used for brick production. The only finds were pottery, already in this early phase Egyptian types appear together with those of the MBIIA-culture.
1 2 3
4
5 6 7
BIETAK 1986, 1991a, FORSTNER-MÜLLER in print. FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2001. Based on the adapted Vienna system, published by BIETAK 1991a. DO. ARNOLD 1988, 140; 1982a, 51 fig. 14; BIETAK 1991b, fig. 14. For the parallels in detail s. ASTON 2004. EMERY, SMITH, MILLARD 1979, 166, pl. 64 nos. 68–69. TYSON SMITH 1995, 59, fig. 3.5A; 60, fig. 3.6A; 61, fig. 3.8A; 62, fig. 3.9A.
Nile B1 and 2 Hemispherical cups (Fig. 4) These round-bottomed cups, (“U-Näpfe”) are characteristic of the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period. A distinctive change in vessel-index and dimensions can be attested,4 with a development from shallow, unrestricted bowls to deep, slightly restricted forms and a change in fabric: a shift from Nile B1 to Nile B2. In this stratum there are about 75% Nile B1 and 25% Nile B2, the shape is still an open form, the rim diameter 10–13 cm. Parallels are known all over Egypt5 and in Nubia from Buhen,6 Askut7 and other sites in Nubia.8 Nile C2 1. Large Nile C2 Dishes With Direct Rims and Rounded Bases (Fig. 5) Large dishes with direct rims and rounded bases, made of fabric C2, are very common in this period. They are mostly uncoated or decorated with a red rim band. Usually they are carelessly made and often held together with string whilst drying to prevent them from collapsing outwards. The inner surface, however, and the upper part of the outer surface are generally wet-smoothed. Rim diameters are around 50 cm. Such dishes are extremely common in Middle Kingdom Egypt with other examples known from Dahshur,9 Riqqeh10 Harageh,11 Hawara,12 Lisht,13
8 9 10 11 12 13
HOLTHOER 1977, 121; TYSON SMITH 1995, 66–69. DO. ARNOLD 1982a, 33, fig. 9.1; ALLEN 1998, 45, fig. 3.4. ENGELBACH 1915, pl. xxviii type 2. ENGELBACH 1923, pl. xxxiv type 2 PETRIE, WAINWRIGHT, E. MACKAY 1912, pl. xxxiii .2, 4. MACE, WINLOCK 1916, fig. 82.1; DO. ARNOLD 1988, 122; DO. ARNOLD, F. ARNOLD, S. ALLEN, 1995, 21, fig. 4, 11.
Fig. 1 Overall map of Tell el-Dabca
84 Irene Forstner-Müller
The Colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its Chronological Implications
85
TELL EL-DABcA MBPHASES
B.C.
EGYPT TOWN CENTER NEW CENTER RELATIVE (Middle Kingdom) CHRONOLOGY cEzbet Rushdi MB-Population F/I
R/I 1410 LB I
XVIII
H
IV
AHMOSE
XV
HYKSOS
KINGDOM OF AVARIS
MB II A–B
NEHESI
DENUDED a STORAGE PITS
1710 XIII
D/3
E/1
e/1-3
E/1
E/2
f/1-2
E/2
b/2
E/3
g/1-2
E/3
b/3
F
c
G
G/1–3
HIATUS
j G/4 H
G/4 k
H
d/2b
b/2
I
SIII
K
AII
e/1–4
SII
HIATUS
d
L UNOCCUPIED M
f
1920
SI
1950 1980 2000
F
h/1-5
EPIDEMIC
c/1–2 5th year SIII
AIII
1890
V
b/1
b/1
XII
MB I
d/3
d/2
AIV
1860
D/2
D/3
d/2a
So
1830
e/2
d/1-2
d/1
1770 1800
D/1
a/2 DENUDED a PITS
1680
e/1 D/2
DENUDED
1650
?
C
d
AI
MB II B
MB II A
c
H I A T U S
1620
1740
GENERAL STRATIGRAPHY
H/I-IV
A/II 1997
TI
1560 1590
CITADEL Ezbet Helmi
TII
1500
MB II C
c
AII
TII
1530
A/II
Dyn.
1440 1470
EASTERN TOWN
HIATUS AI
?
e/1
N
e/2–3
N/2–3
XI EXPANSION OF THE SETTLEMENT ?
2050 X
HERACLEOPOLITAN FOUNDATION
after Bietak/adapted by Czerny/Forstner-Müller/Wilson (2007)
Fig. 2
Footed bowls made of Nile C2 have a flat hand-
made foot, the upper part was wheel made with undercut modelled rims. These vessels are well known in Late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period contexts at Lahun,19 Lisht,20 Harageh21 and Riqqeh.22
14
18
Lahun,14 Abydos,15 Armant,16 Thebes17 and Elephantine.18 2. Nile C2 Footed Bowls (Fig. 6)
15 16 17
BRUNTON 1920, pl. xix.37, 45; W.M.F. PETRIE, G. BRUNTON, M.A. MURRAY 1923, pl. lvi. type 2. PETRIE 1903, pl. xlvi .193. MOND, MYERS 1937, pl. xxxi.3A, 3C. DO. ARNOLD 1966, 88, K871; LOYRETTE, NASR, BASSIOUNI 1993–94, 122, fig. 4j.
19 20 21 22
PILGRIM 1996, 348–9, fig. 155e. PETRIE 1890, pl. xii.12. DO. ARNOLD, 1988, 115, fig. 61. ENGELBACH 1923, pl. xl.90G, 90M. ENGELBACH, 1915, pl. xxxiii.90G, 90J, 90M.
86
Irene Forstner-Müller
In square p/14 we have only two examples – both represent an earlier group (Kopetzky type 2) which is typical for the late Middle kingdom – red slipped, with a funnel shaped neck. The rim is 14 cm in diameter. Parallels are known from Dahshur,26 Riqqeh,27 Harageh,28 Hawara,29 30 Lahun, Abydos,31 Armant32 and Thebes.33 The typical “beer jar” of the late Thirteenth Dynasty with a tall cylindrical neck and “kettleshaped” mouth was not found in this stratum. Marl C-vessels 1. Large Storage Jars (Zîrs) (Fig. 8)
Fig. 3 Map of square A/II-p/14, situation in stratum k
3. Large Ovoid Jars (Beer Jars) (Fig. 7) Large globular jars made out of fabric Nile C2 are very popular during the Late Middle Kingdom and early Second Intermediate Period. These vessels are common amongst the Tell elDabca repertoire. A typology for this site was first established by Manfred Bietak,23 and enlarged by Karin Kopetzky24 and Zbigniew Szafranski.25 From their work, a sequence of development can be observed.
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
32 33
34
BIETAK 1991b, 36 fig. 7. KOPETZKY 1993. SZAFRANSKI 1998, 95–119. DO. ARNOLD 1982a, 29 fig. 5. ENGELBACH 1915, pl. xxx types 40, 41. ENGELBACH 1923 pls.xxxvi–xxxviii types 40–41. PETRIE, WAINWRIGHT, MACKAY 1912, pl. xxxv. 100–104. PETRIE, BRUNTON, MURRAY 1923, pl. lvi.40K. PEET, LOAT 1913, pl. v. 28; WEGNER 1996, 259, fig. 6; idem 2001, 300, fig. 10. MOND, MYERS 1937, pl. xxxiii type 52. PETRIE 1909, pl. xiii.23–28; DO. ARNOLD 1968, 88 type K2174, eadem 1972, 40, fig. 4; SEILER 2005, 61, fig. 25, type DAN 1. BADER 2001, 161–163, fig. 45.
Zîrs are generally made out of Marl clays and typically hand made with the rim fashioned on a slow wheel. Many vessels have potmarks on their rim or body (Fig. 9). This type (Kopetzky’s type 3, equal to Bader type 334) occurs from stratum H until G, the rounded rim is never trimmed, its diameter is variable. Parallels are known from Dahshur: complex 35 6, Lisht,36 settlement of Lisht/North,37 Kom Rabia,38 Kahun,39 Qasr el-Sagha,40 and Mirgissa.41 2. Marl C Medium Sized Jars (Fig. 10) These jars can be divided into handmade and wheelmade vessels. The two examples presented here are all wheelmade (Bader type 36b42), the range of diameter lies normally between 6 and 12 cm, one vessel here measures 14,5 cm. Parallels can be found at Lisht North,43 Lahun,44 Qasr es Sagha,45 Quila el-Dabba,46 Serabit el-Khadim47 and Elephantine.48
35
36 37 38 39
40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
MORGAN 1895, 41 fig. 83; DO. ARNOLD 1982a, fig. 8.3, 8.5. DO. ARNOLD 1988, 134, fig. 74.84.51, 84.60. BADER 2001, 161, fn. 801. BADER 2001, 161. PETRIE 1890, pl. XIV.16, 17; BOURRIAU, QUIRKE 1998, 62–64, fig. 1.1–3. BADER 2001, 161, fn. 803. VILA 1963, fig. 13.14. BADER 2001, 118ff. BADER 2001, 161, fn. 801. BOURRIAU 1981, 66, no. 119. D. and DO. ARNOLD 1979, 34, fig. 19.7. DO. ARNOLD 1982b, 45, 55, pl. 11.n, 62G. BOURRIAU 1996, fig. 4.10. PILGRIM 1996, 338, fig. 150.f; BADER 2003, fn. 136. DE
The Colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its Chronological Implications
Fig. 4 Hemispherical cups
87
88
Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 5 Large Nile C2 dishes with direct rims and rounded bases
Fig. 6 Nile C2 footed bowls
The Colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its Chronological Implications
Fig. 7 Beer jars
3. Marl C Slender Jars with Ribbed Necks (Fig. 11) Within the marl slender jars (Bader Typ 46)49 two groups can be distinguished:50 the earlier group (Kopetzky type 1) occurs in the late 12th Dynasty (strata H to G/4), the distance between the rim and the first rill is much shorter then with the later versions. By the 13th Dynasty (G/4 to E/3) they have become larger and cruder (type 2), the lip on these vessels longer. The earliest jars tend to be made of Marl C compact which is is not the case in the examples presented here. Parallels have been found in Northern Sinai,51 Memphis,52 Dahshur,53 Lisht,54 Hawara,55 Kahun,56 Lahun,57 Harageh,58 Qasr el-Sagha59 and Serabit el-Khadim.60 EGYPTIAN OR MBII-SHAPES Nile E-2 Holemouth Cooking Pots (Fig. 12) Holemouth cooking pots with round bases, and rolled or folded rims, appear for the first time in the earlier 12th dynasty (stratum e/3) settlement contexts at cEzbet Rushdi in stratum e/3, then made of local Nile clay.61 Few imports made from Levantine fabric are known at Tell el-Dabca,62 most examples are locally made from Nile clay E2, only in stratum F mica is added sometimes, whether for the firing or to imitate an import remains unclear.
49 50 51 52 53
54 55 56 57 58
BADER 2001, 129–145, typ 46. BIETAK 1991b, 37, fig. 8. OREN 1997, 276, fig. 8.23 no. 16. BADER 2001, 129. DE MORGAN 1895, 74, fig. 164; DO. ARNOLD 1982a, 32 fig. 8 nos. 10, 12. DO. ARNOLD, F. ARNOLD, S. ALLEN 1995, 23 fig. 5.8. PETRIE, MACKAY, WAINWRIGHT 1912, pl. xxxv.105. PETRIE 1890, pl. xii.11 PETRIE, BRUNTON, MURRAY 1923, pl. lvii.46M2–3. ENGELBACH 1923, pl. xxxviii.46M.
89
The rim diameter of these holemouth cooking pots varies from around 12–14 cm to over 50 cm, the average range between 25–35 cm. All the examples shown here are covered in a white slip. Parallels are found both in the Levant during the Middle Bronze Age and within Egypt.63 It is a matter of debate, however, as to whether this type of vessel was developed within Egypt, or whether it copies Middle Bronze shapes. David Aston has recently suggested an independent development within both the Egyptian and Canaanite worlds.64 Another possibility would suggest that the shape had entered the Egyptian repertoire very early (before the settlement at Rushdi) and by then was already imitated in Egyptian clay. The earliest examples from the site of Ezbet Rushdi seem to hint at an Egyptian origin. MB II-SHAPES 1. Large Storage Jars (Amphoren) (Fig. 13) The large storage jars imported from the Levant are found in large number at Tell el-Dabca. Most of them are attached with strap handles on both sides. In earlier periods, these jars are made from a bigger variation of fabrics than in the Second Intermediate Period.65 Among the examples presented in this paper two are made of fabric IV.1 (Fig. 11.1. und 2) and two of fabric IV.2 (Fig. 11.3 and 4). All are wheelmade and the exterior surface was smoothed. Three rims are everted and folded over (Fig. 11.2–4), one rim is propably incurved and slightly thickened (Fig. 11.1). 2. Handmade Flat-Bottomed Straight-Sided Cooking Pots (Fig. 14) This group of vessels appears very rarely in Tell elDabca and exclusively in MBIIA-layers. In Stra-
59
60 61 62 63 64 65
GINTER et al. 1982, 124, fig. 16.7–13; DAGNAN–GINTER et al. 1984, 81 fig. 33.1–2; SLIWA 1988, 208, fig. 23, 211 fig. 35.1–2. BOURRIAU 1996, 22–23, fig. 2.10. CZERNY 2002, 138, fig. 23 ASTON 2004, 165, group 157. For the parallels s. ASTON 2002, 46–47. ASTON 2002, 46. A detailed study on the fabric of this group is being done by K. Kopetzky; for the moment s. BIETAK 1991a, 328–9.
90
Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 8 Large storage jars (zîrs)
The Colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its Chronological Implications
91
Fig. 9 Potmarks on Marl C jars
Fig. 10 Marl C medium sized jars
tum F (Fig. 2) where many of them can already be considered as residual sherds. Similar vessels have been found in the Eastern Delta, Northern Sinai and Palestine.66 Only one example is definitly made of Levantine clay, the others are produced in Nile E3.67 This fabric group was attributed by P. Mc. Govern to a Nile clay by neutron activation.68 However, as A. Pape has pointed out69 and D. Aston has assumed on basis of Papes research,70 the basaltic inclusions in the Nile E3 do not imply a normal local production. Pape suggests an origin in the
Fig. 11 Marl C slender jars with ribbed necks
66
67
Parallels, although mostly from the MBIIB-period s. ASTON 2002, 46. For Ashkelon s. STAGER 2002, 355, fig. 7. ASTON 2004.
68 69 70
MC GOVERN 2000, 123. PAPE 1991, 65–66. ASTON 2002, 46.
92
Irene Forstner-Müller
Fig. 12 Holemouth cooking pots
Fig. 13 Large storage jars
Hauran Region east of the Golan Heights,71 Oren would like to seek the origin in the Northern Sinai.72 In Karin Kopetzky’s and my opinion, this group seems consists of several different fabrics which come from different sites.73 A connection with a nomadic culture74 seems unlikely as many examples of these vessels were found in urban contexts. Recently, Stager has suggested a functional difference for the contemporary appearance of the different types of cooking pots.75
The earliest settlement layer in A/II can be dated to the late 12th Dynasty/ later MBIIA-period (Fig. 2). In contrast to other areas of the town like F/I and A/IV which had by then been densely settled this part may be considered as an Eastern suburb, the starting point of a development which in the following periods culminated into the sacral temple precinct, one of the major religious centers of Avaris.
71
74
72 73
PAPE 1991, 66 no. 41. OREN 1997, 278, fig. 8.25 nos. 4–13. The material is currently being analyzed by A. Cohen Weinberger.
CONCLUSIONS
74
BIETAK 1991b, 31; HOLLADAY 1982, 190; idem 1997, 190. STAGER 2002, 355.
The Colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its Chronological Implications
93
Fig. 14 Handmade flat bottomed straight sided cooking pots
Bibliography ALLEN S.J.,
ASTON, D.A.
1998
2002
Ceramic Imports at Tell el-Dabca during the Middle Bronze IIA, 43–88, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant, Proceedings of an International Conference on MBIIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001, CChEM 3, Vienna.
2004
Tell el-Dabca XII. A Corpus of the Late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period Pottery, Part I. Introduction and Pottery of the Late Middle Kingdom, Part II. Pottery of the Hyksos Period and Conclusions, UZK 22, Vienna.
Queen’s Ware: Royal Funerary Pottery in the Middle Kingdom, 39–48, in C.J. EYRE (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, OLA 82, Leuven.
ARNOLD, DO. 1966
Die Keramik, MDAIK 21, 86–94.
1968
Keramikbeispiele aus den Gräbern der frühen 11. Dynastie von El-Tarif, MDAIK 23, 38–67.
1972
Weiteres zur Keramik von El-Tarif, MDAIK 28, 33–54.
1982a Keramikbearbeitung in Dahschur, 1976–1981, MDAIK 38, 25–65.
BADER, B. 2001
Tell el-Dabca XIII. Typologie und Chronologie der Mergel C-Ton Keramik. Materialien zum Binnenhandel des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, UZK 19, Vienna.
2003
A Concise Guide to Marl C-Pottery, Ä&L 12, 29–54.
1982b Keramik, 42–56, in: A. FAKHRY, Denkmäler der Oase Dachla, Mainz am Rhein. 1988
The Pottery, 106–146 in: D. ARNOLD, The Pyramid of Senwosret I. The South Cemeteries of Lisht I, MMA, New York.
ARNOLD, D., and ARNOLD, DO. 1979
Der Tempel Qasr el-Sagha, Mainz am Rhein.
ARNOLD, DO., ARNOLD, F., and ALLEN, S. 1995
Canaanite Imports at Lisht, the Middle Kingdom Capital of Egypt, Ä&L 5, 13–32.
BIETAK, M. 1986
Avaris and Piramesse, Archeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta. Proceedings of the British Academy 65 (1979). 2. erweiterte Aufl., Oxford.
1991a Tell el- Dabca V, Ein Friedhofsbezirk der Mittleren Bronzezeitkultur mit Totentempel und Siedlungsschichten, unter Mitarbeit von C. Mlinar und A. Schwab, UZK 8, Vienna.
94
Irene Forstner-Müller
1991b Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age, BASOR 282, 28–72. BOURRIAU, J.
el-Dabca anhand der Keramik, unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Vienna. LOYRETTE, A.M., NASR, M. and BASSIOUNI, S.B.
Gacab.
1981
Umm el
1996
Observations on the Pottery from Serabit elKhadim, CRIPEL 18, 19–32.
Pottery from the Nile Valley, Cambridge.
1993–94 Une tombe en bordure des greniers nord du Ramesseum, Memnonia 4–5, 115–27. MACE, A.C. and WINLOCK, H.E.
BOURRIAU, J., and QUIRKE, S.G.J.
1916
1998
MCGOVERN, P.E.
The late Middle Kingdom ceramic repertoire in word and object, 60–83, in: S.G.J. QUIRKE (ed.), Lahun Studies, Malden.
2000
BRUNTON, G. 1920
Lahun, BSAE 27, London.
CZERNY, E. 2002
Egyptian Pottery from Tell elDabca as a Context for Early MBIIA Painted Ware, 133–142, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant. Proceedings of an International Conference on MBIIA Ceramic Material in Vienna. 24th–26th of January 2001, CChEM 3, Vienna. Excavations in the Region of Qasr el-Sagha, 1981. Contribution to the Neolithic Period, Middle Kingdom Settlement and Chronological Sequences in the Northern Fayoum Desert, MDAIK 40, 33–102.
EMERY, W.B., SMITH, H.S. and MILLARD, A. 1979
The Fortress of Buhen, The Archaeological Report, EES Excav.Mem. 49, London.
ENGELBACH, R.E. 1915
Riqqeh and Memphis VI , BSAE 25, London.
1923
Harageh, BSAE 28, London.
The Foreign Relations of the “Hyksos”. A Neutron Activation Study of Middle Bronze Age Pottery from the Eastern Mediterranean, BAR IS 888, Oxford.
MOND, R. and MYERS, O.H. 1937 DE
The Cemeteries of Armant I, EES Excav.Mem. 42, London.
MORGAN, J.
1895
Fouilles à Dahchour, Mars–Juin 1894, Vienna.
OREN, E.D. 1997
DAGNAN-GINTER, A., et al. 1984
The Tomb of Senebtisi at Lisht, New York.
The “Kingdom of Sharuhen” and the Hyksos Kingdom, 253–83, in: E.D. OREN (ed.), The Hyksos, New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, University Museum Symposium Series 8, University Museum Monograph 96, Philadelphia.
PAPE, A. 1991
Keramik – eine schwierige Quelle: Interdisziplinäre Methoden ihrer Erforschung, ZÄS 118, 54–68
PEET, T.E. and LOAT, W.L.S. 1913
The Cemeteries of Abydos III, EEF Excav.Mem. 35, London.
PETRIE, W.M.F.
FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I.
1890
Kahun, Gurob and Hawara, London.
2001
1903
Abydos II, EEF Excav.Mem. 24, London.
1909
Qurneh, BSAE 16, London.
Vorbericht der Grabung im Areal A/II in Tell elDabca, Ä&L 11, 197–220.
in print Tell el-Dabca XVI. Die Gräber des Areals A/II von Tell elDabca. UZK 27, Vienna. GINTER, B,. et al. 1982
El-Târif und Qasr el-Sagha. Forschungen zur Siedlungsgeschichte des Neolithikums, der Frühdynastischen Epoche und des Mittleren Reiches, MDAIK 38, 97–130.
HOLLADAY, J. 1982
1997
Cities of the Delta III: Tell el-Maskhuta. Preliminary Report on the Wadi Tumilat Project 1978–1979. With a contribution by D.B. Redford, Malibu. The Eastern Nile Delta During the Hyksos and Pre-Hyksos Periods: Toward a Systemic/Socioeconomic Understanding, 183–252, in: E.D. OREN (ed.), The Hyksos – New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, University Museum Monograph 96, Philadelphia.
PETRIE W.M.F., BRUNTON, G. and MURRAY, M.A. 1923
PETRIE W.M.F., WAINWRIGHT, G.A. and MACKAY, E 1912 VON
New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites, The Pottery, Lund.
KOPETZKY, K. 1993
Datierung der Gräber der Grabungsflache F/I von Tell
The Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuneh, BSAE 21, London.
PILGRIM, C.
1996
Elephantine XVIII. Untersuchungen in der Stadt des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, AV 91, Mainz.
SEILER, A. 2005
Tradition & Wandel. Die Keramik als Spiegel der Kulturentwicklung Thebens in der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, SDAIK 32, Mainz.
SLIWA, J. 1988
HOLTHOER, R. 1977
Lahun II, BSAE 33, London.
Studies on the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period Settlements in 1979–1985, Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses 36, 189–216.
STAGER, L.E. 2002
The MBIIA Ceramic Sequence at Tel Ashkelon and Its Implications for the “Port Power” Model of
The Colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its Chronological Implications
Trade, 353–362, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant, Proceedings of an International Vonference on MBIIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001, CChEM 3, Vienna. SZAFRANSKI, Z. 1998
Seriation and Aperture Index 2 of the Beer Bottles from Tell el-Dabca, Ä&L 7, 95–119.
VILA, A. 1963
Askut in Nubia, The Economics and Ideology of Egyptian Imperialism in the Second Millennium B.C., Studies in Egyptology, London.
Un Dépot de Textes d’Envoutement au Moyen Empire, Journal des Sauvantes 153, 135–160.
WEGNER, J.W. 1996
The Nature and Chronology of the Senwosret III– Amenemhat III Regnal Succession: Some considerations based on new evidence from the Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III at Abydos, JNES 55, 249–79.
2001
The Town of Wah-sut at South Abydos: 1999 Excavations, MDAIK 57, 281–308.
TYSON SMITH, S. 1995
95
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY 2007 AT TELL EL-DABcA By Irene Forstner-Müller,* Tomasz Herbich,** Wolfgang Müller,*** Chrisitan Schweitzer,**** and Michael Weissl *****
1. MAGNETOMETER SURVEY The survey was undertaken in May 2007 at the ideal time of year for such an endeavour in the Egyptian Nile Delta.1 As in former years,2 two different configurations of magnetometers were used: a Fluxgate Magnetometer operated by Tomasz Herbich and a Caesium Magnetometer operated by Christian Schweitzer. Due to the fact that the Tell el-Dabca survey is now evolving from the purely prospective to the investigative stage, the two magnetometers were applied complementary to a higher extent than before. Most areas were investigated with both methods in order to benefit from their respective advantages. The following parts have been investigated (for an over-all map see FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2007, fig.1): 1. The area between the palace of the 18th Dynasty and the modern village of Khatacna 2. In area A/II especially the precinct of the Temple of Sutech 3. The area to the immediate west of the modern Didamun Canal in the North of cEzbet Helmi. Khatacna North (Fig. 1) The area investigated this season is positioned south of the huge Tuthmoside palace district.3 Modern features include: in the eastern part, large pits where soil was retrieved (most probably to be used as building material), power poles (both the electromagnetic field emitted by the power line and the metal of the pole itself heavily interfering with the measurement), low ridges and small channels marking the field borders
(clearly depicted in the geophysical map and thus obscuring older features deeper in the ground) and finally subterranean constructions belonging to a 100 years-old drainage system. This old water supply system (tambur), still connected to the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, was replaced by the main Samacna-Didamun canal by the end of the 19th century.4 It is already depicted on the maps of the Survey of Egypt dating to 1904.5 These modern remains of the mostly silted up Pelusiac branch of the Nile are now known as Moses Canal, Faqus Canal or the Old Canal among the local population. The orientation of the excavated and prospected structures indicates that the original course of the river-branch differed significantly from these remains. Just like at Memphis, a shift of the river bed to the east may have destroyed the old topography and any archaeology connected to it.6 Between the southern limit of the Tuthmoside Palace district and the above mentioned modern track a densely settled part of a settlement emerges. The major orientation of the buildings is north-east – south-west; they are therefore not aligned along the main river but along a small canal (Canal 1) which runs from the Pelusiac branch to the southwest in a north-easterly direction probably to the palace found in Area F/II (see fn. 22). This area is significantly disturbed by the modern Didamun canal and farming activity. An assumed second canal (Canal 2), partly obscured by the modern feature of a path, would also run from the Pelusiac branch of the Nile in a north-west to south-easterly direction. Both canals existed for a long time because no buildings were
*
Austrian Archaeological Institut, Cairo-branch Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences *** Swiss Institute for Architectural and Archaeological Research for Ancient Egypt **** Schweitzer-GPI, Prospection and Interpretation ***** Vienna 1 The magnetometer work was done by Christian Schweitzer and Tomasz Herbich, the surveying and mapping by Anne-Catherine Escher, Astrid Hassler and **
2
3 4 5 6
especially Michael Weissl who not only supervised the survey but also provided us – as usual in his meticulous way – with digital maps. For preparing the figures I would like to thank Nicola Math. FORSTNER-MÜLLER et al. 2004; FORSTNER-MÜLLER/ MÜLLER 2006. Recently BIETAK/FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2005. HABACHI 2001, 73. Personal communication M. Bietak. JEFFREYS/MALEK 1988, 23.
98
Irene Forstner-Müller, Tomasz Herbich, Wolfgang Müller, Christian Schweitzer and Michael Weissl
Fig. 1 Khatacna North, combined measurements with Fluxgate Magnetometer and Caesium Magnetometer (plan M. Weissl, drawing N. Math)
erected on top of them in other prospected areas, like cEzbet Rushdi South.7 The settlement was organized according to these topographical features and the ensuing development of the whole urban area.8 Due to the excellent quality of the geophysical maps produced by the teams, architectural features of the buildings can be studied in great detail.
Among the buildings, two large complexes are of special interest:
7
8
FORSTNER-MÜLLER et al. 2004, fig. 5.
Part A This large anomaly, covering the central part of the measured area, presumably consists of several buildings, at least two, built on top of each other. The major drawback of the method, name-
This is very typical for a non-planned settlement s. also Piramesse, PUSCH/BECKER/FASSBENDER 1999, figs. 1 and 2.
Geophysical Survey 2007 at Tell el-Dabca
99
ly that no information concerning the depth of detected structures is given, makes it impossible to analyse the exact chronological sequence of these buildings. Suffice it to say that human (building-) activity took place over a very long time span. A difference in building materials may give some additional hints as the clearly depicted building in the northernmost part of the area shows a whitish anomaly, indicating the use of low-magnetic building materials (sandy mudbricks), often of an earlier date than the highly magnetic mud-bricks used for the presumably later phases of the complex. Part B The size of this complex is at least 52 × 72 metres. Its eastern and southern limits were destroyed by modern agriculture and the Didamun Canal. An approximately 4 m wide enclosure wall separates the precinct from the rest of the town. Its light colour again points to sandy mud-bricks used as building material. As to the inner organization of the complex, several narrow walls divide the space into more or less regular squares. Without intrusive archaeological methods it is impossible to decide whether they resemble courtyards or just large rooms. Fig. 2 Trench H/VI-bb/22, settlement layers of the late Second Intermediate Period
Part C Kilns In the northwestern part of this year’s survey a group of at least 10 circular anomalies of equal size (2,5 m in diameter) was detected. Similar features appearing on the geophysical map produced by Tomasz Herbich in Buto were excavated and found to be caused by pottery kilns.9 If the same interpretation is feasible for Tell el-Dabca, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the industrial area was situated to the south of the official government district. Due to the predominant wind direction (North), at least the most prestigious parts of the city had clean air and were still within a reasonable distance to important production centres. Conclusion In Khatacna-North, a new part of the town, probably an administrative quarter of Avaris, was investigated. The large multi-phase buildings with industrial installations nearby, the vicinity of the
9
HARTUNG/HERBICH 2004, 17; BALLET 2004.
palaces in areas H and F and the topographical situation next to the main transportation routes are good reasons for such an interpretation. The key question is whether this settlement belongs to the New Kingdom Palace district or is part of the Hyksos town. The northern sector of the surveyed area was excavated in 2007.10 (Figs. 2, 3) In a small trench (H/VI-bb/22) the first intact layers produced comprised pits containing Late Period material followed by debris dating to the New Kingdom (fecundity figurines, scarabs). The first discernible architecture encountered, however, were houses with burials, a living quarter which can be dated to the later Second Intermediate Period. After the abandonment of the settlement, the walls of the houses stood erect for some time in ruins. In spite of the fact that the result of this excavation might imply that the structures in the
10
Spring season 2007, BIETAK/FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2007, 38, figs. 3–6.
100 Irene Forstner-Müller, Tomasz Herbich, Wolfgang Müller, Christian Schweitzer and Michael Weissl
Fig. 3 Southern section of trench H/VI-bb/22
geophysical map are part of the Second Intermediate Period-town, intrusive archaeological methods have yet to be applied in Khatacna-North itself in order to verify this hypothesis. The settlement pattern changes in the immediate vicinity of the village of Khatacna and further to the south. Limited excavations, conducted in 1979, documented burials and small houses, presumably living quarters of the non-elite. The associated material was dated to Dynasty 13.11 Any potentially later layers had been destroyed by various human activity.
Area A is the only part of the site where at least remains of the original Tell still exist. In the 19th century, the elevated area was much more extensive:12 the visitor could walk on the Tell from modern Tell el-Dabca to Qantir. The north-south extension of the ruin-field measured at least 2 km.13 Due to heavy – mostly anthropogenic – ero-
sion only in area A younger layers, dug off elsewhere, are to be expected. The prominent feature of A/II is the temple precinct of the god Sutech, one of the main temples of the city of Avaris and Piramesse.14 Along this temenos the buildings found on the geophysical map of the area are aligned15, at least the enclosure wall, probably as a ruin, and still standing. The orientation of the structures is more or less east-west or north-south. Dimensions of these buildings vary from 38 × 24 m to 14 × 11 m. The smaller ones are almost square. Mud-bricks (darker grey) as well as sandy mud-bricks (lighter grey) were used as building material. Similar structures are known from Buto.16 Late period remains have been discovered all over Tell el-Dabca: in area A/II architectural remains,17 in cEzbet Helmi a pipeline made of clay18 and several storage pits in cEzbet Helmi19 and F/II.20 This surprisingly intensive buildingactivity, long after the abandonment of Piramesse
11
17
A/II (Fig. 4)
12 13 14 15 16
Personal communication M. Bietak. HABACHI 2001, 73. GRIFFITH 1888. See BIETAK/FORSTNER-MÜLLER in prep. S. also FORSTNER-MÜLLER/MÜLLER 2006, 79, fig. 2. HARTUNG/HERBICH 2004, especially p. 16.
18 19 20
BIETAK 1979, 271, fig. 18. Then the buildings outside of the Sutech temple precinct were erroneously attributed to the Ramesside Period. BIETAK/DORNER/JANOSI 2001, 103–104, fig. 54a–c. Unpublished. BIETAK/FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2006.
nT
0 40 - unfiltered magnetogram -
-30
-15
0
15
30
Tell el-Dabca 2007: Tell A
0
40
80
160
240
280 Irene Forstner-Müller, Astrid Hassler,Tomash Herbich; Anne-Catherine Escher, Christian Schweitzer, Michael Weissl, Michal Kurzyk, David Swiech Caesium Magnetometer: Mohammed Mutwalli
Tell el-Dabca 2007: magnetometer prospection, May 12th–23rd 2007
200
Fig. 4 Late Period buildings in area A, Caesium Magnetometer image
120
320
360
0 Caesium Magnetometer SM-4/4G-'special' 'Duo-Sensor' arrangement Schweitzer-GPI, May 2007
m
40
80
360
80
m
120
320
120
280
160
240
160
200
200
160
200
120
m
80
m
40 240
0
240
Geophysical Survey 2007 at Tell el-Dabca 101
102 Irene Forstner-Müller, Tomasz Herbich, Wolfgang Müller, Christian Schweitzer and Michael Weissl 0
20
40
60
80
100
m 120
120
120
m
m
100
100
80
80
60
60 nT
40
40 nT
20 15 10 5 0 –5 –10 –15
20
20
0
0 0
20
40
60
80
100
m
120
Tell el-Dabca 2007: cEzbet Helmi Northeast - unfiltered magnetogram Tell el-Dabca 2007: magnetometer prospection, May 12th–23rd 2007 Irene Forstner-Müller, Astrid Hassler,Tomash Herbich; Anne-Catherine Escher, Christian Schweitzer, Michael Weissl, Michal Kurzyk, David Swiech Caesium Magnetometer: Mohammed Mutwalli
Caesium Magnetometer SM-4/4G-'special' 'Duo-Sensor' arrangement Schweitzer-GPI, May 2007
measured area in 2007: 0,98 ha
Fig. 5 Helmi North, eastern shore of the Pelusiac Branch of the Nile, caesium magnetometer image
and the displacement of the capital to other cities like Tanis, Sais or Mendes, is still rather enigmatic and has to be studied in more detail. cEzbet
Helmi North East (Fig. 5)
Another investigation was done to the north-east of cEzbet Helmi where the course of the Pelusiac
21
DORNER 1999, map 1.
branch of the Nile was already detected by a geomorphological survey.21 The magnetometry survey confirmed this analysis. The river bank is clearly visible, followed to the east by an area between river and settlement without discernible anthropogenic anomalies that was temporarily flooded during the inundation period.
Geophysical Survey 2007 at Tell el-Dabca 103
Fig. 6 GPR measurement in area A/II, Erol Bayirli (right) and Ibrahim Mohamed (left) (photo: S. Seren)
2. GROUND PENETRATING RADAR During the spring season 2007 (May 8th–13th 2007) Ground Penetrating Radar measurements were undertaken in cooperation with the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in Vienna (S. Sirri Seren, assisted by Erol Bayirli). This method of geophysical survey had hitherto not been applied in Tell el-Dab‘a. The device, a „PulseEkko PRO“, produced by „Sensors and Software“ was used with 500 and 250 MHz antennae. The equipment was pulled on a slide (Fig. 6). Five areas were investigated (Fig. 7): AB: on the Tell area A/II CD: within the palace of the 15. Dynasty (F/II)22 EF: in the Second Intermediate Period-town GH: in the temple precinct of Sutech I: along the huge feature, most probably a city wall which separates the Middle Kingdom town of cEzbet Rushdi from the Second Intermediate Period settlement.
22
All these areas had already been investigated by geomagnetry. It was hoped that GPR would provide information concerning the depth of the archaeological features and detect special non magnetic materials like limestone. For the areas AB and GH, both in the vicinity of or in the temple precinct itself, the aim was to detect any limestone blocks still in situ. Area EF and I are densely settled urban quarters of the town, the images which had been given by magnetometry were confusing as many layers were positioned on top of each other. The hope was that this complicated stratigraphy could be better understood by GPR. The results were unconvincing (Fig. 8) and mostly of a (also important) negative nature as since almost no stone structures were detected. GPR is not an ideal prospecting method in the area of Tell el-Dabca. The radar was hardly able to penetrate the soil, most probably because of its humidity, the images produced were nondistinctive.
For this palace s. BIETAK/FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2006; BIETAK/FORSTNER-MÜLLER/HERBICH 2006.
Fig. 7 Areas of Tell el-Dabca measured with GPR (plan M. Weissl, drawing N. Math)
104 Irene Forstner-Müller, Tomasz Herbich, Wolfgang Müller, Christian Schweitzer and Michael Weissl
Geophysical Survey 2007 at Tell el-Dabca 105
Fig. 8 Area AB, GPR measurement (levels 50–60 cm beneath the surface)
Acknowledgements This survey was part of the research activity of the Austrian Archaeological Institute and the Austrian Science Fund (“Thutmosidenpalast”). Wolfgang Müller is indebted to the Swiss Institute for Architectural and Archaeological Research for Ancient Egypt for leave of absence in order to carry out this work.
106 Irene Forstner-Müller, Tomasz Herbich, Wolfgang Müller, Christian Schweitzer and Michael Weissl Bibliography BALLET, P.
DORNER, J.
2004
1999
The Graecoroman Pottery Workshops of Buto, Egyptian Archaeology 24, 18–19.
BIETAK, M. 1979
Avaris and Piramesse: Archaeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta, Proceedings of the British Academy 65, London.
BIETAK, M., DORNER, J., and JÁNOSI, P. 2001
Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris, Vorbericht Tell el-Dabca/cEzbet Helmi 1993–2000, mit einem Beitrag von A. VON DEN DRIESCH, E&L 11, 27–129.
BIETAK, M., and FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I. 2005
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht für Herbst 2004 und Frühjahr 2005, E&L 15, 65–100.
2007
The Colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its chronological implications, E&L 17, 83–95.
FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., MÜLLER, W., SCHWEITZER, CH., and WEISSL, M. 2004
Preliminary Report on the Geophysical Survey at Rushdi/ Tell el- Dabca in spring 2004, E&L 14, 101–109.
cEzbet
FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., and MÜLLER, W. 2006
Neueste Ergebnisse des Magnetometersurveys während der Frühjahrskampagne 2006 in Tell elDabca/Qantir, Ä&L 16, 79–82.
GRIFFITH, F.LL.
2006
Eine palatiale Anlage der frühen Hyksoszeit (Areal F/II). Vorläufige Ergebnisse der Grabungskampagne 2006 in Tell el-Dabca, E&L 16, 63–78.
1888
2007
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht für das Frühjahr 2007, Ä&L 17, 33–58.
2001
in prep. The Topography of Avaris and Pi-Ramesse in the Ramesside Period, in: S. SNAPE et al. (eds.), in preparation.
Die Topographie von Piramesse, E&L 9, 77–83.
FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I.
VI. Gemaiyemi, in Nebeshe (Am) and Defenneh (Tahpanes), EEF Excavation Memoirs 4, London.
HABACHI, L. Tell el-Dabca I. Tell el-Dabca and Qantir. The site and its connection with Avaris and Piramesse. Aus dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von E.-M. ENGEL, unter der Mitarbeit von P. JÁNOSI, und C. MLINAR, UZK 2, Vienna.
HARTUNG, U. and HERBICH, T.
BIETAK, M., FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., SCHWEITZER, CH., and HERBICH, T.
2004
2006
JEFFREYS, D., and MALEK, J.
Discovery of a New Palatial Complex in Tell elDabca in the Delta: Geophysical Survey and Preliminary Archaeological Verification, 119–126, in: Z. HAWASS, J. RICHARDS, (eds.) The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt, essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor, Cairo.
1988
Geophysical Investigations at Buto (Tell elFarain), Egyptian Archaeology 24, 14–17. Memphis 1986, 1987, JEA 74, 15–29.
PUSCH, E.B., BECKER, H., and FASSBINDER, J. 1999
Wohnen und Leben oder: weitere Schritte zu einem Stadtplan der Ramses-Stadt? E&L 9, 155–170.
ÄGYPTISCHE SKARABÄEN AUF KRETA UND IHRE BEDEUTUNG FÜR DIE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGIE DER MINOISCHEN ALTPALASTZEIT (MM IB–MM IIB) Von Felix Höflmayer
EINLEITUNG Auf Kreta gefundene ägyptische Skarabäen wurden für die Erstellung einer absoluten Chronologie der minoischen Altpalastzeit bis heute in der Regel unterschätzt. Mehrere Gründe mögen hierfür ausschlaggebend sein: Die Problematik der Datierung, für Nicht-Spezialisten oft nur schwer zu überblicken, komplizierte Typologien1 und methodische Diskussionen2 mögen Gründe sein, warum zahlreiche Forscher, deren Tätigkeit auf die ägäische Vorgeschichte konzentriert ist, die chronologische Relevanz ägyptischer Skarabäen nur wenig beachtet haben. Auch die nicht immer klare Differenzierung zwischen ägyptischem Produkt und ägäischem Imitat trug dazu bei, dass chronologische Schlussfolgerungen nur selten auf Skarabäen aufgebaut wurden.3 Umgekehrt haben sich auch nur selten Ägyptologen mit diesen Artefakten auseinandergesetzt, da die ägyptischen Funde in der ägäischen Bronzezeit nur ein Randgebiet der ägyptologischen Forschung darstellen und es nur wenige Forscher mit einer intimen Kenntnis sowohl der ägäischen als auch der ägyptischen Archäologie gibt.4 Außerdem wurden bei einigen Skarabäen von ägyptologischer Seite so stark divergierende Angaben gemacht, dass bei ägäischen Prähistorikern fast der Eindruck entstehen musste, dass diese Objekte für chronologische Fragen keinerlei Nutzen hätten.5 Aber auch die Tatsache, dass die meisten Skarabäen aus Gräbern stammen, welche mehrere Generationen hindurch benutzt wurden und
1
2 3
4
5
Siehe z.B. die Typologien in WARD 1978; TUFNELL 1984; WARD & DEVER 1994. Siehe dazu BEN-TOR 2006, 77–78. P. YULE 1983, 359 schrieb dazu: „(…) many in fact are Minoan and offer little help in placing Aegean chronology on a sounder footing.“ Die Arbeiten J. Phillips’ auf diesem Gebiet stellen eine bemerkenswerte Ausnahme dar: Siehe vor allem PHILLIPS 1990 und 1991. So betonte auch G. Walberg, dass die möglichen Datierungen für die Skarabäen aus Lebena und Knossos zu
somit der exakte Zeitpunkt des Importes notwendigerweise im Dunkeln blieb oder – noch gravierender – der subjektiven Einschätzung des Interpreten unterlag, hat sicher nicht dazu beigetragen die chronologische Relevanz dieser Fundgattung zu würdigen. Fritz Schachermeyr betonte: „ … doch lässt sich dieses Material für eine genauere Chronologie nicht verwerten, da es entweder aus längere Zeit hindurch belegten Gräbern oder aber aus unkontrollierten Zufallsfunden stammt.“6 Tatsächlich stammen von den zehn hier zu besprechenden Skarabäen nur zwei aus Siedlungskontexten (aus Poros und aus Knossos) und von den restlichen acht, welche in ihrer großen Mehrheit aus Grabkontexten stammen, können wiederum nur zwei exakt einer relativchronologischen Phase zugeordnet werden (Lebena Grab IIa und Archanes Grabbau 7). Somit beruhte die absolute Chronologie der Altpalastzeit und die damit zusammenhängende Synchronisierung mit der ägyptischen Geschichte lange Zeit hauptsächlich auf den Funden minoischer Keramik in Ägypten und der Levante. Nachdem eine äußerst niedrige Chronologie, welche vor allem von Paul Åström vertreten wurde7 und dem Wolfgang Helck gefolgt ist,8 von William Ward9 und anderen zurückgewiesen worden ist, haben Peter Warren und später Gerald Cadogan in zwei Artikeln die Synchronisierung der Altpalastzeit mit Ägypten und die Argumente für die absolute Chronologie auf eine neue Grundlage gestellt.10 Eine umfassende und kritische Analyse der zu dieser Zeit bekannten ägyptischen Kontexte mit importierter minoischer
6 7 8 9 10
sehr variieren: WALBERG 1991, 116. Beispielsweise wurde der Skarabäus aus Grab I von Lebena von D. Ben-Tor in das frühe Mittlere Reich und von O. Keel und E. Kyriakides in die frühe 18. Dynastie datiert, siehe unten. SCHACHERMEYR 1964, 45. ÅSTRÖM 1961/62; ÅSTRÖM 1978; ÅSTRÖM 1984. HELCK 1976, 111–113; HELCK 1995, 37–40. WARD 1981. WARREN 1980; CADOGAN 1983.
108 Felix Höflmayer Keramik von Barry Kemp und Robert Merrillees hat aber gezeigt, dass die meisten dieser für die Synchronisierung herangezogenen Kontexte in Ägypten problematisch sind11 und in einem jüngst erschienenen Artikel hat Robert Merrillees diese kritische Analyse auch auf die minoischen Funde in der Levante angewandt und dargelegt, dass chronologisch relevante klare Befunde äußerst selten sind.12 So kam Sturt Manning zu dem Schluss: „Unfortunately, none of the existing contexts in Egypt are particularly precise, and the dating of both the scarabs, and/or the find contexts, in Crete are equally problematic.“13 Es ist evident, dass für die Synchronisierung der Altpalastzeit nur sehr wenig Material vorhanden ist aus dem Schlüsse gezogen werden können. Während für die mykenische Zeit genügend Keramik in die Levante und nach Ägypten exportiert worden ist und die allgemeine Datierung vor allem der späteren Phasen (ab SH IIB) aufgrund der Masse an publiziertem Material aus halbwegs guten Kontexten von niemandem ernsthaft bezweifelt wird,14 ist es gerade die geringe Anzahl der während der Altpalastzeit nach Ägypten exportierten Gefäße, welche zu großen Diskrepanzen in der Datierung der relativchronologischen Phasen führt. Im Grunde hängt die Problematik damit zusammen, dass bei einer genügend großen Anzahl von Objekten niemand mehr ernsthaft die Gleichzeitigkeit von Import und Kontext in Frage stellt, während bei Einzelfunden (deren Kontexte aufgrund von frühen Ausgrabungen noch dazu viele Fragen offenlassen), durchaus mit Erbstücken (vor allem in Grabkontexten) argumentiert werden kann, wodurch jede Art von chronologischer Schlussfolgerung schwierig wird. Barry Kemp und Robert Merrillees haben dieses Problem sehr treffend in einer Abbildung ausgedrückt (Abb. 1): Vier verschiedene Möglichkeiten eines Austausches sind vom chronologischen Standpunkt aus gesehen denkbar. Kultur A exportiert ein Produkt, welches einer relativchronologischen Phase zugeordnet werden kann in Kultur B, wo es in einer Phase niedergelegt wird, welche zeitgleich mit jener von Kultur A ist. Ein zweiter möglicher Fall ist ähnlich gelagert, allerdings beginnt
11 12 13 14
KEMP & MERRILLEES 1980. MERRILLEES 2003. MANNING 1999, 76. Für den teilweise umstrittenen Übergang von SH IIIA2
Abb. 1 Mögliche Synchronismen (nach KEMP & MERRILLEES 1980, 205 Diagramm 1)
die Phase der Produktion des zu exportierenden Produkts von Kultur A früher als die Phase des Fundkontextes in Kultur B. Diese Gleichzeitigkeit ist wohl bei der in Tell el-Amarna gefundenen SH IIIA2-Keramik der Fall. Wie bereits bemerkt, würde in diesem Fall (weit über tausend Scherben) kaum jemand von Erbstücken sprechen, die durch Generationen benutzt worden sind bevor sie in den archäologischen Kontext gerieten.
zu SH IIIB siehe: BELL 1991, 257–277 und WIENER 2003. Für diesen Hinweis danke ich Astrid Hassler, die sich im Rahmen des Spezialforschungsbereichs SCIEM 2000 mit den mykenischen Funden in Ägypten beschäftigt.
Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta 109
Es ist jedoch Vorsicht angebracht bei jedem importierten Stück a priori eine Gleichzeitigkeit anzunehmen, da auch Fälle denkbar sind, bei denen das importierte Objekt wesentlich älter als der Kontext ist. Eine Möglichkeit ist, dass das Stück lange Zeit in der produzierenden Kultur verblieb bis es schließlich exportiert wurde. Für zahlreiche ägyptische Artefakte aus spätbronzezeitlichen ägäischen Kontexten kann wahrscheinlich gemacht werden, dass sie erst lange nach der Produktionszeit exportiert wurden. Leon Pomerance hielt Grabräuberei und einen damit in Zusammenhang stehenden Antikenhandel für eine mögliche Erklärung für das plötzliche Auftauchen frühdynastischer Artefakte in spätbronzezeitlichen ägäischen Kontexten.15 Aber auch der umgekehrte Weg ist denkbar: Ein Objekt wird recht bald nach seiner Herstellung in Ägypten exportiert und bleibt dann (aus welchen Gründen auch immer) sehr lange – möglicherweise über Generationen – in Verwendung bis es eines Tages in einen archäologischen Kontext gerät. Sturt Manning hat diese chronologische Problematik treffend zusammengefasst: „In the allimportant cases of imports/exports, which form our key synchronisms, we usually do not know (i) how much time elapsed between production in one culture and importation into another culture, and then (ii) how long the object was in use in its import context (and whether it was further exchanged), and finally (iii) how, after its period of deliberate use, the object actually came to enter the archaeological record.“16 Aufgrund dieser nicht immer klar zu quantifizierenden Unsicherheiten ist es nötig bei chronologischen Schlüssen sehr vorsichtig zu sein und es ist zu beachten welche Schlüsse man im Lichte dieser Unsicherheiten überhaupt aus dem vorhandenen Material ziehen kann: Wenn ein ägyptisches Objekt in einem minoischen Kontext gefunden wird, so ist klar, dass der Kontext nach der Produktion des importierten Stückes geschlossen wurde. Wenn der Produktionszeitraum des ägyptischen Importes nun eingeengt werden kann, so wissen wir wann der Kontext frühestens geschlossen wurde. Daraus leitet sich wiederum ab, dass zumindest die späteste in diesem Kontext vor-
15 16 17
POMERANCE 1973, 21–30. MANNING 1996, 26. Die typologische Einordnung der Skarabäen erfolgt nach WARD 1978, 25–33; TUFNELL 1984, 31–38 und
kommende minoische Phase nach diesem Produktionszeitpunkt zu Ende gegangen ist. Chronologische Schlüsse sind also auch bei Kontexten möglich, welche einen sehr weiten Datierungsspielraum haben, was ja gerade bei den Kuppelgräbern der Vor- und Altpalastzeit der Fall ist. Im Gegensatz zu minoischen Funden in Ägypten und der Levante, wo die vergesellschafteten Funde ja den spätesten möglichen Beginn der durch den minoischen Export repräsentierten minoischen Phase angeben, bezeichnet ein ägyptischer Fund auf Kreta (in unserem Fall ein Skarabäus) einen Zeitpunkt vor dem die jüngste im Kontext vertretene minoische Phase nicht zu Ende gegangen sein kann. Werden diese Schlussfolgerungen konsequent auf das Material angewandt, ist es nicht nötig, hoch spekulative Überlegungen zur Zeitspanne zwischen Produktion und Deponierung anzustellen und auch gelegentlich auftretende Erbstücke, welche möglicherweise mehrere Generationen im Besitz einer Familie waren (gerade bei Exotica wie Skarabäen scheint dies ja kein unwahrscheinliches Szenario zu sein), trüben das so gewonnene chronologische Bild nicht. Von den zehn in diesem Artikel diskutierten Skarabäen stammen acht aus Grabkontexten und nur zwei aus Siedlungsbefunden. Insbesondere die Funde aus Lebena, Archanes Grabbau 7 und Knossos sind chronologisch auswertbare Befunde, während die Funde aus Archanes Grabbau 6, Poros, Gournes, und aus der Grotte von Trapeza das gewonnene Bild im Großen und Ganzen bestätigen. Im Folgenden werden zunächst die Datierung der jeweiligen Kontexte und der gefundenen Skarabäen diskutiert,17 anschließend wird die Auswirkung auf die absolute Datierung der altpalastzeitlichen Chronologie besprochen. Lebena Grab I Das als Grab I bezeichnete Kuppelgrab war zum Zeitpunkt der Erforschung bereits eingestürzt und es wurden Hinweise für eine oder mehrere Beraubung(en) festgestellt, welche sich aber auf den mittleren Bereich des Kuppelgrabes konzentrierten. Die Schichten am aufgehenden Mauerwerk hingegen konnten nach Angaben des Aus-
WARD & DEVER 1994, 161–165. Die jeweils angegebenen Maße stammen aus PHILLIPS 1991 (wenn nicht anders angegeben).
110 Felix Höflmayer
gräbers ungestört untersucht werden (hier ist einer der genannten Skarabäen gefunden worden). Es wurden zahlreiche Keramikgefäße, Steingefäße aber auch Perlen, Anhänger und Sie-
gel gefunden, welche eine Datierung des Grabes in die Zeit von FM II bis MM IA erlauben.18 Der Skarabäus (Abb. 2) wurde in der Nähe des Eingangs gefunden.19 Der Kopf ist leider leicht beschädigt, ähnelt aber sehr Kopftypus A3.20 Auf dem Rücken trennt eine dreifache Linie die beiden elytra, was Rückentypus III bzw. LS oder LN entspricht. Der Skarabäus ist zwischen Siegelfläche und Körper durchbrochen, die Beine sind gekerbt. Der Seitentypus entspricht daher c2.21 Die Siegelfläche ist durch eine Linie begrenzt. Im Zentrum befindet sich ein nfr-Zeichen, flankiert von zwei antithetisch angeordneten C-Spiralen. Zwei anx-Zeichen befinden sich an den Längsenden jeweils von einem U-förmigen Rahmen umfasst. Für diese Motive in dieser Kombination lässt sich meines Wissens keine exakte Parallele nennen.22 Der Ausgräber Stylianos Alexiou verglich die Anordnung und die Motive der Siegelfläche, namentlich das Zeichen zwischen den beiden CBögen, mit Siegelabdrücken aus Uronarti und aus Lahun und kam so zu einer Datierung in die späte 12. oder in die 13. Dynastie,23 worin ihm Paul Åström gefolgt ist.24 Die Datierung blieb zu dieser Zeit auf den Vergleich der Motive auf der Siegelfläche beschränkt. William Ward datierte später unter Einbeziehung der formalen Eigenschaften des Rückens und der Seiten das Stück in die 12. Dynastie25 und wies die von Alexiou und Åström vertretene Datierung zurück.26 Peter Warren setzte das Stück in Wards Phase 427 und
18
21
Abb. 2 Skarabäus aus Lebena Grab I (nach KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 301)
19
20
ALEXIOU 1958; PELON 1976, 27–30; BELLI 1984, 102; ALEXIOU in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 11–14, Abb. 2–5, Taf. 1–2; WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 27–55; GOODISON & GUARITA 2005, 189. Iraklion Museum S-K 1925. 2,1 × 1,5 cm. ALEXIOU 1958, 5–6 und Abb. 5; CMS II.1, 204 Kat.-Nr. 180; YULE 1983, 366 Anm. 22; LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON 1990, 233–34 Kat.Nr. 142, Taf. 47 Nr. 142; PHILLIPS 1991, II, 643–644 Kat.Nr. 270, III, 1111 Abb. 270; KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 301; WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 36–37; BEN-TOR 2006, 78 und 82 Abb. 1a Nr. 2 mit Parallelen. J. Phillips erkannte einen offenen Kopf (Typus B2): PHILLIPS 1991, II, 643–644 Kat.-Nr. 270; während O. Keel und E. Kyriakides einen trapezförmigen Kopf erkennen wollten: KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 301. Dieser Einschätzung können wir nicht folgen. Siehe dazu auch die jüngst von Daphna Ben-Tor publizierte Zeichnung: BEN-TOR 2006, 82 Abb. 1a Nr. 2.
22
23
24 25 26 27
Peter Warren (WARREN 1980, 495) ordnete die Seite Typus c3 der Phase 4 zu, bemerkte aber selbst, dass die vorderen Beinpaare sich nicht am Übergang von pronotum zu elytra treffen (dies ist aber das Charakteristikum von Typus c3). Auch J. Phillips wollte einen Seitentypus c3 erkennen: PHILLIPS 1991, II, 643–644 Kat.Nr. 270. Auf diesen Umstand hat auch bereits Peter Warren 1980 aufmerksam gemacht: WARREN 1980, 495. ALEXIOU 1958, 5–6 mit Anm. 2. Als Vergleichsbeispiele nannte er: REISNER 1955, 60 Nr. 165–166 und PETRIE 1891, Taf. 10 Nr. 151. Gleichzeitig erwähnte er aber auch die Ansicht des damaligen Direktors der ägyptischen Abteilung des British Museum, I.E.S. Edwards, der das Objekt aufgrund der erwähnten Bögen nicht als „native Egyptian product“ ansah. ÅSTRÖM 1961/62, 142–143. WARD 1971, 77. WARD 1981, 70. WARREN 1980, 495.
Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta 111
Abb. 3 Skarabäus aus Lebena Grab II (nach KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 300)
Gerald Cadogan ist ihm darin gefolgt.28 Phase 4 wird heute ins frühe Mittlere Reich (späte 11. und frühe 12. Dynastie) datiert.29 Auch Jacke Phillips kam in ihrer Dissertation aufgrund der formalen Merkmale des Skarabäus zu einer Datie-
28 29 30
31
32
33
CADOGAN 1983, 507. Siehe dazu: BEN-TOR 2006, 77–78. PHILLIPS 1991, II, 643–644 Kat.-Nr. 270. Als Parallele nannte sie aus Kahun: PETRIE 1891, Taf. 10 Nr. 151; aus Uronarti: REISNER 1955, 60 Nr. 166; DUNHAM 1967, 71 Nr. 166; aus Mostagedda: WARD 1978, Taf. 11 Nr. 277 (fälschlich als Taf. 2 angegeben) = BRUNTON 1937, Taf. 69 Nr. 5; aus der ägyptischen Sammlung des University College London: WARD 1978, Taf. 11 Nr. 281 = PETRIE 1925, Taf. 8 Nr. 230. Als generelle typologische Einordnung nennt sie: WARD 1978: Rückentypus III, Kopftypus B2, Seitentypus c3. QUIRKE & FITTON 1997, 442: Erste Zwischenzeit oder frühes Mittleres Reich, allerdings ohne Parallelen zu zitieren. WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 36 zitiert eine mündliche Mitteilung von Christa Mlinar vom 4. November 2000: Ausschlaggebend sind nach Mlinar unter anderem die Tatsache, dass der Skarabäus durchbrochen gearbeitet ist sowie die dreifache Linie auf dem Rücken. WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 36 zitiert eine
rung in die frühe 12. Dynastie30 ebenso wie zahlreiche andere Forscher (Steven Quirke,31 Christa Mlinar,32 Daphna Ben-Tor33). In der Publikation des Fundplatzes führte Peter Warren darüber hinaus noch weitere Parallelen an, welche alle aus Wards Perioden 3 und 4 stammen.34 Im Jahre 2000 datierten Othmar Keel und Evangelos Kyriakides diesen Skarabäus in dem Katalog zu der Ausstellung Kriti – Aigyptos in die frühe 18. Dynastie.35 Sie begründeten diese von den früheren Datierungsversuchen doch recht abweichende Einordnung mit der durchbrochenen Seite, welche im Mittleren Reich und in der Zweiten Zwischenzeit außerordentlich selten sei.36 Allerdings tauchen durchbrochene Skarabäen eben auch schon früher, namentlich in der Ersten Zwischenzeit auf.37 Somit scheint es nicht zwingend das Objekt tatsächlich ins Neue Reich zu datieren. Aufgrund dieser bisher angeführten Argumente wird man wohl nicht fehlgehen diesen Skarabäus in das frühe Mittlere Reich oder knapp davor zu setzen, am ehesten scheint mir aufgrund der formalen Kriterien Phase 3 nach WARD 1978 bzw. Phase I nach WARD & DEVER 1994 am wahrscheinlichsten. Lebena Grab II In dem in Gerokampos gelegenen Kuppelgrab II38 wurde ein weiterer ägyptischer Skarabäus gefun-
34
35
36 37 38
mündliche Mitteilung von Daphna Ben-Tor vom 9. Oktober 1998; BEN-TOR 2006, 78. WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 36: aus Mostagedda: WARD 1978, Taf. 11 Nr. 277 (siehe dazu auch Anm. 30) und 287 = BRUNTON 1937, Taf. 69 Nr. 5 und 7 = beide Wards Periode 3; aus Byblos: WARD 1978, Taf. 12 Nr. 321 = DUNAND 1954, 282 Nr. 9418, Taf. 200 = Wards Periode 3; WARD 1978, Taf. 15 Nr. 380 = DUNAND 1954, 450 Nr. 11476, Taf. 201 = Wards Periode 4; Sammlung Matouk: WARD 1978, Taf. 12 Nr. 322 und 325, Taf. 13 Nr. 327 = alle drei Wards Periode 3; aus der ägyptischen Sammlung des University College London: WARD 1978, Taf. 13 Nr. 328 = PETRIE 1925, Taf. 8 Nr. 189 = Wards Periode 3; aus dem jarre Montet (Motiv anch in Rahmen): WARD 1978, Taf. 9 Nr. 247 = Wards Periode 4). KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 301. KEEL 1995, 52 § 106. KEEL 1995, 52 § 107, 57 § 113. PELON 1976, 27–30; BELLI 1984, 102–103; ALEXIOU in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 15–18; WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 56–141; GOODISON & GUARITA 2005, 190.
112 Felix Höflmayer den. Auch hier wurde eine nachträgliche Beraubung nahe des Eingangs festgestellt, doch die umgebenden Schichten blieben ungestört, da sie durch das eingestürzte falsche Gewölbe der Kuppel geschützt waren.39 Die späteste nachweisbare bronzezeitliche Belegung stammt aus MM IA, zahlreiche frühere Bestattungen, welche bis in FM I reichen, konnten ebenfalls beobachtet werden.40 Der Skarabäus (Abb. 3) wurde nicht in situ aufgefunden, sondern kam erst durch Sieben von Erdmaterial aus dem nordwestlichen Bereich des Kuppelgrabes zu Tage. Da die Gefäße aus diesem Bereich aus dem späten FM I stammen, wurde der Import in der Literatur teilweise mit dieser Phase assoziiert.41 Dies führte zu gewissen chronologischen Problemen, da – wie unten zu zeigen sein wird – auch dieser Skarabäus in die späte Erste Zwischenzeit oder in das frühe Mittlere Reich datiert. Eine Zuordnung zu FM I wäre im Lichte der anderen Fundkontexte ungefähr zeitgleich produzierter Skarabäen erstaunlich früh, doch kann eine Deponierung in MM IA und eine nachträgliche Verlagerung in den Bereich mit dem frühminoischen Fundmaterial nicht ausgeschlossen werden, zumal ja das Stück ohnehin nicht in situ gefunden worden ist.42 Der Skarabäus ist vollständig erhalten.43 Der
39 40
41 42 43
44
45
46
ALEXIOU in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 15. ALEXIOU in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 17. Siehe auch WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 115–122. Eine Aussage, dass auch MM IB in Grab II belegt sei (WARREN 1980, 492), bezieht sich in Wahrheit auf Grab III (Zervou): Für diese Information bedanke ich mich bei Peter Warren. YULE 1983, 366–367 Anm. 23. CMS II.1, 193. Iraklion Museum S-K 1987. 1,15 × 0,8 cm. CMS II 1, 226 Kat.-Nr. 201; YULE 1983, 366 Anm. 22; LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON 1990, 234 Kat.-Nr. 143, Taf. 47 Nr. 143; PHILLIPS 1991, II, 646–647 Kat.-Nr. 271, III, 1111 Abb. 271; KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 300; BEN-TOR 2006, 78 und 82 Abb. 1a Nr. 1 mit Parallelen. J. Phillips wollte einen offenen Kopf erkennen: PHILLIPS 1991, II, 646–647 Kat.-Nr. 271; während O. Keel und E. Kyriakides ihn als rechteckig beschrieben: KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 300. J. Phillips gab Seitentypus d5 an, doch da der Skarabäus vorne und hinten von der Basis separiert ist, scheint mir Typus b3 eher gerechtfertigt. WARREN 1980, 495. Als Parallelen nannte er aus Qau: WARD 1978, Taf. 7 Nr. 202, 194, 200, 193 = BRUNTON 1927, Taf. 33 Nr. 157, 186, 187, 190 = Wards Perioden 2–3; aus Mostagedda: WARD 1978, Taf. 7 Nr. 185 =
Kopf ist leider so beschädigt, dass er typologisch nicht eingeordnet werden kann.44 Eine doppelte Linie trennt die beiden elytra (Rückentypus II bzw. LS oder LN). Der Körper ist nicht durchbrochen und die beiden vorderen Extremitäten treffen sich an der doppelten Linie zwischen pronotum und elytra (Seitentypus b345). Der Skarabäus ist längs durchbohrt. Auf der Siegelfläche ist eine Pflanze dargestellt, die von zwei spiralförmigen Ornamenten flankiert wird, welche ebenfalls Teil dieser Pflanze sein könnten. Auf der linken und rechten Seite finden sich ferner je ein Blatt. Peter Warren nannte für dieses Stück Parallelen aus Wards Perioden 2 bis 4.46 Diese relative Einordnung blieb in der Forschung im Großen und Ganzen unwidersprochen. Gerald Cadogan47 übernahm diese Datierung und diese Parallelen, ebenso Warren und Hankey 198948 und Warren 2004.49 Auch Stephen Quirke und Lesley Fitton ordneten den Skarabäus der Ersten Zwischenzeit oder dem frühen Mittleren Reich zu (allerdings ohne Parallelen zu nennen),50 ebenso wie Othmar Keel und Evangelos Kyriakides, welche aber nur Parallelen aus Wards Periode 2 angaben.51 Auch Daphna Ben-Tor tritt für eine Datierung in die späte 11. oder die frühe 12. Dynastie ein, wobei sie Parallelen aus Wards Perioden 3 und 4 nennt.52
47 48 49 50 51
52
BRUNTON 1937, Taf. 60 Nr. 68 = Wards Periode 2; aus Matmar: WARD 1978, Taf. 7 Nr. 196 = BRUNTON 1948, Taf. 33 Nr. 85 = Wards Periode 3. Typologisch ordnete er den Skarabäus dem Seitentypus d1 der Periode 3 nach WARD zu. CADOGAN 1983, 513. WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 129. WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 133 Kat.-Nr. 525. QUIRKE & FITTON 1997, 442. KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 300. Als Parallelen nennen sie: WARD 1978, Taf. 7 Nr. 202 und 194 (in der Publikation findet sich fälschlicherweise die Angabe Taf. 6). Zu diesen Parallelen siehe Anm. 46. BEN-TOR 2006, 78 mit Anm. 9. Als Parallelen nennt sie für das Motiv: WARD 1978, Taf. 7 Nr. 193, 194 und 197 = siehe für 193 und 194 Anm. 46; Nr. 197 stammt aus dem Ägyptischen Museum in Kairo; für die Rücken- und Seitenbeschaffenheit nennt sie WARD 1978, Taf. 7 Nr. 196 und 212 = siehe für Nr. 196 Anm. 46; Nr. 212 stammt aus BRUNTON 1937, Taf. 60 Nr. 69 = Wards Periode 3. Zwar gebe es auch Parallelen für diesen Skarabäus aus Periode 2, doch aufgrund der Rücken- und Seitencharakteristika stünde er formal in Periode 3 und die früheren Parallelen für das Motiv lägen nur nahe, dass eben das Motiv bereits in der Ersten Zwischenzeit entstanden sei.
Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta 113
Jacke Phillips hingegen kam zu einer Datierung in die 12. Dynastie.53 Die Forschung ist sich also in Bezug auf die Datierung weitgehend einig, Phase 2 oder 3 scheinen aufgrund der formalen Eigenschaften am wahrscheinlichsten (frühes Mittleres Reich oder kurz davor). Lebena Grab IIa Aus demselben Komplex stammt ein weiterer ägyptischer Skarabäus (Abb. 4). Dieser wurde in der angebauten Tholos IIa gefunden54 und auch hier kann der Kontext aufgrund der auf den Bestattungsschichten lagernden Steinblöcke der eingestürzten Kuppel als ungestört gelten. In diesem Teil des Grabkomplexes konnten zwei Schichten beobachtet werden, in welchen zahlreiche Gefäße, Siegel und Knochen gefunden wurden. Aus dem „pure MM IA upper level“, wie es Warren und Hankey ausgedrückt haben,55 stammt der fragliche Skarabäus.56 Der Kopf ist zwar etwas abgerieben, ähnelt aber sehr Typus A3.57 Auf dem Rücken befindet sich zwischen den beiden elytra eine dreifache Linie (Rückentypus III bzw. LS oder LN). Die Extremitäten sind ausgearbeitet, der Skarabäus ist aber nicht durchbrochen. Das erste und zweite Beinpaar trifft sich ungefähr in der Mitte des pronotum (Seitentypus b1). Das Objekt ist in Längsrichtung durchbohrt. Auf der Siegelfläche sind eine Z-Spirale und zwei blattähnliche Füllmotive dargestellt, von einer Linie eingefasst. Peter Warren nannte eine Parallele aus Mostagedda und weitere aus dem Ägyptischen Museum
53
54
55
56
PHILLIPS 1991, II, 646–647 Kat.-Nr. 271. Als Parallele nennt sie einerseits einen Skarabäus aus dem Grab der Maket in Kahun: PETRIE 1891, Taf. 26 Nr. 31; andererseits eine bereits von Peter WARREN angeführte Parallele aus Qau: WARD 1978, Taf. 7 Nr. 202 (fälschlicherweise ist die Taf. 6 angegeben). Siehe zu dieser Parallele Anm. 46. Ihre typologische Einordnung ist WARD 1978 Rückentypus II, Kopftypus B, Seitentypus d5. Zum Kontext siehe: PELON 1976, 27–30; BELLI 1984, 102–03; ALEXIOU in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 18–19; WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 141–157; GOODISON & GUARITA 2005, 190. WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 129. Siehe auch WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 195. Iraklion Museum S-K 1997. 1,2 × 0,9 cm. CMS II.1, 229 Kat.-Nr. 204; YULE 1983, 366 Anm. 22; LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON 1990, 234–235 Kat.-Nr. 144, Taf. 47 Nr. 144; PHILLIPS 1991, II, 647 Kat.-Nr. 272, III, 1111 Abb. 272; KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 307 Kat.-Nr. 302;
Abb. 4 Skarabäus aus Lebena Grab IIa (nach KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 302)
Kairo und datierte den Skarabäus in die späte 11. Dynastie.58 Dieser Datierung sind in der Literatur – so weit ich sehen kann – alle Forscher gefolgt. Gerald Cadogan übernahm die von Peter Warren vorgeschlagenen Parallelen und Datierung,59 auch Stephen Quirke und Lesley Fitton datierten diesen Skarabäus in die späte Erste Zwischenzeit oder in das frühe Mittlere Reich.60 Othmar Keel
57
58
59 60
BEN-TOR 2006, 78 und 82 Abb. 1a Nr. 3 mit Parallelen. Wiederum wurde der Kopf des Skarabäus von verschiedenen Bearbeitern typologisch verschieden eingeordnet. J. Phillips erkannte einen offenen Kopf (PHILLIPS 1991, II, 647 Kat.-Nr. 272), während O. Keel und E. Kyriakides ihn als viereckig beschrieben (KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 307 Kat.-Nr. 302). WARREN 1980, 495; WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 129; WARREN in: ALEXIOU & WARREN 2004, 153 Kat.-Nr. 68. Als Parallele aus Mostagedda nannte er: WARD 1978, Taf. 9 Nr. 239 = BRUNTON 1937, Taf. 60 Nr. 72 = Wards Periode 3; aus dem Ägyptischen Museum Kairo: WARD 1978, Taf. 9 Nr. 236–238 = Kairo JdE 75288–75290 = Wards Periode 2 und 3. Die Seite des Skarabäus ordnet er dem Typus d1 der Periode 3 zu, den Rücken dem Typus III (nach WARD 1978). CADOGAN 1983, 513. QUIRKE & FITTON 1997, 442 (allerdings ohne Parallelen anzugeben).
114 Felix Höflmayer und Evangelos Kyriakides nannten für das Objekt im Wesentlichen dieselben Parallelen,61 ebenso wie Daphna Ben-Tor62 oder Jacke Phillips.63 Die Forschung ist sich in Bezug auf die Datierung dieses Skarabäus also einig und ein Zweifel an dieser ist aus unserer Sicht nicht angebracht. Phase 3 oder 4 und eine Datierung in das frühe Mittlere Reich erscheinen am wahrscheinlichsten. Archanes Grabbau 7 Aus der Nekropole von Phourni in der Nähe von Archanes stammen zwei Skarabäen, die zusätzliche Hinweise auf eine Synchronisierung der altpalastzeitlichen Phasen mit der ägyptischen Chronologie liefern. Der Grabbau 7, welcher chronologisch das stärkere Argument liefert, ist zwar schlecht erhalten, da er von dem Kuppelgrab B überbaut wurde, dennoch kann die Dauer seiner Benutzung auf einen relativchronologisch engen Zeitraum (MM IA) eingeschränkt werden. Der Grabbau selbst bestand aus mindestens sechs Räumen, in welchen nicht nur der Skarabäus, sondern auch Teile von Steingefäßen, Obsidianklingen, einige Muscheln und zwei kleine Stücke Goldblech gefunden wurden.64 Die Errichtung von Kuppelgrab B, welche den Grabbau 7 weitgehend zerstörte, wurde ursprünglich in die Altpalastzeit datiert,65 die früheste Keramik stammt aber aus MM IA.66 Keramik aus dem westlich angrenzenden so genannten „blinden Korridor“, welche von dem Bearbeiter Alexandros Lahanas in MM IA datiert wurde, liefert ihm zufolge einen terminus ante quem für die Errichtung des Kuppelgrabes B, wodurch die Benutzung des Grabbaus 7 auf eine kurze Zeit in MM IA eingeengt wird.67
61
62
63
64
65
KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 307 Kat.-Nr. 302. Als Vergleich nannten sie: WARD 1978, Taf. 9 Nr. 236, 237, 239 (siehe dazu Anm. 58). BEN-TOR 2006, 78. Als Parallelen nennt sie WARD 1978, Taf. 9 Nr. 236 und 237 (siehe dazu Anm. 58), weiters WARD 1978, Taf. 7 Nr. 196 = BRUNTON 1948, Taf. 33 Nr. 85 = Wards Periode 3; WARD 1978, Taf. 7 Nr. 212 = BRUNTON 1937, Taf. 60 Nr. 69 = Wards Periode 3. PHILLIPS 1991, II, 647 Kat.-Nr. 272. Als Parallelen nennt auch sie WARD 1978, Taf. 9 Nr. 236–38 (siehe dazu Anm. 58). SAKELLARAKIS 1967b; SAKELLARAKIS 1971; SAKELLARAKIS & SAKELLARAKI 1991, 96–97; SOLES 1992, 143–144; SAKELLARAKIS & SAKELLARAKI 1997, 206–208. Aus diesem Grund finden sich in der Literatur manchmal verwirrende Angaben zum Fundort: WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 129 gaben eine Datierung des Fundkon-
Abb. 5 Skarabäus aus Archanes Grabbau 7 (nach PHILLIPS 1991, III, Taf. 997 Nr. 42)
Der Skarabäus ist nur zum Teil erhalten (Abb. 5).68 Kopf und fast das gesamte pronotum fehlen, ebenso wie das rechte elytron. Somit ist von der Siegelfläche nur etwas mehr als ein Viertel erhalten und auch typologisch steht man vor einigen Schwierigkeiten. Über den Kopf kann aufgrund des Erhaltungszustandes nichts gesagt werden. Die beiden elytra sind von einander durch zwei Linien und ein Leitermotiv (Rückentypus H bzw. LN oder LS) getrennt. Der Skarabäus ist sowohl längs als auch quer durchbohrt. Auf der erhaltenen Siegelfläche sind mit einander verbundene Spiralen dargestellt. Der Skarabäus wurde von Peter Warren in die späte 11. Dynastie datiert und mit Parallelen aus Sedment, aus dem jarre Montet, sowie aus der Sammlung Matouk, welche alle aus Wards Perioden 3 oder 4 stammen, verglichen.69 Darin ist ihm Gerald Cadogan gefolgt, auch wenn er die damalige Datierung des kretischen Kontextes für zu ungenau hielt, um das Stück chronologisch zu verwerten.70 Auch Jacke Phillips datierte den Skarabäus in die Zeit der späten 11. bis in die Mitte
66 67
68
69
70
textes in MM IB–II an, womit sie den Fund wohl dem Kuppelgrab B zuschrieben, ebenso wie LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON 1990, 186 Kat.-Nr. 9. SOLES 1992, 135. LAHANAS 2004, 7–8 mit Abb. 4–6. Siehe auch SAKELLARAKIS & SAKELLARAKIS 1991, 90. Iraklion Museum (Fayence) 378. 2,22 × 1,44 × 0,96 cm. LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON 1990, 186 Kat.-Nr. 9, Taf. 44 Nr. 9; PHILLIPS 1991, II, 400 Kat.-Nr. 42, III, 997 Abb. 42. WARREN 1980, 495; WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 129. Als Parallele aus Sedment nennt er WARD 1971, 114 Abb. 25 Nr. 5 = WARD 1978, Taf. 10 Nr. 261 = PETRIE & BRUNTON 1924, Taf. 57 Nr. 1 = Wards Periode 3; aus dem jarre Montet: WARD 1978, Taf. 10 Nr. 255 = Wards Periode 3; aus der Sammlung Matouk: WARD 1978, Taf. 10 Nr. 256 = Wards Periode 4. CADOGAN 1983, 516.
Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta 115
wird, kann also frühestens in der frühen 12. Dynastie begonnen haben. Die folgenden auf Kreta gefundenen Skarabäen stammen aus Kontexten, die erst in der Altpalastzeit geschlossen wurden. Diese Befunde bieten zwar keine stärkeren chronologischen Argumente als die vier zuvor behandelten Skarabäen, bestätigen jedoch das oben gewonnene Bild. Archanes Grabbau 6
Abb. 6 Skarabäus aus Archanes Grabbau 6 (nach CMS II.1 Nr. 395)
der 12. Dynastie und nannte Parallelen aus Lahun und die bereits von Peter Warren vorgebrachte Parallele aus dem jarre Montet.71 Trotz des schlechten Erhaltungszustandes erscheint eine Datierung in das frühe Mittlere Reich also angebracht. * Diese vier Skarabäen, welche alle mehr oder weniger in den Bereich des frühen Mittleren Reichs (späte 11./frühe 12. Dynastie) fallen, wurden also alle in Kontexten gefunden, welche in MM IA datiert werden können. Unabhängig davon, ob die tatsächliche Deponierung bei den „offenen“ Kontexten erst in MM IA oder gar schon in FM I-III stattgefunden hat, kann ausgesagt werden, dass MM IA erst nach der Herstellung der Skarabäen im frühen Mittleren Reich zu Ende gegangen sein kann. Die Altpalastzeit, deren Beginn in der Regel mit MM IB angegeben
71
72
73 74 75
76
PHILLIPS 1991, II, 400 Kat.-Nr. 42. Als Parallele aus Lahun nennt sie: PETRIE 1891, Taf. 8 Nr. 73, 75 und 87; zur Parallele aus dem jarre Montet siehe Anm. 69. Typologisch ordnete sie den Skarabäus wie folgt ein: TUFNELL 1984: Rückentypus H, Seitentypus e6b. SAKELLARAKIS 1967a; SAKELLARAKIS 1973, 167–174; SAKELLARAKIS 1975, 318–319; SAKELLARAKIS & SAKELLARAKI 1991, 97–104; SOLES 1992, 142–143; SAKELLARAKIS & SAKELLARAKI 1997 202–205. SAKELLARAKIS 1967, 276. Siehe auch SOLES 1992, 143. SAKELLARAKIS & SAKELLARAKI 1997, 202. Siehe z. B. WARREN 1980, 494; WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 129. Iraklion Museum (Fayence) 464. 1,78 × 1,31 × 0,87 cm. CMS II.1, Nr. 395; YULE 1983, 366 Anm. 22; LAMBROUPHILLIPSON 1990, 186 Kat.-Nr. 10, Taf. 44 Nr. 10; PHIL-
Grabbau 6, in welchem der zweite aus Archanes stammende Skarabäus gefunden wurde, befindet sich westlich des Kuppelgrabes B.72 Die Konstruktion besteht aus insgesamt sechs Räumen, von denen vier etwas besser erhalten sind. Ursprünglich wurde der Bau von Sakellarakis in FM II – MM IA datiert,73 später jedoch in FM III – MM IB.74 Dies scheint auch der Grund zu sein, warum in der Literatur dieser Grabbau machmal als „prepalatial ossuary“ bezeichnet worden ist.75 Der Skarabäus ist relativ gut erhalten (Abb. 6), allerdings sind Beschädigungen an der Siegelfläche sowie am Kopf vorhanden.76 Das Stück hat einen bogenförmigen Kopf,77 welcher wahrscheinlich Typus A3 entspricht. Eine doppelte Linie befindet sich zwischen den beiden elytra (Rückentypus II, bzw. LS). Der Skarabäus ist in Längsrichtung durchbohrt. Auf der nicht vollständig erhaltenen Siegelfläche sind zwei Hunde oder Böcke mit über den Rücken erhobenen Schwänzen punktsymmetrisch gegenständig nach innen gerichtet (tête-bêche) angeordnet. Peter Warren nannte Parallelen aus Wards Perioden 3 und 4, das Motiv selbst ist aber schon in Periode 2 belegt.78 Gerald Cadogan übernahm die Datierung in Wards Periode 2.79 Später datier-
77
78
79
LIPS 1991, II, 397–398 Kat.-Nr. 40, III, 997 Abb. 40; BENTOR 2006, 78 und 82 Abb. 1a Nr. 4 mit Parallelen. Leider war dieser Skarabäus nicht Bestandteil der großen Ausstellung Kriti – Aigyptos im Museum von Iraklion, wodurch er auch nicht Eingang in den hervorragend fotografierten Katalog fand. PHILLIPS 1991, II, 397–398 Kat.-Nr. 40. Siehe auch die Zeichnung in BEN-TOR 2006, 82 Abb. 1a Nr. 4. WARREN 1980, 494–495; WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 129. Als Parallelen nennt er aus dem jarre Montet: WARD 1978, Taf. 6 Nr. 174 = Wards Periode 4; aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung des University College London: WARD 1978, Taf. 6 Nr. 176 = PETRIE 1925, Taf. 13 Nr. 839 = Wards Periode 3; aus dem Ägyptischen Museum Kairo: WARD 1978, Taf. 6 Nr. 175 = Kairo JdE 75272 = Wards Periode 3. CADOGAN 1983, 513.
116 Felix Höflmayer te man diesen Skarabäus ins frühe Mittlere Reich, wie Stephen Quirke und Lesley Fitton,80 Daphna Ben-Tor mit Parallelen aus dem jarre Montet,81 oder Jacke Phillips.82 Uns erscheint aufgrund der formalen Eigenschaften des Skarabäus eine Einordnung in Wards Periode 2 oder 3 und somit eine Datierung in das frühe Mittlere Reich oder kurz davor am wahrscheinlichsten. Poros Bei den Grabungen in Poros, einem Vorort von Iraklion, wurde ein weiterer Skarabäus gefunden (Abb. 7). In einem Areal östlich der venezianischen Stadtmauer wurden Schichten angeschnitten, welche von der Vor- bis zur Nachpalastzeit reichen. Im östlichen Bereich wurden Siedlungsbefunde der Altpalastzeit entdeckt, darunter ein Gebäude mit mehreren Räumen. Die hier aufgefundene Keramik wurde in MM IB datiert. In einem kleinen Raum dieses Gebäudes wurde im September 1988 in einer verbrannten Schicht vergesellschaftet mit Polychrom- und Barbotineware aus MM IB ein ägyptischer Skarabäus gefunden.83 Der Skarabäus ist hervorragend erhalten.84 Er hat einen offenen Kopf (Kopftypus B2), zwei Linien zwischen den beiden elytra (Rückentypus II, bzw. LN oder LS). Die Extremitäten sind gekerbt. Die beiden vorderen Beinpaare treffen sich an der Linie zwischen pronotum und elytra (Seitentypus b3). Das Motiv der Siegelfläche fällt in die so genannte nb.ty-Klasse. Im unteren Drittel des querformatigen Bildfeldes sind zwei nb-Körbe dargestellt. In der Mitte darüber ist ein anch erkennbar, flankiert von je einem hochrechteckigen Zeichen, aus welchem ein pflanzliches (?) Objekt erwächst.
80
81
82
83 84
QUIRKE & FITTON 1997, 442 (allerdings ohne Parallelen anzugeben). BEN-TOR 2006, 78. Als Parallelen für das Motiv nennt sie aus der Sammlung Matouk: WARD 1978, Taf. 6 Nr. 170 = Wards Periode 3; sowie aus dem jarre Montet: WARD 1978, Taf. 6 Nr. 174: siehe Anm. 78; für Rückenund Seitengestaltung nennt sie Parallelen aus dem jarre Montet: WARD 1978, Taf. 14 Nr. 350 = Wards Periode 4; WARD 1978, Taf. 14 Nr. 360 = Wards Periode 4. PHILLIPS 1991, II, 397–398 Kat.-Nr. 40. Sie nennt die bereits von Peter Warren publizierten Parallelen. Typologisch ordnete sie den Skarabäus wie folgt ein: nach WARD 1978: Rückentypus II, Kopftypus A3, Seitentypus b2. BLACKMAN 1999, 117–118; DIMOPOULOU 2000, 28. Iraklion Museum S-K 3267. Maße nach DIMOPOULOU in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 315 Kat.-Nr. 318: 1,4 × 1,1 × 0,8 cm.
Abb. 7 (nach KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 318)
Peter Warren und Vronwy Hankey setzten diesen Skarabäus unter Berufung auf Geoffrey T. Martin in die späte Erste Zwischenzeit oder die frühe 12. Dynastie,85 ebenso wie Jacke Phillips.86 Dieser Datierung ist Nota DimopoulouRethemiotaki gefolgt.87 Daphna Ben-Tor datierte das Stück in Wards Perioden 3 oder 4 und somit ebenfalls in die späte 11. oder frühe 12. Dynastie.88 Auch hier wird diese Datierung übernommen.
85
86 87
88
PHILLIPS 1991, II, 754 Kat.-Nr. 371; DIMOPOULOU 2000, 28 Kat.-Nr. 1; DIMOPOULOU in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 315 Kat.-Nr. 318; BEN-TOR 2006, 78 und 83 Abb. 1b Nr. 9 mit Parallelen. WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 214. Parallelen: WARD 1978, Taf. 12 Nr. 317 = BRUNTON 1927, Taf. 34 Nr. 193 = Wards Periode 2 und WARD 1978, Taf. 12 Nr. 318 = Ägyptisches Museum Kairo JdE 87394 = Wards Periode 3. PHILLIPS 1991, II, 754 Kat.-Nr. 371. DIMOPOULOU 2000, 28 Kat.-Nr. 1; DIMOPOULOU in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 315 Kat.-Nr. 318. BEN-TOR 2006, 78. Als Parallele für das Motiv nennt sie aus Mostagedda: WARD 1978, Taf. 12 Nr. 315 = BRUNTON 1937, Taf. 60 Nr. 75 = Wards Periode 3; ferner WARD 1978, Taf. 12 Nr. 317 (siehe dazu Anm. 85); aus der Sammlung Matouk: WARD 1978, Taf. 12 Nr. 320 = Wards
Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta 117
Zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts wurden in Gournes von Hatzidakis unter anderem zwei Gräber ausgegraben.89 Eines der Gräber besteht aus drei Räumen und wurde vom Ausgräber als drei unterschiedliche Grabanlagen interpretiert (Grab B, G, D).90 In Grab (oder besser: Raum) B wurden zwei Skarabäen gefunden, von denen einer in der Literatur überwiegend als ägyptischer Import angesehen wurde, während der andere als minoische Imitation gilt. Leider ist die Datierung des Kon-
textes aufgrund der mangelhaften Publikationslage nicht vollständig klar. Der Ausgräber datierte die Keramik in seinen Berichten in FM III und MM,91 während später Zois das gesamte Material aus Gournes neu publizierte und es in MM I setzte.92 Allerdings befanden sich unter den von Zois publizierten Stücken auch einige scheibengedrehte Gefäße, welche in MM IB oder gar MM II, jedenfalls aber in die Altpalastzeit zu datieren seien93. Laut Gisela Walberg gehören die Gefäße, welche eindeutig Raum B zuordenbar sind, alle in ihre Prä-KamaresPhase.94 Jacke Phillips setzte zwar ebenfalls das Material im Wesentlichen in MM IA, betonte aber, dass einige Gefäße bereits in MM IB gehörten.95 Auch MacGillivray wies darauf hin, dass zwar zahlreiche Gefäße aus Gournes, die von Zois publiziert wurden, in MM IA zu datieren seien, die spätesten jedoch aus MM IB stammten.96 Der erste hier diskutierte Skarabäus (Abb. 8) ist teilweise erhalten, das linke elytron fehlt beinahe zu Gänze, auch der linke Teil des pronotum ist beschädigt.97 Das Stück hat einen offenen Kopf, eine Linie trennt die beiden elytra von einander. Die Extremitäten sind nicht differenziert angegeben. Die Siegelfläche teilt sich in drei Paneele, von denen das mittlere mit einem Rautenmuster, die beiden anderen mit schraffierten Dreiecken versehen sind. In der Regel ist dieser Skarabäus als minoische Imitation beschrieben worden. Bereits Friedrich Matz glaubte nicht an einen ägyptischen Import, sondern an eine Nachahmung ägyptischer Vorbilder aus dem Mittleren Reich.98 Befürworter eines ägyptischen Imports wie Pendlebury oder Ward datierten den Skarabäus vorsichtig in die späte Erste Zwischenzeit,99 ohne jedoch exakte Paralle-
Periode 3; für den Seiten- bzw. Rückentypus nennt sie aus Byblos: WARD 1978, Taf. 12 Nr. 321 = DUNAND 1954, 282 Nr. 9418, Taf. 200 Nr. 9418 = Wards Periode 3; aus der Sammlung Matouk: WARD 1978, Taf. 12 Nr. 325 = Wards Periode 3. HATZIDAKIS 1915, 61–62; HATZIDAKIS 1918, 46–53. SOLES 1992, 149–150. HATZIDAKIS 1915, 61–62; HATZIDAKIS 1918, 46–53. ZOIS 1969, 2–24. WARREN 1980, 492; YULE 1980, 12; BETANCOURT 1985, 67; WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 51. WALBERG 1983, 107, 147. Siehe auch CADOGAN 1983, 513. PHILLIPS 1991, II, 422. MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 99. Iraklion Museum S-K 1184. 1,62 × 1,08 × 0,65. HATZIDAKIS 1918, 55, Taf. 4 z; MATZ 1928, 22–23 Typus T Nr.
268, Taf. 13 Nr. 19; PENDLEBURY 1930, 15 Kat.-Nr. 17, Taf. 1; CMS II.1, Kat.-Nr. 402; LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON 1990, 253–254 Kat.-Nr. 185, Taf. 49 Nr. 185; PHILLIPS 1991, II 422–423 Kat.-Nr. 57, III, 1001 Abb. 57; Pini 2000, 109 Kat.-Nr. 3; 108 Abb. 1,3 und 112 Abb. 5–6; KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 316 Kat.-Nr. 321. MATZ 1928, 28. Allerdings klassifizierte er sämtliche zu seiner Zeit bekannten auf Kreta gefundenen Skarabäen als Imitationen. PENDLEBURY 1930, 15 Kat.-Nr. 17 nennt die Parallele: BRUNTON 1927, Taf. 33 Nr. 156 = WARD 1978, Taf. 3 Nr. 91 = Wards Periode 1; WARD 1971, 93–94 mit Abb. 13, 2 nennt als Parallele für die Kopfgestaltung aus dem jarre Montet: WARD 1978, Taf. 15 Nr. 373 = Wards Periode 4; als Parallele für die Seitengestaltung: WARD 1978, Taf. 14 Nr. 350 = Wards Periode 4; WARD 1978, Taf. 14
Abb. 8 (nach KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 321)
Gournes
89 90 91 92 93
94 95 96 97
98
99
118 Felix Höflmayer
Abb. 9 (nach KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 320)
len nennen zu können. Einige Forscher sind dieser Datierung dennoch gefolgt.100 Das Motiv auf der Siegelfläche lässt allerdings eher eine ägäische Produktion vermuten.101 Auch Stephen Quirke102 und Jacke Phillips gingen von einer minoischen Imitation aus,103 ebenso wie Evangelos Kyriakides.104 Auch die Tatsache, dass das Bildfeld der Siegelfläche durch eine Linie begrenzt ist, welche
100
101
102 103 104 105
106
Nr. 364 = Wards Periode 4; WARD 1978, Taf. 15 Nr. 375. Später hielt Pendlebury eine minoische Imitation nicht mehr für ausgeschlossen: PENDLEBURY 1939, 120: „ … though it may be a local copy.“ WARREN 1980, 494; CADOGAN 1983, 513; BETANCOURT 1985, 67. Diese Datierung findet sich auch in WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 129. Pini 1980, 427 Kat.-Nr. 54, 433; YULE 1980, 78 mit Anm. 217; YULE 1983, 366 Anm. 22; Pini 2000, 108–109 Kat.Nr. 3, 110 Anm. 20 (auf Seite 113) mit kretischen Parallelen: CMS IV.112 und 20. QUIRKE & FITTON 1997, 442. PHILLIPS 1991, II, 422–423 Kat.-Nr. 57. KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 316 Kat.-Nr. 321. Zu diesem Unterscheidungskriterium siehe: PINI 1990, 120–121; PINI 2000, 110 und 111 mit Abb. 4a und b. Iraklion Museum S-K 3657 (alt: 1184bis). 1,18 × 0,78 × 0,54 cm. HATZIDAKIS 1918, 56, Taf. 5 i; MATZ 1928, 22–23 Typus T Nr. 269; PENDLEBURY 1930, 15 Kat.-Nr. 18, Taf. 1;
keilförmig geschnitten ist, und nicht wie bei ägyptischen Importen eine im Querschnitt symmetrische Vertiefung um die Siegelfläche läuft, spricht für eine minoische Produktion.105 Der zweite in Raum B gefundene Skarabäus (Abb. 9) ist abgesehen von ein paar kleineren Beschädigungen am rechten elytron sowie im Kopfbereich vollständig erhalten.106 Der Kopf erscheint zwar leicht abgerieben, ist aber als offen oder sanduhrförmig zu erkennen (Typus B3).107 Eine doppelte Linie mit Leitermuster trennt beiden elytra (Typus H bzw. LN). Die Extremitäten sind teilweise gekerbt, die mittleren weisen ein Fischgrätmuster auf (Typus d13). Der Skarabäus ist in Längsrichtung durchbohrt. Die Siegelfläche ist durch ein Spiralmuster gekennzeichnet, wobei zwei C-Spiralen das Bildfeld teilen. Auf jeder Seite befindet sich eine Lotusblüte, welche in eine Spirale übergeht, flankiert von je einer Z-Spirale. Abgesehen von Friedrich Matz, der – wie bereits erwähnt – sämtliche auf Kreta gefundenen und zu seiner Zeit bekannten Skarabäen für Imitationen hielt,108 waren alle Forscher der Ansicht, dass es sich hierbei um einen ägyptischen Import handelt. Bereits John Pendlebury datierte das Stück in die frühe 12. Dynastie und nannte zwei Parallelen aus Kahun.109 William Ward nannte Parallelen aus dem jarre Montet und datierte das Stück in das frühe Mittlere Reich (Wards Periode 4),110 eine Datierung, die von einigen Forschern übernommen wurde.111 Auch Jacke Phillips und Daphna Ben-Tor datierten den Skarabäus in die späte 11. oder frühe 12. Dynastie (Wards Perio-
CMS II.1, Kat.-Nr. 405; YULE 1983, 366 Anm. 22; LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON 1990, 253 Kat.-Nr. 184, Taf. 49 Nr. 184; PHILLIPS 1991, II, 423 Kat.-Nr. 58, III, 1001 Abb. 58; KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 316 Kat.-Nr. 320; BEN-TOR 2006, 78, 83 Abb. 1b Nr. 7 mit Parallelen. 107 J. Phillips erkannte einen rechteckigen Kopf: PHILLIPS 1991, 423 Kat.-Nr. 58: Typus C5 nach TUFNELL 1984, 32–34 mit Abb. 12. 108 MATZ 1928, 28. 109 PENDLEBURY 1930, 15 Kat.-Nr. 18. Als Parallele nannte er: PETRIE 1891, Taf. 8 Nr. 68 und 71. 110 WARD 1971, 94 und 93 mit Abb 13,3. Als Parallele für das Motiv nannte er aus dem jarre Montet: WARD 1978, Taf. 10 Nr. 264–266, 268, 271 = alle Wards Periode 4; als Parallele für die Seitengestaltung nannte er: WARD 1978, Taf. 14 Nr. 348, 353 = beide Wards Periode 4. 111 WARREN 1980, 494; CADOGAN 1983, 513; BETANCOURT 1985, 67; WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 129.
Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta 119
den 3 und 4).112 Stephen Quirke und Lesley Fitton gaben in ihrem Artikel hingegen als Datierung nur allgemein ‚Mittleres Reich’ an,113 ebenso wie Othmar Keel und Evangelos Kyriakides.114 Parallelen lassen sich sogar noch aus der 13. Dynastie nennen.115 Trapeza Auch in der von Pendlebury in den 1930er Jahren ausgegrabenen Höhle von Trapeza fand sich ein ägyptischer Skarabäus.116 In der Höhle wurde Material der unterschiedlichsten Zeitstufen gefunden. Sie scheint im Neolithikum und in FM I bewohnt worden zu sein, während sie in MM I als Bestattungsort genutzt wurde. Es wurde aber auch noch späteres Material gefunden. Leider waren fast alle Kontexte und Schichten aufgrund von späteren Beraubungen gestört, so wurden Fragmente eines Deckels in der gesamten Höhle in verschiedenen Abhüben verstreut gefunden.117 Der Skarabäus selbst stammte aus dem ersten Abhub zwischen Laufmeter 16 und 19 hinter dem Eingang zur Höhle, bei welchem die obersten 50 cm des anstehenden Erdmaterials abgetragen wurden. In unmittelbarer Umgebung fand sich Keramik aus dem Neolithikum, sowie aus den Phasen FM I bis MM II.118 Das Stück ist ausgezeichnet erhalten (Abb. 10).119 Der Skarabäus hat einen offenen Kopf (Typus B1) und eine dreifache Linie zwischen den beiden elytra (Typus III bzw. LN). Das vordere Beinpaar trifft sich knapp hinter dem Über-
Abb. 10 (nach KARETSOU et al. 2000, 306 Kat.-Nr. 325)
gang von pronotum zu elytra. Die Extremitäten sind gekerbt. Der Skarabäus ist durchbrochen gearbeitet (Typus c2). Auf der Siegelfläche sind mehrere miteinander verbundene S- und C-Spiralen dargestellt. In der Regel ist dieses Stück in die späte 11.
112
BEN-TOR 2006, 78. Als Parallele für das Motiv nannte sie: WARD 1978, 42 Abb. 7 Nr. 3 = Wards Periode 4; aus dem jarre Montet: WARD 1978, Taf. 9 Nr. 248 = Wards Periode 4; WARD 1978, Taf. 10 Nr. 264 = Wards Periode 4. Als Parallele für Rücken- und Seitengestaltung nannte sie aus dem jarre Montet: WARD 1978, Taf. 9 Nr. 247 = Wards Periode 4; WARD 1978, Taf. 14 Nr. 354 = Wards Periode 4; und aus dem British Museum: WARD 1978, Taf. 14 Nr. 356 = BM 57025 = Wards Periode 4. 113 QUIRKE & FITTON 1997, 442. 114 KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 316 Kat.-Nr. 320. Als Parallele gaben sie an: für das Motiv: aus Tell el-Ajjul: GIVEON 1985, 90 (fälschlicherweise als 95 angegeben) Nr. 83–84; KEEL 1997, 375 Nr. 795; für die Form aus dem jarre Montet: KEEL 1995, 26 Abb. 8 Nr. 20, 47, 51. PHILLIPS 1991, II, 423 Kat.-Nr. 58. Als Parallele nannte sie: PETRIE 1925, Taf. 8 Nr. 203–04. Typologisch ordnete sie das Stück wie folgt ein: TUFNELL 1984: Rücken H, Kopf C5, Seite d13. 115 Die charakteristische Seite und eine vergleichbare
116
117
118
119
Kopfgestaltung in Verbindung mit Spiralen auf der Siegelfläche findet sich auch bei zwei Beispielen aus Tell el-Ajjul: KEEL 1997, 498–499 Nr. 1160 und 1162 (13. Dynastie). PENDLEBURY, PENDLEBURY & MONEY-COUTTS 1935–36; WIDENOR in: WATROUS 1996, 61–62. PENDLEBURY, PENDLEBURY & MONEY-COUTTS 1935–36, 14–18. PENDLEBURY, PENDLEBURY & MONEY-COUTTS 1935–36, 21. Nach Gisela Walberg sind die Kamares-Phasen 1 bis 3 vertreten: WALBERG 1983, 121–22. Iraklion Museum S-K 1569. 1,85 × 1,32 × 0,81 cm. PENDLEBURY, PENDLEBURY & MONEY-COUTTS 1935–36, 96 Abb. 21 Nr. 16, 101 Kat.-Nr. 16, Taf. 14 Nr. 16; CMS II.1, 515 Kat.-Nr. 434; LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON 1990, 270–271 Kat.Nr. 237, Taf. 50 Nr. 237; PHILLIPS 1991, II, 785 Kat.-Nr. 388, III, 1147 Abb. 388; KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 318 Kat.-Nr. 325; BEN-TOR 2006, 78, 83 Abb. 1b Nr. 8 mit Parallelen.
120 Felix Höflmayer oder frühe 12. Dynastie datiert worden, es wurde aber auch eine Datierung in die 18. Dynastie vorgeschlagen. Bereits John Pendlebury setzte diesen Skarabäus in die beginnende 12. Dynastie, wobei die Datierung jedoch nur aufgrund der Siegelfläche erfolgte.120 Auch William Ward datierte das Stück in die 12. Dynastie (allerdings ohne dies zu begründen),121 ebenfalls Stephen Quirke und Lesley Fitton.122 Daphna Ben-Tor schloss auch die späte 11. Dynastie nicht aus123 und auch Jacke Phillips datierte das Stück in die späte 11. oder frühe 12. Dynastie.124 Othmar Keel und Evangelos Kyriakides setzten dieses Stück allerdings in die frühe 18. Dynastie. Sie argumentierten, dass die Form für die 18. Dynastie typisch sei und das Motiv – zwar im Mittleren Reich verbreitet – auch später noch vorkomme.125 Auch hier argumentieren Keel und Kyriakides wieder mit den durchbrochenen Seiten, welche für die frühe 18. Dynastie typisch sind, doch auch hier ist entgegenzuhalten, dass dies ebenso ein Charakteristikum der Ersten Zwischenzeit darstellt.126 Knossos In Knossos kam bei Grabungen südlich der Royal Road ein ägyptischer Skarabäus zu Tage, welcher für die chronologische Anbindung der mittelminoischen Zeit von außerordentlicher Bedeutung ist (Abb. 11). In diesem Areal konnten eine Reihe von übereinander liegenden Böden aufgedeckt werden.127 Auf dem untersten Boden fand sich noch Keramik der Phase MM IA, welche mit einfachen Spiralmotiven dekoriert war und dem Polychrome Geometric Style angehört. Auf dem Boden darüber gab es bereits erste scheibengedrehte Keramik sowie Metallgefäße imitierende Formen128
und somit den Nachweis für MM IB. Die Keramik kann dem Alternating Red and White sowie dem White Banded Style zugeordnet und mit der Phase Ia nach Levi in Phaistos verglichen werden. Auf dem spätesten Boden, wo auch der Skarabäus gefunden wurde, fand sich schließlich Eggshell Ware und auch bereits das erste Auftauchen der Crude Ware und gehört somit in MM IIA.129 Die Keramik aus diesem
120
124
121 122 123
PENDLEBURY, PENDLEBURY & MONEY-COUTTS 1935–36, 99; PENDLEBURY 1939, 121. Als Parallelen wurde ein Stück aus Kahun genannt: PETRIE 1891, Taf. 8 Nr. 73; aus dem Ashmolean Museum, Oxford und aus der Sammlung Newberry: NEWBERRY 1905, Taf. 18 Nr. 26 und 27; und aus dem University College London: PETRIE 1925, Taf. 7 Nr. 34–51 (im Artikel findet sich fälschlicherweise der Hinweis auf: Petrie, Scarabs and Cylinders with Names). WARD 1971, 97 Anm. 405. QUIRKE & FITTON 1997, 442. BEN-TOR 2006, 78. Als Parallelen nannte sie aus dem University College London: WARD 1978, Taf. 10 Nr. 263 = PETRIE 1925, Taf. 7 Nr. 118 = Wards Periode 3; sowie aus dem jarre Montet: WARD 1978, Taf. 10 Nr. 271 = Wards Periode 4.
Abb. 11 Skarabäus aus Knossos (nach KARETSOU et al. 2000, 313 Kat.-Nr. 314)
125
126 127
128 129
PHILLIPS 1991, II, 785 Kat.-Nr. 388, III, 1146 Abb. 388. Als Parallele nannte sie ein Stück aus Sedment: WARD 1978, Taf. 10 Nr. 261 = PETRIE & BRUNTON 1924, Taf. 57 Nr. 1 = Wards Periode 3. Ihre typologische Einordnung lautet wie folgt (nach WARD 1978): Rückentypus II, Kopftypus B1, Seitentypus c2. KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 318 Kat.-Nr. 325. Als Parallele für das Motiv nannten sie aus Uronarti: DUNHAM 1967, 68 Nr. 74. KEEL 1995, 52 §107, 57 §113. HOOD 1960, 22–23; HOOD 1966, 111. Siehe auch HOOD 1961/62 und vor allem MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 51. HOOD 1961/62, 94. HOOD 1959, 20 Abb. 31; MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 51. Der Kontext wurde früher fälschlicherweise in MM IIB datiert: HOOD 1961/62, 94–96.
Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta 121
oberen Boden südlich der Royal Road markiert darüber hinaus die zweite Zerstörung des alten Palastes von Knossos (dem später dann noch eine dritte folgen sollte, welche wiederum das Ende der Altpalastzeit definiert). Ein verwandter Kontext wäre der south-west room der Royal Pottery Stores, welche ebenfalls der zweiten Zerstörung zum Opfer fielen.130 Der Skarabäus in diesem Kontext ermöglicht uns nun also das früheste mögliche Ende von MM IIA zu definieren. Der Skarabäus selbst ist hervorragend erhalten und in Längsrichtung durchbohrt.131 Das Stück hat einen trapezförmigen Kopf (Typus D4), eine feine Linie zwischen den beiden elytra (Typus I bzw. LS). Die Extremitäten sind gekerbt (Typus d13). Die Siegelfläche ist durch eine Linie zweigeteilt. Auf dem oberen Teil ist ein wAH-Zeichen zwischen zwei Federn dargestellt, während im unteren Bereich ein nfr-Zeichen von zwei anx-Zeichen flankiert wird. Bereits der Ausgräber Sinclair Hood datierte das Stück in die späte 12. oder frühe 13. Dynastie, ohne aber Parallelen anzugeben.132 Paul Åström hingegen versuchte im Zusammenhang mit seiner niedrigen mittelminoischen Chronologie Argumente für eine jüngere Datierung zu finden.133 Zwar nannte er Parallelen aus Uronarti134 (welche als der 13. Dynastie zugehörig publiziert wurden), wollte das Stück aber lieber in die Hyksoszeit oder
noch später datieren.135 Dieser Einschätzung ist man in der Forschung allerdings nicht gefolgt. William Ward bestätigte die Datierung Hoods, hielt aber auch die mittlere 12. Dynastie für möglich.136 Zahlreiche andere Forscher sind Hood und Ward gefolgt.137 Othmar Keel und Evangelos Kyriakides hingegen datierten den Skarabäus etwas später, nämlich in die 13. bis 15. Dynastie.138 Jacke Phillips kam dagegen ebenfalls auf eine Datierung in die späte 12. oder frühe 13. Dynastie,139 was auch Christa Mlinar bestätigt hat.140 DIE CHRONOLOGIE DER ALTPALASTZEIT Folgende Schlüsse lassen sich nun aus dem Material ziehen: Ägyptische Skarabäen des frühen Mittleren Reichs kamen bereits in der Vorpalastzeit nach Kreta, fanden sich aber auch noch in späteren, altpalastzeitlichen Kontexten. Die Skarabäen aus Lebena Grab I, II und IIa sowie das Stück aus Archanes Grabbau 7 liefern den Beweis, dass die minoische Altpalastzeit nicht vor dem frühen Mittleren Reich begonnen haben kann, da alle aus Kontexten stammen, welche in MM IA geschlossen wurden. Zur Bestätigung dieses Befundes wären nun MM IB-Funde aus datierbaren ägyptischen Fundzusammenhängen notwendig. Das einzige Gefäß, welches mit einiger Wahrscheinlichkeit der Phase MM IB zugeordnet werden kann,141 stammt aus
130
CADOGAN, DAY, MACDONALD, MACGILLIVRAY, MOMIGLIANO, WHITELAW & WILSON 1993, 25, 26; MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 36–37. Siehe ferner MACGILLIVRAY 1994, 46–49. 131 Iraklion Museum S-K 1898. 1,87 × 1,27 × 0,81 cm. HOOD 1959, 19–20, Abb. 32; CMS II.2, Kat.-Nr. 34; LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON 1990, 211–212 Kat.-Nr. 69, Taf. 46 Nr. 69; PHILLIPS 1991, II, 561–62 Kat.-Nr. 163, III, 1061 Abb. 163; KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 313 Kat.-Nr. 314. 132 HOOD 1959, 19; HOOD 1961/62, 96. 133 ÅSTRÖM 1961/62, 145. 134 REISNER 1955, 62 Abb. 10, 64 Abb. 12, 65 Abb. 13 = DUNHAM 1967, 73, 75, 76. 135 Als Parallelen nannte er aus Tell ed-Duweir: ROWE 1936, 32 Kat.-Nr. 119 mit Taf. 3 Nr. 119; aus Megiddo: ROWE 1936, 33 Kat.-Nr. 123 mit Taf. 3 Nr. 123; aus Tell el-Ajjul: ROWE 1936, 67 Kat.-Nr. 255 mit Taf. 7 Nr. 255 = KEEL 1997, 446–447 Kat.-Nr. 1008; ebenfalls aus Tell elAjjul: ROWE 1936, 85 Kat.-Nr. 333 mit Taf. 9 Nr. 333 = KEEL 1997, 206–207 Kat.-Nr. 309; aus dem Ägyptischen Museum Kairo: NEWBERRY 1907, 90 Kat.-Nr. 36357, Taf. 11 Nr. 36357; 138 Kat.-Nr. 36547, Taf. 11 Nr. 36547; 183 Kat.-Nr. 36730, Taf. 11 Nr. 36730. Außerdem berief er
136 137
138
139
140
141
sich auf eine mündliche Mitteilung von Jürgen Settgast, welcher den Skarabäus in die Hyksoszeit oder in die 18. Dynastie datiert hätte: ÅSTRÖM 1961/62, 145 mit Anm. 56. WARD 1971, 81 mit Anm. 334. WARREN 1980, 497; CADOGAN 1983, 516; QUIRKE & FITTON 1997, 442. KEEL & KYRIAKIDES in: KARETSOU et al. 2000, 313 Kat.-Nr. 314. Als Parallele nennen sie aus Tell el-Ajjul: KEEL 1997, 242–243 Nr. 409 und aus Uronarti: DUNHAM 1967, 76 Nr. 324, 327–328. PHILLIPS 1991, II, 561–562 Kat.-Nr. 163. Sie nannte (wie auch Åström) Parallelen aus Uronarti: REISNER 1955, 65 Abb. 13 Nr. 324, 327–333 = DUNHAM 1967, 76 Nr. 324, 327–333; aus der ägyptischen Sammlung des University College London: PETRIE 1925, Taf. 10 Nr. 440; aus der Sammlung Matouk: MATOUK 1977, 410 Nr. 2330. Typologisch ordnete sie das Stück wie folgt ein: nach TUFNELL 1984: Rückentypus I, Kopftypus D1, Seitentypus d13. Christa Mlinar, persönliche Mitteilung am 30. Juni 2005, für die ich mich herzlich bedanke. MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 103; LAHANAS 2004, 42.
122 Felix Höflmayer Grab 88 der Qubbet el-Hawa, welches bereits in der 6. Dynastie angelegt wurde und zahlreiche spätere Nachbestattungen aufwies, welche bis in die Zweite Zwischenzeit andauerten.142 Aus diesem Grund ist dieser Befund chronologisch nicht verwertbar. Auch aus Lischt sind einige Scherben bekannt, welche teilweise in die Phase MM IB gesetzt wurden,143 doch auch hier lässt der Kontext keinerlei chronologische Schlüsse zu.144 Aus Kontexten, welche in MM IB datiert wurden (Archanes Grabbau 6, Poros, Gournes) stammen Skarabäen, welche ebenfalls noch dem frühen Mittleren Reich zugeordnet werden können. Der Import aus Gournes hingegen scheint jünger zu sein, kann aber nicht herangezogen werden um das Ende von MM IB zu datieren, da außerhalb der Paläste MM IB-Keramik auch noch in Gebrauch stand, als bereits MM II in Knossos, Phaistos und Mallia in Verwendung war.145 Die frühesten minoischen Importe in gut datierbaren Kontexten Ägyptens oder der Levante stammen aus Sidon und Tell el-Dabca. Die erst
vor einigen Jahren gefundene Tasse aus Sidon wurde in MM IIA datiert und stammt aus einem Kontext, der in die späte 12. Dynastie gehört.146 In Tell el-Dabca sind in Stratum L (mittlere 12. Dynastie: ca. 1900–868) Fragmente von Oval-mouth amphorae gefunden worden, welche vorsichtig in MM IIA (?) datiert wurden.147 Dies zeigt, dass MM IIA bereits vor der späten 12. Dynastie, vielleicht sogar vor Sesostris III. in Gebrauch stand. Umgekehrt kann durch den in Knossos in einem MM IIA-Kontext gefundenen Skarabäus der frühen 13. Dynastie belegt werden, dass MM IIA erst nach der 12. Dynastie zu Ende gegangen ist. Und da die frühesten Funde von MM IIB in Ashkelon148 und in Tell el-Dabca149 ebenfalls aus der frühen 13. Dynastie stammen, kann der Übergang von MM IIA zu MM IIB mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit in die frühe 13. Dynastie datiert werden, also wohl um 1775.150 Der jüngst geäußerte Vorschlag von Robert Merrillees, MM IIB um 1825 beginnen zu lassen151 sollte also um etwa ein halbes Jahrhundert gesenkt werden.
142
147
143 144 145 146
EDEL in: KEMP & MERRILLEES 1980, 176–214; KEMP & MERRILLEES 1980, 215–219. FITTON, HUGHES & QUIRKE 1998, 132. KEMP & MERRILLEES 1980, 1–6. WARREN & HANKEY 1989, 50–51. MACGILLIVRAY 2004. Zum Kontext siehe: BADER 2003, 34–35 mit Abb. 4 und FORSTNER-MÜLLER & KOPETZKY 2006, 60.
148 149
150 151
CZERNY 1998, 46 mit Abb. 21. STAGER 2002, 357, 358 Abb. 19. MACGILLIVRAY 1995; MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 105. Siehe auch: WALBERG 1991. Chronologie nach KITCHEN 2000. MERRILLEES 2003, 138.
Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta 123
Bibliographie ALEXIOU, S.
CZERNY, E.
1958
1998
Ein frühminoisches Grab bei Lebena auf Kreta, AA 1958, 1–10.
Zur Keramik von cEzbet Rushdi (Stand Mai 1997), Ä&L 8, 41–46.
ALEXIOU, S. & WARREN, P.
DIMOPOULOU, N.
2004
2000
The Early Minoan Tombs of Lebena, Southern Crete, SIMA 30, Sävedalen.
ÅSTRÖM, P.
Seals and Scarabs from the Minoan Port Settlement at Poros-Katsambas, 27–38, in: W. MÜLLER (ed.), Minoisch-mykenische Glyptik. Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion. CMS Beiheft 6, Berlin.
1961/62 Remarks on Middle Minoan Chronology, Kritika Chronika 15/16, 137–150.
DUNAND, M.
1978
Methodical Viewpoints on Middle Minoan Chronology, OpAth 12, 87–90.
1954
The Middle Minoan Chronology, 3–7, in: P. ÅSTRÖM, L.R. PALMER & L. POMERANCE (eds.), Studies in Aegean Chronology, SIMA-Pb 25, Göteborg.
1967
1984
BADER, B. 2003
DUNHAM, D.
The Egyptian Jars from Sidon in their Egyptian Context, AHL 18, 31–37. The Tutankhamun Burnt Group from Gurob, Egypt: Bases for the Absolute Chronology of LH III A and B. Dissertation University of Pennsylvania.
BELLI, P. 1984
Second Cataract Forts II. Uronarti, Shalfak, Mirgissa, Boston.
FITTON, L., HUGHES M. & QUIRKE, S. 1998
BELL, M.R. 1991
Fouilles de Byblos II. 1933–1938, Paris.
Northerners at Lahun. Neutron Activation Analysis of Minoan and Related Pottery in the British Musuem, 112–140, in: S. QUIRKE (ed.), Lahun Studies, Reigate.
FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., KOPETZKY, K. 2006
An Upper Egyptian Import at Sidon, AHL 24, 60–62.
GIVEON, R. 1985
Nuovi documenti per lo studio delle tombe circulari cretesi, SMEA 25, 91–142.
Egyptian Scarabs from Western Asia from the Collections of the British Museum. OBO SA 3, Freiburg – Göttingen.
BEN-TOR, D.
GOODISON, L., & GUARITA, C.
2006
2005
Chronological and Historical Implications of the Early Egyptian Scarabs on Crete, 77–89, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN & A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak II. OLA 149, Leuven-Paris-Dudley, MA.
BETANCOURT, P.P. 1985
The History of Minoan Pottery, Princeton.
BLACKMAN, D. 1999
Archaeology in Greece 1998–99, AR 1998–1999, 1–124.
BRUNTON, G.
A New Catalogue of the Mesara-Type Tombs, SMEA 47, 171–212.
HATZIDAKIS, I. 1915
Prwtominwúkoˆ t£foi par¦ tÕ cwr…on Goàrnej, ArchDelt 1, 59–63.
1918
Minwúkoˆ t£foi ™n Kr»tV, ArchDelt 4, 44–87.
HELCK, W. 1976
Ägyptische Statuen im Ausland – ein chronologisches Problem, UF 8, 101–115.
19952 Die Beziehungen Ägyptens und Vorderasiens zur Ägäis bis ins 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Von Rosemarie Drenkhahn durchgesehene und bearbeitete Neuauflage. Erträge der Forschung 120. Darmstadt.
1927
Qau and Badari I. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account Twenty-ninth Year 1923, London.
1937
Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture. British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt. First and Second Years 1928, 1929, London.
1959
Archaeology in Greece, 1958, AR 5, 3–22.
1960
Archaeology in Greece, 1959, AR 6, 3–26.
Matmar. British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt, 1929–1931, London.
1961/62 Stratigraphic Excavations at Knossos 1957–61, Kritika Chronika 15/16, 92–98.
1948
CADOGAN, G. 1983
Early Minoan and Middle Minoan Chronology, AJA 87, 507–518.
HOOD, M.S.F.
1966
The Early and Middle Minoan Periods at Knossos, BICS 13, 110–111.
KARETSOU, A., ANDREADAKI-VLAZAKI, M.
KRHTH – AIGUPTOS. Politismiko… desmo… trièn cilietièn. Kat£logoj, Iraklion.
CADOGAN, G., DAY, P., MACDONALD, C.F., MACGILLIVRAY, J.A., MOMIGLIANO, N., WHITELAW, T.M. & WILSON, D.E.
2000
1993
KEEL, O.
Early Minoan and Middle Minoan Pottery Groups at Knossos, BSA 88, 21–28.
1995
Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel.
124 Felix Höflmayer Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit. Einleitung, OBO SA 10, Freiburg-Göttingen. 1997
Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit. Katalog Band I: Von Tell Abu Farag bis cAtlit, OBO SA 13, FreiburgGöttingen.
KEMP, B.J., & MERRILLEES, R.S. 1980
Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt, Mainz am Rhein.
KITCHEN, K.A. 2000
Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt (Absolute Chronology I). The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a Current Assessment, 39–52, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Proceedings of an International Symposium at Schloß Haindorf, 15th–17th of November 1996 and at the Austrian Academy, Vienna, 11th–12th of May 1998, CChEM 1, Wien.
1907
Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire. Nos. 36001–37521. Scarab-shaped Seals, London.
PENDLEBURY, J.D.S. 1930
Aegyptiaca. A Catalogue of Egyptian Objects in the Aegean Area, Cambridge.
1939
The Archaeology of Crete. An Introduction, London.
PENDLEBURY, H.W., PENDLEBURY, J.D.S. & MONEY-COUTTS, M.B. 1935–36 Excavations in the Plain of Lasithi I: The Cave of Trapeza, BSA 36, 5–131. PELON, O. 1976
Tholoi, tumuli et cercles funéraires. Recherches sur les monuments funéraires de plan circulaire dans l’égée de l’âge du bronze (IIIe et IIe millénaires av. J.-C.). Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 229, Paris.
PETRIE, W.M.F.
LAHANAS, A.
1891
Illahun, Kahun and Gurob. 1889–90, London.
2004
1925
Button and Design Scarabs. Illustrated by the Egyptian Collection in University College, London, London.
Ein Keramikdepot aus Archanes und seine Bedeutung für die Entwicklung der mittelminoischen Keramik. Dissertation Universität Freiburg. http://deposit. ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=972733507
PETRIE, W.M.F. & BRUNTON, G. 1924
LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON, C. 1990
Hellenorientalia plus Orientalia. A Catalogue of Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Mitannian, Syro-Palestinian, Cypriot and Asia Minor Objects from the Bronze Age Aegean. SIMA-Pb 95, Göteborg.
PHILLIPS, J.S. 1990
Egypt in the Aegean during the Middle Kingdom, 319–333, in: Akten des Vierten Internationalen Ägyptologen-Kongresses, BSAK 4, Hamburg.
1991
The Impact and Implications of the Egyptian and ‘Egyptianizing’ Material found on Bronze Age Crete, ca. 3000 – ca. 1100 B.C. Dissertation University of Toronto.
MACGILLIVRAY, J.A. 1995
A Minoan Cup at Tell el-Dabca, Ä&L 5, 81–84.
1998
Knossos: Pottery Groups of the Old Palace Period. British School at Athens Studies 5, London.
2004
A Middle Minoan Cup from Sidon, 124–131, in: C. DOUMET-SERHAL, A. RABATE & A. RESEK (eds.), A Decade of Archaeology and History in the Lebanon, Beirut.
PINI, I. 2000
MANNING, S.W. 1996 1999
Dating the Aegean Bronze Age: without, with, and beyond, radiocarbon, Acta Archaeologica 67, 15–37. A Test of Time. The Volcano of Thera and the Chronology and History of the Aegean and East Mediterranean in the Mid Second Millennium BC, Oxford.
Sedment I–II. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account Twenty-seventh Year 1921, London.
Eleven Early Cretan Scarabs, 107–113, in: A. KARETSOU (ed.), KRHTH – AIGUPOS. Politismiko… desmo… trièn cilietièn. Melštej, Iraklion.
POMERANCE, L: 1973
The Possible Role of Tomb Robbers and Viziers of the 18th Dynasty in Confusing Minoan Chronology, 21–30, in: Antichità Cretesi. Studi in onore di Doro Levi I, Catania.
MATOUK, F.S.
QUIRKE, S., & FITTON, L.
1977
1997
Corpus du scarabée égyptien II. Analyse thématique, Kein Erscheinungsort.
MATZ, F. 1928
Die frühkretischen Siegel. Eine Untersuchung über das Werden des minoischen Stiles, Berlin-Leipzig.
MERRILLEES, R.S. 2003
The First Appearances of Kamares Ware in the Levant, Ä&L 13, 127–142.
NEWBERRY, P.E. 1905
Ancient Egyptian Scarabs. An Introduction to Egyptian Seals and Signet Rings, London.
An Aegean Origin for Egyptian Spirals?, 421–444, in: J. PHILLIPS, L. BELL & B.B. WILLIAMS (eds.), Ancient Egypt, the Aegean and the Near East: Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell, San Antonio, TX.
REISNER, G.A. 1955
Clay Sealings of Dynasty XIII from Uronarti Fort, Kush 3, 26–69.
ROWE, A. 1936
A Catalogue of Egyptian Scarabs, Scaraboids, Seals and Amulets in the Palestine Archaeological Museum, Kairo.
Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta 125
SAKELLARAKIS, I.A. 1967a Minoan Cemeteries at Arkhanes, Archaeology 20, 276–281.
BC. Studies in Egyptian Foreign Relations during the First Intermediate Period, Beirut. 1978
Studies on Scarab Seals I. Pre-12th Dynasty Scarab Amulets, Warminster.
1981
The Scarabs from Tholos B at Platanos, AJA 85, 70–73.
1967b 'Anaskaf¾ 'Arcanîn, Praktika 1967, 151–161. 1971
'Anaskaf¾ 'Arcanîn, Praktika 1971, 276–283.
1973
'Anaskaf¾ 'Arcanîn, Praktika 1973, 167–187.
1975
'Anaskaf¾ 'Arcanîn, Praktika 1975, 255–321.
SAKELLARAKIS, I.A. – SAKELLARAKI, E. 1991
Archanes, Athen.
1997
Archanes. Minoan Crete in a New Light; Athen.
SCHACHERMEYR, F. 1964
Die minoische Kultur des alten Kreta, Stuttgart.
WARD, W.A. & DEVER, W.G. 1994
WARREN, P.M. 1980
SOLES, J.S. 1992
The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete. Hesperia Supplement 24, Princeton.
Studies on Scarab Seals III. Scarab Typology and Archaeological Context. An Essay on Middle Bronze Age Chronology, San Antonio, Tx. Problems of Chronology in Crete and the Aegean in the Third and Earlier Second Millennium BC, AJA 84, 487–499.
WARREN, P.M., & HANKEY, V. 1989
Aegean Bronze Age Chronology, Bristol.
STAGER, L.E.
WATROUS, L.V.
2002
1996
The MB IIA Ceramic Sequence at Tel Ashkelon and Its Implications for the “Port Power” Model of Trade, 353–362, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant. Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material. Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001. CChEM 3, Wien.
WIENER, M.H. 2003
TUFNELL, O. 1984
Studies on Scarab Seals II. Scarab Seals and their Contribution to History in the Early Second Millennium B.C., Warminster.
The Cave Sanctuary of Zeus at Psychro: A Study of Extra-urban Sanctuaries in Minoan and Early Iron Age Crete, Aegaeum 15, Liège. The Absolute Chronology of Late Helladic III A2 Revisited, BSA 98, 239–250.
YULE, P. 1980
Early Cretan Seals. A Study of Chronology, Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 4, Mainz am Rhein. Notes on Scarabs and Aegean Chronology, BSA 78, 359–367.
WALBERG, G. 1983
Provincial Middle Minoan Pottery, Mainz am Rhein.
1983
1991
The Finds at Tell el-Dabca and Middle Minoan Chronology, Ä&L 2, 115–120.
ZOIS, A.A.
WARD, W.A. 1971
Egypt and the East Mediterranean World 2200–1900
1969
Probl»mata cronolog…aj tÁj minwúkÁj kerameikÁj. Goàrnej. TÚlisoj. M£lia, Athen.
RESHEP AND ASTARTE IN NORTH SINAI: A RECENTLY DISCOVERED STELA FROM TELL EL-BORG By James K. Hoffmeier & Kenneth A. Kitchen
In the course of excavations at Tell el-Borg, North Sinai, in 2006 we discovered a small limestone votive stela that contains the figures of Reshep and Astarte (TBO 760;1 Fig. 1a–b). Given the scholarly interest in the presence and role of foreign deities in Egypt, and because of the intriguing iconographic features on this stela, it seems appropriate to publish this new discovery in a timely manner. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF THE STELA Tell el-Borg is located around ten kilometers (six miles) east of Qantara Sharq, Sinai and about five kilometers (3 miles) southeast of Tell Hebua II, now confirmed to be Egypt’s frontier town of Tjaru/Sile.2 Two forts from the New Kingdom have been discovered, the earlier one dating from the 18th Dynasty and the second one from the 19th and 20th Dynasties.3 We have presented evidence elsewhere to show that the first fort was likely constructed during the reigns of Thutmose III (1479–1425 B.C.) and/or Amenhotep II (1427– 1400 B.C.), and was abandoned after the reign of Akhenaten. This terminal date rests on the discovery of a stamped jar handle of anx xprw ra (Ankhkheperu-Re) – the ephemeral successor or coregent of Akhenaten (1338–1336 B.C.) – among the sherds sealed in the very top of the moat.4 The second fort was constructed immediately east of the 1
2
3
TBO =Tell el-Borg Object, the system for cataloguing small finds at Tell el-Borg. In recent years, two inscriptions have been discovered in 1999 and 2005 at Hebua I that mention Tjaru. See M. ABD EL-MAKSOUD & D. VALBELLE, Tell Héboua-Tjarou, L’Apport del l’Épigraphie, RdE 56 (2005) 8, 19–21. Abd el-Maksoud’s excavations during the spring and summer of 2007 at Hebua II have shown that it too is a part of the Tjaru military complex. For publications on Tell el-Borg J.K. HOFFMEIER, Tell elBorg in North Sinai, Egyptian Archaeology 20, Spring (2002) 18–20. J.K. HOFFMEIER & M. ABD EL-MAKSOUD, A New Military Site on ‘The Ways of Horus’ – Tell el-Borg 1999–2001: A Preliminary Report, JEA 89 (2003) 169–197. J.K. HOFFMEIER, Tell el-Borg on Egypt’s Eastern Frontier: A Preliminary Report on the 2002 and 2004 Seasons, JARCE 40 (2004) 85–112. J.K. HOFFMEIER,
front of the earlier fort. In fact, in Field IV, Wall C of the second fort was constructed over the SE corner of the moat of the earlier fort. This stratigraphic evidence demonstrates that the second fort was likely built late in the 18th Dynasty or at the very beginning of the 19th Dynasty.5 In 2005, a section of the moat of the Ramesside period fort was discovered and partially cleared (Field V, Area 2, squares A–B). It was a poorly made structure that measured 6.4 meters across at the top, and was at least 2.5 meters deep (Fig. 2). The superstructure was made of mud-brick that laid on a 45° angle in a trench that had been excavated into the sand. The foundation was made of an assortment of limestone blocks and fragments and was around 40 centimeters in depth. During the 2005 season, the ground water was touching the very bottom of the foundation. By the 2006 season, the water level had risen nearly another 15 cm, thus posing a danger to the blocks. At the end of the 2005 season, most of the limestone blocks were recovered from the rising water table. Among them were 17 pieces that contained some sort of inscription. The most important were seven partial or complete doorjambs from an earlier structure bearing the cartouches of aA xprw ra imn Htp HkA nTry iwnw (Aa-kheperu-ra Amenhotep, Divine Ruler of Heliopolis).6 The building from which they came was obviously still
4
5
6
Recent Excavations on the ‘Ways of Horus’: The 2005 and 2006 Seasons at Tell el-Borg, ASAE 80 (2006) 257–279. Some brief reports and pictures of the work at Tell el-Borg are also available at the project’s web-site, www.tellelborg.org. Several studies have presented the evidence for the dating of the moat, including J.K. HOFFMEIER & M. ABD EL -M AKSOUD , JEA 89 (2003) 193–194 and J.K. HOFFMEIER, ‘The Walls of the Ruler’ in Egyptian Literature and the Archaeological Record: Investigating Egypt’s Eastern Frontier in the Bronze Age, BASOR 343 (2006) 13–14. We currently favor the reign of Horemheb for this construction. See forthcoming J.K. HOFFMEIER, ASAE 80 (2006) 261–262. Two blocks mentioning Tjaru/Sile have been published. See J.K. HOFFMEIER & R.D. BULL, New Inscrip-
128 James K. Hoffmeier and Kenneth A. Kitchen
Fig. 1a TBO 760 stela of Astarte and Reshep; Photograph: J.T. Lim
Reshep and Astarte in North Sinai: A Recently Discovered Stela from Tell el-Borg 129
Fig. 1b TBO 760 stela of Astarte and Reshep; Computerised reconstruction: L. Pinch-Brock
130 James K. Hoffmeier and Kenneth A. Kitchen
Fig. 2 Tell el-Borg; Photograph: H. Alexander
standing during the reign of Akhenaten (1352–1336 B.C.) as the name of Amen was hacked out during the Amarna period iconoclasm. We have proposed that these blocks originally came from an important building associated with the first fort, which probably continued in use till the end of the Amarna period (ca. 1330 B.C.).7
This suggests that the reused blocks in the foundation of the moat most likely date to the period between 1425 B.C. (the reign of Amenhotep II) and ca.1300 B.C. when the moat was constructed. While excavating in Field II, Area 2, Square C during the most recent season, the stela under study was discovered. Unlike the other inscribed
tions Mentioning Tjaru from Tell el-Borg, North Sinai, RdE 56 (2005) 79–86, pls. XII–XIII) and the remainder are discussed in J.K. HOFFMEIER, Recent Excavations on
the ‘Ways of Horus’: The 2005 and 2006 Seasons at Tell el-Borg, ASAE (forthcoming). HOFFMEIER & R.D. BULL, RdE 56 (2005) 79–86.
7
Reshep and Astarte in North Sinai: A Recently Discovered Stela from Tell el-Borg 131
Fig. 3 Tell el-Borg; Photograph: J.K. Hoffmeier
blocks from the moat, the stela’s inscribed side faced upwards (Fig. 3). Based on the archaeological context (in the foundation of the moat), the stela must pre-date the Amarna period. DESCRIPTION OF STELA Rounded at the top, the stela is 35 cm tall and 24 cm wide, and it is about 4.5 cm thick (Fig. 1a–b). It is divided into two parts. The top section contains the two deities, and the bottom panel shows two men who are bringing offerings to Reshep and Astarte. The quality of the limestone is rather poor – somewhat porous. The bottom register has been damaged. A large section of the lower right hand portion has flaked off, obliterating the entire lower half of the second devotee. The general quality of the execution of the sunk reliefs is quite good, considering it is a private stela from a remote location, although the inscriptions are not as deeply incised and are difficult to read, especially the signs on the lower section. The top section containing the two deities is outlined by a circular line that follows the curvature of the top of the stela. The lines of the lunette extend down along the outside edges of the stela to
8
the surface on which the figures stand. The line representing the ground serves to demarcate the two panels; however, there are no outside lines in the lower portion, only a line representing the surface on which the two humans stand. On the left Reshep stands on a plinth – indicating a cult statue was in view. His right arm is upraised, holding a pear-shaped mace combined with a blade. He wears a long kilt that extends down to the ankle area and he is decked with the white crown, and has the narrow curved beard of Egyptian divinities. In his left hand he clutches a shield, which curves inward at the top and faces the deity. Above the shield his name and epithet are written: rSp nb pr iHw, “Reshep Lord of the estate (or house) of the stable of horses.” This is a previously unattested epithet for Reshep. IHw is a stable and normally is written with the house determinative ( ), indicating that it was a structure of some sort. However, there are examples in which a horse and plural strokes are written,8 just was we have here ( ). What exactly a pr iHw is remains uncertain, but it may refer to the entire stable establishment.
Wb 1, 121= A. ERMAN & H. GRAPOW, Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache 1–5 (Leipzig 1926–1931).
132 James K. Hoffmeier and Kenneth A. Kitchen Directly opposite Reshep, is the figure of Astarte, the goddess associated with warfare, horses and chariots.9 She sits enthroned on a leonine-legged chair, which in turn rests on the back of a horse. A spear clutched in her left hand is elevated over her head, as her right handle grasps a shield, which nearly touches that of Reshep. Also in the right hand one can see the top part and tip of a second spear extending beyond the top of the shield, which like Reshep’s shield curves inward, facing the goddess. She wears a tightly fitted dress that reaches her ankles, with the outline of her breast clearly delineated. On her head is the horned Atf-crown ( ). Astarte’s name (aAstrt) is written between the shield and spear that is held in her right her hand and her face. The signs are written after astrt and before the cobra determinative ( ) often used with female deities. Thus the name reads: astrt rn, meaning “Astarte name.”10 This is a most peculiar writing for which we can offer no parallel to this formula: deity-name + rn + determinative. It may be an Egyptian writing for the Canaanite epithet of Astarte, namely astrt rn bal, “Astarte the name of Baal.”11 In this case, either the name of Baal is missing due to lack of space or it was an intentional abbreviation. The appearance of a Semitic term in her epithet should not be surprising given her Levantine origin.12 In the lower register two worshipers are shown presenting offerings. The state of preservation of this part of the stela is poor, making the reading of the reliefs and inscription challenging. The man on the left wears a wig, the bottom of which touches the top of his left shoulder, and his kilt is knee-length. His one hand appears to be extend-
9
10 11
J. LECLANT, “Astarté à cheval d’après les representations égyptiennes,” Syria 37 (1960) 1–67. C. ROMMELAERE, Les Chevaux du Nouvel Empire Égyptien: Origines Races, Harnachement (Brussels 1991) chapter 8. Rn means ‘name’, cf. Wb 2, 425. J. HOFTIJZER & K. JONGELING, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Languages II (Leiden/New York, 1995) 1158. The earliest occurrence of this name is in the Kirta Epic from Ugarit, where it is found but once, but occurs again in a Phoenician text centuries later (D. PARDEE, The Kirta Legend, in: Context of Scripture I, 343 n. 101, in: W.W. HALLO & K.L. YOUNGER (eds.), The Context of Scripture (Leiden, 1997). Another interpretation of rn bal is “sky of Baal”, see N. WYATT, col. 205, in: K. VAN DER TOORN, B. BECKING, & P.W. VAN DER HORST
ed in a gesture of adoration, while the other may hold a libation vessel. A pedestal-type offering table stands before him with circular loaves (?) on it. Above the offering is the vertical inscription that includes the name and title of the devotee. The text reads imy-r ssmt btw, maA xrw – “the overseer of horses, Betu, the justified.” If our reading for the man’s name is correct, then we are dealing with a name known previously, but not common in Egypt. Ranke documents one occurrence in the Middle Kingdom and one in the New Kingdom.13 The name is quite possibly a foreign one, perhaps Hurrian. It might derive from the name Pentu/Bentu, a personal name attested at Nuzi, if we assume the assimilation of the n to t.14 The second figure stands on the right side of the bottom register and holds lotus flowers in each hand. The opened flowers are in direct alignment with the worshipper’s face, while the stems extend downwards. Below them is a wooden stand that supports what appears to be an amphora. The entire lower portion of this figure is missing and the top is so poorly preserved as to make it impossible to discern if this is a man or a woman. No trace of the second individual’s name is visible. DISCUSSION OF ICONOGRAPHY The Figure of Reshep Izak Cornelius recently studied the iconography of Reshep in Egyptian sources,15 proposing three different forms in which he appears, as 1. The menacing god, in which the deity is shown brandishing a weapon, 2. The standing god, and 3. the riding/driving god. Cornelius assembled 27 examples of Reshep portrayed in the menacing
12
13
14 15
(eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Grand Rapids/Leiden 1999). We are grateful to K.L. Younger for these references. Alan Schulman has made this point with respect to the use of Semitic terms in epithets of Reshep. See: Reshep Times Two, 165, in: W.K. SIMPSON & W.M. DAVIS (eds.), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan: Essays in honor of Dows Dunham on the occasion of his 90th birthday, June 1, 1980, Boston. H. RANKE, Die Ägyptischen Personennamen I (Glückstadt 1935) 99, no. 9. I.J. GELB, Nuzi Personal Names (Chicago 1943) 114. I. CORNELIUS, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Bacal. Orbis Biblicus et Orinetalis 140 (Fribourg 1994).
Reshep and Astarte in North Sinai: A Recently Discovered Stela from Tell el-Borg 133
god stance on stelae or reliefs on a permanent surface.16 There are many examples of the menacing god in glyptic art, but identifying the deity is challenging as Bacal and Reshep are at times indistinguishable.17 Clearly the Tell el-Borg stela falls into the menacing god category. Here Reshep is portrayed with his right hand upraised, clutching a pear-shaped blade-mace. In ten of the examples from Cornelius’s corpus, this type of mace is used. In the other hand, our deity holds a shield that curves inward at the top, pointing inwards towards Reshep’s head. This particular perspective has several parallels, apparently representing a side view of the shield.18 The most common shield form shows a frontal perspective, and typically, along with the shield, the god holds a spear. Thirteen of Cornelius’s examples have the shield-spear combination. The new stela omits the spear. The omission may be due to the fact that the deity’s name was written over the top of the shield, and below it is the head of Astarte’s horse. So there was simply no room for the spear. Space considerations – especially interference with an offering table – may account for the absent spear in some cases. Normally, if the shield is shown over the offering table and an inscription is above it, the spear is omitted. One notable exception is found on a Ramesside era stela from Deir el-Medineh, the artist includes the spear by placing it behind the offering table with the bottom of the shaft protruding below the table.19 Reshep is portrayed in keeping with normal Egyptian canons, including the narrow beard that curves out at the end, which is the traditional form for an Egyptian god. The standard headgear of this deity, the white crown, is worn, but no flowing streamers or band around the crown are visible, which are attested elsewhere. There are cases when he is portrayed in a more Semitic manner with
Cornelius has also classified the iconography of Semitic goddesses in Egyptian sources. They are 1. the armed goddess, 2. the seated goddess, 3 the standing goddess, 4 the equestrian goddess, and 5 the naked woman holding objects.23 Astarte usually is depicted in the first and fourth type, and within these, there are variations. The armed goddess type has sub-categories of the menacing seated goddess and the menacing standing goddess, while the equestrian goddess typically shows Astarte riding bare back on a horse in New Kingdom Egypt in a menacing pose. There are a few cases, however, where she is not in an attacking posture.24 Anat is also portrayed in nearly identical ways, and sometimes is iconographically indistinguishable from Astarte.25 Portrayals of Astarte on a chariot are found in the Levant in a bronze figurine, but only in Ptolemaic times is she shown driving a chariot in Egypt.26 In the Tell el-Borg stela, Astarte adopts the menacing posture, with a spear raised in her left hand, which is held near the very end of the shaft. The spear is the weapon of choice for this goddess, but the mace, blade mace and even a bow and arrow are all attested in Egyptian New Kingdom sources.27 The Atf-crown is the standard diadem for Astarte. Some portrayals include horns and a ribbon flowing downwards from the back of
16
23
17 18
19 20 21 22
Ibid. pls. 1–19. Ibid. 167–169. Ibid. pls. 2, 6, 8, & 21. One of the four examples of this side view presentation of the shield on a Ramesside period stela has the curved part turned outwards towards the worshiper. See CORNELIUS, pl. 6. Ibid. pl. 14. Ibid. pls. 22–23. R. GIVEON, Resheph in Egypt, JEA 66 (1980) 144. On the lute in Egypt and as an element of Reshep’s iconography, see K. BOSSE-GRIFFITHS, Two Lute-Players of the Amarna Era, JEA 66 (1980) 72–73.
long hair, a large beard, and a fillet that secures a gazelle’s head to his brow.20 The Tell el-Borg stela includes the gazelle’s head, an iconographic detail associated uniquely with representations of Reshep. It has been observed that the gazelle head or horns “are Resheph’s distinguishing mark,” according to Raphael Giveon.21 Another regular iconographic element of the Reshep repertoire is the lute,22 but it is not present in the new stela. The seated Astarte
24 25
26
27
I. CORNELIUS, The Many Faces of the Goddess: The Iconography of the Syro-Palestinian Goddess Anat, Astarate, Qedeshet, and Asherah ca. 1500–1000 BCE, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 204 (Fribourg 2004) 21. CORNELIUS, The Many Faces of the Goddess, pls. 4–6-7. See discussion and illustrations throughout CORNELIUS, The Many Faces of the Goddess. CORNELIUS, The Many Faces of the Goddess, 93–94; pl. 1.6, and 32. CORNELIUS, The Many Faces of the Goddess, for the spear, see 1.1.a, 1,2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4a, 31; for other weapons, see pls. 1.1, 1.7, 4.4.
134 James K. Hoffmeier and Kenneth A. Kitchen
Fig. 4 Astarte seal
Fig. 5 Nuzi seal in ‘Mittanian style’
the crown. In the new example, the horns are present, but there is no trace of a ribbon.
The most striking iconographic element of Astarte is that she is ensconced on a chair that rests on the back of a horse. The rear chair foot rests on the rear haunches, very close to the tail, while the front feet rest on the middle of the horse’s back. This placement allows space for Astarte’s feet to rest at the front of the back, just below the flowing mane. To our knowledge, this combination of seated goddess on the back of a horse is without parallel in Egyptian art. It appears to be a conflation of the seated menacing goddess and equestrian motifs. The closest possible parallels to this combination in Egyptian sources is found on some New Kingdom period scarabs in which a wingeddeity appears to be sitting as if on a chair on the back of a horse, but there is no chair! (Fig. 4)28 In fact the divinity seems to be hovering over the equine. Cornelius initially identified the wingedfigure on these scarabs with Baal. Edward Lipin,ki challenged this identification, believing that the deity is female, and is likely Astarte or Anat.29 The main argument he advances is the presence of the wdAt-eye ( ) on some of the scarabs which could point to Anat because her name was symbolized “at Ugarit by the cuneiform logogram of the eye.”30
This suggestion apparently convinced Cornelius, because in his recent monograph on the iconography of Semitic goddesses in Egypt, he reclassified these images as “the goddess stands or kneels (not riding) on horseback.”31 The problem with Lipin,ki’s suggestion is that the appearance of the -sign is, as Carol Andrews reminds us, “the most powerful of protective amulets.”32 So the appearance of this apotropaic symbol on a scarab is fitting and thus may have nothing to do with the Ugaritic writings. The second problem with Lipinksi’s identification is that in all four of the scarabs with the winged-deity under consideration, the figures wear the double crown of Upper and Lower Egypt (Fig. 4). Among all the clearly identifiable illustrations of Anat and Astarte, these deities never wear the double crown, rather the Atfcrown. Thus equating these winged-deities on horses with Anat or Astarte is at best questionable. Despite the uncertainty of the identity of these winged-deities, this motif, absent the throne, comes closest in Egyptian representations to Astarte’s presentation on TBO 760. Outside of Egypt there are examples in glyptic art of deities seated on the throne that are perched on the back of an animal. From Pre-Sargonic Mesopotamia, for example, comes a cylinder seal where a deity is enthroned on the back of a bull that faces right while the god faces left, and a second bull facing the other directions serves as the footstool for the
28
30
The horse
29
CORNELIUS, The Many Faces of the Goddess, pls. 4.22, 23, 24, 25. E. LIPIØSKI, Egypto-Cannanite Iconography of Reshef, Bacal, %oron, and Anat, CdÉ 71 (1996) 262.
31 32
Loc. cit. CORNELIUS, The Many Faces of the Goddess, 40–41. C. ANDREWS, Amulets, in: 79, D.B. REDFORD (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt I, New York 2001.
Reshep and Astarte in North Sinai: A Recently Discovered Stela from Tell el-Borg 135
Fig. 7 Tomb of Userhet, no. 56
Fig. 6 Tomb of Amen-Nedj, no. 84 (top) Tomb of Menkheperre-Senb, no. 86 (bottom)
deity.33 A similar instance occurs on a seal from the 20th year of Ammiditana.34 The closest parallel artistically and chronologically to the new enthroned Astarte on a horse is the depiction of a Mesopotamian god on a seat that is placed on the back of what appears to be a horse (Fig. 5). This seal is in the “Mitannian Style” and dates to ca. 1400 B.C. according to Edith Porada.35 In the absence of a royal cartouche on the stela, the presentation of the horse offers helpful details for dating the scene. Astarte’s horse has an elongated and slender body, a thin upright neck with a broad flowing mane whose width is only a little less than the thickness of the neck itself. The tail is long and thin, and its curvature gives it a question mark shape (Fig. 6).36 This type of horse compares well with the horses in the tomb of Renni, Paheri, Djehuti, Amun-nedjeh, Sennefer, Amenemhet, Nebamun, and Rekhmire, all spanning from the reigns of 33
34
35
This is Berlin VA 3878 in D. COLON, First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East (London 1987) 165. For the dating see p. 27. I am grateful to Alan Millard for directing me to this and the other Mesopotamian examples cited here. B. BUCHANAN, Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection (New Haven 1981) 352–53. E. PORADA, Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections I: Plates (Washington, D.C. 1948) # 1029E pl. 157, and pp. 143–144. Porada suggests that the animal supporting the enthroned deity is an ox. A
Longiligne
Bréviligne
Fig. 8 Rommelaere’s two types of 18th dynasty horses
Amenhotep I to Thutmose III.37 At the end of this period and into the reign of Amenhotep II, a stockier horse begins to appear as the earlier type fades out (Fig. 7). Catherine Rommelaere made a diachronic study of the horse based on 18th Dynasty representations. She determined that there are two types depicted. The shape of the one type is an elongated slender horse that she calls ‘Longiligne.’ The second horse is stockier horse and shorter, hence ‘Bréviligne.’38 She convincing-
36
37
38
closer look suggests that it looks more like a horse than an ox, especially the manner in which the ears are shaped. The tail does seem to be that of a bovine. Perhaps a composite animal is intended? C. ROMMELAERE, Les Chevaux du Nouvel Empire Égyptien. Origines, races, harnachement (Bruxelles, 1991), 68–70. Illustrations of these have all been conveniently assembled and illustrated in ROMMELAERE, Les Chevaus du Nouvel Empire Égyptien, 152–167. ROMMELAERE, Les Chevaux du Nouvel Empire Égyptien, 34–37.
136 James K. Hoffmeier and Kenneth A. Kitchen
When the horse of Astarte is compared with the two types of horses found in 18th Dynasty representations, it clearly matches the Longiligne variety. Consequently, the new stela most likely dates no later than the reign of Amenhotep II. The archaeological context of the stela suggests a date before ca. 1320–1300 B.C. The fact that the stela was found in association with other blocks bearing the names of Amenhotep II is not insignificant. When all these factors are weighed, a date in the reigns of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II is likely. Consequently this stela of Reshep and Astarte is one of the earliest representations of these martial deities who became increasingly
important in the course of the New Kingdom. Moreover, to our knowledge, this is the first example in which Reshep and Astarte appear together in Egyptian art. The owner of the stela was the ‘overseer of horses,’ apparently during the 18th Dynasty when the first Tell el-Borg fort flourished. Considering that he was likely a foreigner himself, his devotion to Reshep and Astarte, who are associated with horses and warfare, is quite fitting. The former’s title ‘Lord of the house of the stable of horses,’ shows the close relationship between the deity and Betu, the stable master. The personal name Reshep, a stable master, is found in the Wilbour Papyrus from the 20th Dynasty.41 The convergence of the two martial deities, Reshep’s epithet, the depiction of a horse and an officer responsible for the stable at a military site is altogether appropriate and expected. Ironically, this stela was discovered only about 3 meters west of a burial of four equines within the moat (Fig. 2). Two of these may be horses.42 While Reshep’s name is attested in Asiatic personal names in Egypt as early as the Middle Kingdom,43 it is not until the New Kingdom that this West Asian storm-god begins to play a greater role in Egyptian religion and is associated with horses and warfare. Thirty years ago the late Alan Schulman lamented that while Reshep ‘is associated with horses’ in the New Kingdom, the evidence was ‘surprisingly scant.’44 The recently discovered stela provides new evidence for this important but somewhat elusive foreign deity from the early 18th Dynasty, while at the same time expanding the repertoire of forms for the iconography of Astarte.
39
43
ly demonstrated that this difference is not merely an artistic one, but reflects a shift in the breed of horse. The earlier horse, she suggests was the Akhal Teke horse of Central Asia, whereas the later heavier equid is the Arabian Pur-sang.39 The change from one type of horse to the other during the second half of the 15th century B.C. coincides with the period when Thutmose III and Amenhotep II campaigned extensively in the Levant. Thousands of horses were brought to Egypt as booty during the three decades of aggressive military activity. The Megiddo booty list of Thutmose III alone records that 2041 horses, 191 foals, 6 stallions and colts (the number is lost) were taken to Egypt.40 This influx of horses to Egypt apparently brought the new breed which in time, by sheer numbers and cross-breading, replaced the earlier, slighter variety. The shift in artistic representation, then, merely reflects the change in breed. CONCLUSIONS
40 41
42
ROMMELAERE, Les Chevaux du Nouvel Empire Égyptien, 34–46. K. SETHE, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie IV (Berlin 1961) 663. A.H. GARDINER, Wilbour Papyrus III (London 1948) 43, Text A 41,5; 72 Text A 68, 36. He is son of Thut-em-Heb. During the most reason season, preliminary studies began on the four equids
44
The name apr rSpw occurs in Brooklyn Papyrus 35.1446. See W.C. HAYES, A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom I the Brooklyn Museum (New York 1955) 94. A. SCHULMAN, Reshep on Horseback?, JSSEA Newsletter 7 no. 4 (1977) 13.
AMENEMHET II AND THE SEA: MARITIME ASPECTS OF THE MIT RAHINA (MEMPHIS) INSCRIPTION By Ezra S. Marcus*
Abstract The inscribed granite blocks found at Mit Rahina (Memphis) are a unique source of information from the early 12th Dynasty of Egypt. This inscription apparently derived from the court records of Amenemhet II and details activities during two years of his reign, including endowments, building activities, and aspects of Egypt’s foreign relations. The last involved both military and commercial expeditions to the Levant, by land and by sea, activities that shed new light on this period. This paper considers the inscription from a heretofore unappreciated maritime perspective by analyzing the seaborne expeditions and the detailed descriptions of their cargoes both qualitatively and quantitatively. These descriptions may be characterized as the earliest “bill of lading” or “cargo manifest” known from the ancient Mediterranean world. The results are synthesized with the extant textual and archaeological record, in order to elucidate the nature of these expeditions and the ships involved, the significance of maritime transport and the implications of this capability for developments both in Egypt and the Levant. INTRODUCTION Throughout its long history, Egypt’s foreign relations were reliant, at least partially, on maritime communication.1 Despite the existence of a contiguous land route with southwestern Asia,
*
1
Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies, University of Haifa The antiquity of maritime contacts between Egypt and the Levant has long been a matter of debate. PRAG (1978; 1986), claims contacts with Byblos already in the Chalcolithic Period. In contrast, BEN-TOR (1991, 3–4) rejects the notion of any regular maritime contact with the Lebanon prior to the Old Kingdom. However, the underwater find from the Carmel Coast of a Naqada IIb-c period Egyptian jar filled with the originally-live mollusca Aspatharia Rubens (SHARVIT, GALILI, ROSEN, et al. 2002), the deep-water finds of Early Bronze Age I Canaanite and Naqada II Egyptian ceramics off the southern Levantine coast (BARAG 1963, 18, pl. 5a:1;
seaborne transport was necessary in order to satisfy Egypt’s need for foreign products, both of great size and quantity, and to augment the terrestrial projection of military power. Beginning in Pre-Dynastic times, the increasing demand, inter alia, for large quantities of Mediterranean horticultural (olive oil, wine, etc.) and wood products (timber and resins), of which royalty, the elite, and religious institutions were always the greatest consumers, was a major impetus for the king assuming, or claiming to assume, a central role in their procurement. The means of this procurement became solely maritime probably sometime around the Dynasty I/Early Bronze Age II horizon, ca. 3000 BCE, when the northern Sinai land route, the “Way of Horus,” was abandoned (BRANDL 1992; MARCUS 2002a; YEKUTIELI 2002; DE MIROSCHEDJI 2002), but it is only in the 4th Dynasty that the first record exists of a king, Sneferu, dispatching a maritime expedition.2 Subsequent Old Kingdom (OK) textual references and pictorial depictions attest to a royal hand in such endeavors, which is complemented by the archaeological realia of high-profile imported raw materials and products in Egypt, and the plethora of Egyptian finds at her partner port in the Lebanon: Byblos. When turning to the Middle Kingdom (MK), however, the pattern of evidence for such activity is one-sided. Numerous material finds in Egypt and Byblos attest to such maritime
2
MARCUS 2002a, 407; GOPHNA 2002), the distribution of foreign coniferous woods (including cedar) along the southern Levantine littoral and Egypt, and other evidence (GOPHNA and LIPSCHITZ 1996; MARCUS 2002a), all appear to demonstrate that the maritime capability implicit in Prag’s position were not lacking at least by the Early Bronze Age Ia. The Palermo Stone and Cairo fragment #4 refer to “the bringing of forty ships filled with aS wood” and the building of 100 cubit long vessels and a palace door, variously of aS and mrw wood, as well as other evidence of foreign expeditions (BREASTED 1906, §146-§148; WILSON 1950, 227; SMITH 1971, 167; MEIGGS 1982, 63; WILKINSON 2000, 141–145, 232–236).
138 Ezra S. Marcus activity, but, until recently, the written record has been largely silent, with only vague allusions to shipping throughout this period and the Second Intermediate Period (MARCUS 1998; 2002b). Given this extraordinary lacuna, the Mit Rahina (Memphis) inscription of Amenemhet II, which contains detailed references to seaborne expeditions and transported goods, is a singular discovery, whose potential for shedding light on Egyptian maritime activity has been largely overlooked since its publication (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991).3 The goal of this study is to identify those maritime aspects of the text and treat them within their proper historical and archaeological context. Such a treatment will demonstrate that significant developments occurred in Egypt during the reign of Amenemhet II that may have impacted on the Levant as well. THE ANNALS OF AMENEMHET II Previous research on the text When initially discovered and its existence reported in the late 1970s – early 1980s (FARAG 1980; POSENER 1982), the Middle Kingdom inscription of Amenemhet II from Mit Rahina (Memphis) elicited, variously, anticipation and doubt among scholars of Egypt and the Levant alike.4 This reaction was to be expected as after nearly a century of disappointment at the near lack of epigraphic evidence for MK Egyptian military operations in the Levant and the absence of clarity regarding relations between the two regions, here was a text that had the potential to fill both of these lacunae. Thus, relying on photographs and the first impressions of FARAG and POSENER, a number of translations and interpretations appeared (HELCK 1989; GOEDICKE 1991; REDFORD 1992, 78–80; O’CONNOR 1996, 52–54).5 However, it was not until a detailed transcription and interpretation was published by ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA (1991), complemented
3
4
Surprisingly, the two most recent major works on Bronze Age seafaring in the Mediterranean mention it only briefly and merely as evidence for contacts with Cyprus and the Lebanon (WACHSMANN 1998, 10; FABRE 2005, 30, n. 83). Note the cautious mention already in 1982 by NAÝAMAN (1982, 141). WARD (1987, 528, nn. 90–91) prematurely rejected the 12th Dynasty date and attributed it to a 19th Dynasty donation to the funerary monuments of Senusret I and Amenemhet II.
by an additional copy by MALEK and QUIRKE (1992; MALEK 1992), that the text could be fully appreciated and evaluated, although further authoritative collations and publications remain forthcoming.6 Since then, this text has begun to be appreciated as a basis for characterizing the nature of relations between Egypt and the Levant (EDER 1995, 176–195; REDFORD 1992, 80; 1996, 79; DANTONG 1998; MARCUS 1998; 2002b; COHEN 2000, 89–97; 2002a, 41–45). Others have utilized it more specifically for the identification of various ethnonyms (DE FIDANZA 1998), toponyms (QUACK 1996, 79), as background for the study of royal sculpture and building activities during the reign of Amenemhet II (FAY 1996, 40, 61), for the philological data it contains on Egyptian characterization of metals (GIUMLÍA-MAIR and QUIRKE 1997), the information it offers on Egyptian mining activities (SHAW 1998, 248–250) and for the light it sheds on MK temple construction (ALTENMÜLLER 1998). Lastly, references to endowments to the Temple of Montu at Tôd have led some to see the text as a background for the famous Tôd Treasure of Amenemhet II (LILYQUIST 1993, 36; PIERRAT 1994, 23–24). The inscription The text in question is inscribed on a single red granite block, termed “M”, which was found in secondary use as a pedestal for a statue of Rameses II in a temple at Memphis; a fragment previously discovered by PETRIE, termed “P”, is part of the same inscription. These blocks were probably part of the walls of an inner chamber of the Temple of Ptah, which is mentioned in the “P” fragment (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 1, 40; MALEK and QUIRKE 1992, 13).7 The text, which represents a small portion of the court records or annals of Amenemhet II, is written in columns and lists events apparently organized in chronological order. ALTENMÜLLER & MOUSSA (1991, 4) divide the 41 columns into 40 subject headings.8 What follows are selected por-
5
6
7
8
O’Connor’s consideration is less an interpretation than a response to BERNAL’s (1991, 230–235) misuse of the text as evidence of wide-ranging Egyptian conquests north of the Levant. See also OBSOMER (1995, 595–606) for a largely overlooked transliteration and translation of the text. However, QUIRKE (2003b) notes that several of the blocks might originally have come from Amenemhet II’s pyramid temple at Dahshur. QUIRKE (2003a) offers a slightly different division.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 139
tions of their first 27 subject headings (underlined) for columns M1-26 only and, except where noted, 1. 2. 4. 5. 6.
M1 M2–3 M4 M5 M5–6
following Altenmüller and Moussa’s translation for those sections relevant to this study.
Donation of a field for offerings to the funerary cult of Senusret I Establishment of an offering endowment for Senusret I Offering endowment for the Sokarfest of days 25–26 Choiak for a cult Endowment of a statue to a temple of Senusret I (?) Endowment of a statue of Amenemhet II and cult equipment for Senusret I in the funerary cult temple of Senusret I 7. M6 Further endowments 8. M7 Offering endowments 9. M7 Dispatching of expedition troops to the Lebanon Sending of a military expedition into Lebanon (#nty-S) 10. M8 Raising of recruits (?) 11. M8 Dispatching of expedition troops to Asia Sending of a military expedition together with the ‘head of the fighting troops of the army’ (imy-r mnfAt mSa), to destroy/cut apart Asia (%Tt) IwA (a foreign country) 12-13. M9–10 Endowment of cult equipment for two recipients [gap of ca 10 + 7 groups erased - double donations - possibly to the gods Montu of Armant and Montu of Tôd] 12. (from) Silver (?): ... 2 (from) Asiatic copper: @st-vase 2 Hand washing tool 1 Incense arm 2 a hn-box for the opening of the mouth with all of its tools from the state administration. 13. M9 for Montu in Armant (from) Asiatic copper 1 ds-jug M10 for Montu of Tôd (from) Asiatic copper 1 ds-jug 16. M11–12 Tribute from Nubians 17. M12–13 Tribute from Asiatics M12 The children of the princes of Asia coming with bowed heads They bring here: (precious metal:) Silver 220 dbn M13 [Gold (?)] [. . .] (Animals:) [(?) Cattle and] small domestic animals Total 56 heads (Slaves:) Asiatics 1002 (Lead and lead minerals:) Lead 6 dbn White lead 55 dbn 18. M13–14 Return of an expedition from the Sinai M13 Arrival of the army (expedition) that was sent to the turquoise terraces. They bring here: (precious stone:) Turquoise 14 13/32 HoAt and the rest (Ore minerals:) #t-awA - mineral 8,700 dbn BiA-qis - mineral 5,570 dbn (Minerals:) The ? - mineral 6 hoAt M14 ... (Minerals:) Alum of a special kind 26 13/16 HoAt Natron 10 9/16 HoAt (Organic products:) Sea stars 8 sSAit - aromatics 41 sacks (Precious metal:) Silver 9 ¾ dbn (Animals:)
140 Ezra S. Marcus
21.
22.
23.
Cattle 10 Young Ibex 3 (Hides:) Cheetah hide M15 Tribute from xrw nomads (?) from TmpAw The coming of the xrw nomads (?) from TmpAw, with heads bowed down; with their arms they bring here: Lead 238 1/4 dbn M16–18 Return of the army from Iw3i and IAsii and a list of tribute M16 [The coming of the mSa-army and] the fighting army (mnfAt), which have been sent to cut up the fortifications of IwAi and to cut up the fortifications of IAsii. Amount of captives who were brought from the foreign lands: Asiatics: 1554 (Booty containing the following tools:) (from) Bronze and wood: Axes 10 Sickle 33 Daggers 12 Saws 4 1/4 Knives 79 Chisel 1 Razor blades 4 M17 [gaps] x+330 (Harpoon or spear with 5 points) 2 (Weapon, maybe scepter or sword) 45 mab(A) harpoon 6 (More tools:) Balance pan? 3 Six-spoked wheel 60 (Raw materials:) Copper scrap 646 dbn New copper 125 dbn (Weapon:) (from) Bronze
: Spear/arrow with triangular point 30 Spear/arrow with elliptical point 26 (from) Copper and wood Lance 1 (Jewelry:) Armlet 3 Jewelry for head and ear 38 (Staffs:) (from) Wood and Silver: Staff with metal decoration M18 ... (Minerals:) [Amethyst](?) 58 dbn #swD 1 1/4 Malachite 1734 dbn (Organic products:) (from) ivory %At (plate for furniture fitting?) 4 (Wood products:) (from) Wood: Asiatic household goods 54 Hnw vessels “Travel box” 1 Comb 13 Axles 8 (Metal:) Lead 375 dbn M18–21 Expedition goods from Lebanon, list of raw materials and goods M18 The coming of the expedition troops that were sent to the Lebanon (#nty-S) in two ships. They bring:
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 141
M19
M20
M 21
9
10
(precious metal:) Silver [Gold] (Metal:) Bronze Copper (Minerals:) White lead Marble Emery Grinding stone sand (Stone and seals:) (from) Dolerite9 Saddle quern Hopper (upper) hard stone of Dolerite (from) White and black hard stone (pounder?) (from) Gold and silver Asiatic seal (Minerals (?):) . . . quartz (Aromatics and salves:) (Aromatics and salve oil of) Cedar (aS) of first quality (Aromatics and salve oil of) Olive tree (bAq)10 (Aromatics and salve oil of) Pine (sfT) 176 hbnt jugs (Aromatics:) (fragrant stuff of ) Ti- šps tree (cinnamon or camphor?) . . .rt . . .-fragrant (?) Terebinth resin (snTr) (Medicinal plants:) Fruit of the Tntm plant Fruit of coriander Fruit of the kSw plant Herb against (a disease, with the) struggling (Trees:) ... [. . .] Fig trees Sycamore (People:) Asiatics (determinative with men & women) (hand worked products:) (from) Bronze and gold and ivory Mirror (from) Bronze, Gold and silver: Daggers (from) Bronze and ivory: Daggers
Another figurative reading for this phrase is green jasper (ALTENMÜLLER 1990; EDER 1995, 180). ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA translate aS as fir (1991, 16), although the argument for Lebanese cedar is much more convincing (DAVIES 1995; EDER 1995, 183; WARD 2000, 20–22). In any event, it is clearly a coniferous
1676 1/2 dbn ... 4882 dbn 15,961 dbn 4882 dbn 13 stones 16,588 dbn 39,556 dbn
1 stone 6 stones 5 stones 4 stones 1
[. . .] 5/8 hoAt 5 3/8 HoAt 66+3/8 HoAt and the rest
271 sacks 7 Hnw vessels 92 Hnw vessels 8 1/2 HoAt 55 3/4 HoAt 4 HoAt 1/ HoAt 4
3+x 73 1 65
2 16 21
long wood, even if the correspondence between the ancient wood terminology and textual references to their oils and resins is still unclear (MEIGGS 1982, 63; WARD 1991, 13–14). Similarly, bAq is more likely olive than moringa (STAGER 1985; LEV-YADUN & WARD 1992).
142 Ezra S. Marcus
24.
27.
(Plants:) %Abt - plants 4 sacks BhAw- plants 197 sacks SfSft - plants . . . sacks (Timber:) Cedar (aS) 231 (trunks) M21–23 Redistribution by the state administration of delivered goods M 21 (Tribute from a foreign country?) A tribute was given M 22 [by a foreign country to the state administration], that was brought to the palace (1. Group consisting of:) Raw silver 32 dbn (in the form of) ¡nw vessels 20 Copper (in the form of) sickle blades 920 dbn (in the form of) lumps 25 dbn (Minerals:) Emery 83 stones (Materials and textiles:) %XAt-dress (?) and int-textile 2 IsmAt-dress 2 Red init-dress 3 (Desert animals:) Ibex 1 (Orchard fruits:) Figs 100 Hn Raisins 2 large Hnw vessels (Wine:) Wine 5 hbnt jugs (2. Group, consisting of:) (Minerals:) Polishing sand 6 mAmA vessels (Aromatics:) %frt(?) oil [. . . ] Incense (snTr) 8 Hnw vessels M 23 [gap of 3 groups] (3. Group, consisting of:) (Minerals:) Quartz 2 mAmA vessels (Aromatics:) Tšps-wood no figure 2. (Tribute from Syria (Tnw) (?):) 1 gAwt-tribute from Tnw (?): [copper] 1 mAmA vessel 3. (Tribute from Lebanon #nty-S): 1 gAwt-tribute from Lebanon: Cedar (aS) 73 trunks M25–26 Rewarding of the soldiers and officials for their services M 25 (contains) slaves, fields, gold (of honor), dresses and other beautiful things 1) head of fighting troops 2) recruitment officer 3) recruits who have returned from the hacking up of the fortifications of iwAi and iAsi and who were looking for a supply of workers for the pyramid city “powerful is Amenemhet II” with captives M 26 [booty was brought] from the cities of these two foreign places and the foods of the Asiatic captives was eaten 4) for the king’s children 5) for the king’s nobles 6) for the king’s bird catcher
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 143
Chronology of the text
to the winter prt season based on the assumption that the bringing of tribute by foreigners coincided with the Nehebkau festival, which marks the beginning of the civil year (I prt 1). The remaining section of Year 3, M16–27, is attributed to the summer season šmw with offerings to the msiit festival possibly mentioned.
Owing to the fragmentary nature of the text, any regnal years that might have appeared along the upper margin have long been lost. Nevertheless, Altenmüller and Moussa have offered some ingenious interpretations for the absolute date of the text and its internal chronology. These provide important chronological datums that can aid in interpreting the broader context to be considered below. The historical date of columns M1–27 is probably the last year of the coregency of Senusret I and Amenemhet II, Year 45 and Year 3, respectively, with the remainder belonging to the latter’s 4th year and first as sole regent (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 38). These dates are based on a number of the text’s internal features and historical grounds. The unusual width of column M28, 9.0 cm versus 5.8 cm for the remainder, and the fact that it contains the name and titles of Amenemhet II suggests that it marks an important division within the text.11 Prior to that columnar marker, Senusret I is mentioned frequently; afterwards his name is absent. The references to his funerary endowments in columns M1-7 suggest his death some time during the first third of the year (see below). The events that follow, the dispatching abroad of expeditions of military conquest and commerce, the arrival of obeisant foreign dignitaries, the rewarding of soldiers, all suggest that Amenemhet II was seeking, through the projection of power, to legitimize himself after the death of his father. That Year 3 of his reign was of political significance can be seen in the many stelae in which it is mentioned (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 39; OBSOMER 1995, 143). ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA (1991, 26–27) suggest a further division of Year 45/Year 3 into three separate sections reflecting the seasons of the Egyptian year. Columns M1–10 are placed in the autumn Axt season largely based on the mention in column M4 of the Sokar festival, which falls in the fourth month. Columns M11–15 are assigned
The relevance of this text for assessing EgyptianLevantine relations is largely dependent on the understanding of the terminology employed in describing the interactions between these regions as well as the identification and, therefore, geographical location of the toponyms. Unfortunately, there is little consensus among scholars on both issues, largely owing to the equivocal nature of the language and the rarity of similar place names elsewhere in the Egyptian toponymic record. The terminology for the dispatching of the expeditions to #nty-S (Section 9; M 7) and %Tt (Section 11; M 8) is fairly similar. Both use the same language for the actual departure (mAa mSa) except that the latter expedition is accompanied by the overseer(s?) of infantry and troops and with the express intent of hacking up IAw of %Tt. Depending on whether mSa is interpreted as “army” or just generic “group” (SCHULMAN 1964, 10–13), “expedition” (DANTONG 1998, n. 23), or “gang” (FAULKNER 1953, 38), opinions differ as to whether these were, respectively, commercial and military expeditions (GOEDICKE 1991; EDER 1995, 178; O’CONNOR 1996, 53; DANTONG 1998) or both punitive actions that elicited tribute or booty (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 23, 33–35; REDFORD 1992, 79; 1996, 79; OBSOMER 1995, 597).12 In addition to the difference noted above, GOEDICKE (1991, 93) further distinguishes the three unarmed men signs that follow the term mSa as some sort of non-military escort on the #nty-S mission.13 Finally, only the report of the expedition to %Tt (Section 22; M
11
13
12
See, also, QUIRKE’s explanation (2003a) for the thicker vertical between lines 27 and 28. Military escorts on what are seemingly commercial ventures are not unknown from other periods. For example, note the exchange of goods between the representatives of Hatshepsut and the king of Punt, which was carried out in the presence of a military escort (WACHSMANN 1998, fig. 212).
Terminology, toponymics and Egyptian-Levantine relations
OBSOMER (1995, 597) associates the recruitment of manpower by Amenemhet II, which is recorded in the intervening entry between the two expeditions, as a mustering of soldiers to be associated with the preceding dispatch to #nty-S. GOEDICKE (1991, 93) sees no direct supervision of the king in the leading of any forces while QUIRKE (2003a) is unsure to which entry the recruitment is to be associated, if at all. It seems
144 Ezra S. Marcus 16–18) has a specifically military description, wherein mnfAt fighting forces (SCHULMAN 1964, 13–14) are described as having devastated the fortified cities of IAwi and IAsii, the latter perhaps an opportunistic target that was attacked in addition to the primary mission.14 Regarding the means by which these expeditions were conveyed, each departure entry includes a boat determinative although only the expedition sent to #nty-S has a boat with a raised sail, which JONES (1988, 214) would translate as to “sail or travel”. Moreover, whereas the expedition to #nty-S returns in two dpt ships,15 literally “transport ships” (JONES 1988, 150), a gap in the beginning of the preceding entry obscures whether the expedition to %Tt returned to Egypt by land or sea.16 Depending on whether IAw and IAwi are the same location, between five and six toponyms are mentioned in association with expeditions and tribute. The first recorded is #nty-S, which literally means “the place by the lake” (DANTONG 1998, n. 24; QUIRKE 2003a) or woodland (GREEN 1983, 43–44; EDER 1995, 178; WIMMER 2005, 130), although GOEDICKE (1991, 90, n. 10) would prefer reading the latter morpheme as “yam” and the phrase as meaning “in front, namely, beyond the sea”. In New Kingdom times, this toponym is synonymous with the Lebanon or the Lebanese coast and most scholars have considered it as such for the Middle Kingdom as well (FAULKNER 1986, 194; ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991; GOEDICKE 1991; REDFORD 1992, 78–80; QUIRKE 2003a). %Tt of the second expedition is a general term for “Asia”
(FAULKNER 1986, 255), but a more precise localization is unclear. GOEDICKE (1991, 93, n. 31) associates it with the arid zones, specifically Sinai and the adjoining Negev, yet he then compares IAw of %Tt with a toponym of the Execration Texts thought to denote “old Tyre” (GOEDICKE 1991, 93, n. 32). Opinions are divided as to whether IAw and IAwi are the same or two different cities and therefore two separate campaigns (EDER 1995, 185–186). However, the latter city is more easily read as Ura (HELCK 1989; EDER 1995, 191), which is known from the New Kingdom for its role as the Cilician port of the Hittites (BEAL 1992).17 Although similar in spelling, IAwi does not appear with the epithet %Tt “of Asia”, nor does the other city IAsii, which is identified by most as Alashiya, i.e., Cyprus (HELCK 1989; REDFORD 1992, n. 47; EDER 1995, 191; QUACK 1996). The identification of the latter toponym and its significance will be considered in detail below. Finally, GOEDICKE (1991, 90–93) suggests that the toponym *mpAw should be equated with Tunip, an identification that is followed by EDER (1995, 188–189).18 However, another interpretation considers this term to be an ethnonym for a nearby eastern Egyptian desert people (DE FIDANZA 1998). Thus, given the variations outlined above it should not be surprising that interpretations based on this text regarding Egypt’s relations with hither Asia during the 12th Dynasty are varied. Among the broader generalizations, the main variations include some sort of commercial coercion or political domination propped up by military
likely given the rewarding of recruits in Section 27 (M25) who had returned from the conquest of IAwi and IAsii that the recruitment should be associated with the latter entry. If, despite the slightly different spelling, IAwi is identical to IAw of the departure entry, as most scholars seem to agree, the absence of any reference to the second city in the description of the army’s destination and its recording only after the event underscores the reliability and historicity of the recording process of these court annals. This observation together with the specifications of exact material and quantity and the general use of infinitive constructions in the text’s language supports the assumption that an actual administrative record of the royal palace was the basis for this inscription (EDER 1995, 177). Several scholars have erroneously stated that as few as one (STAGER 2002, 360) and as many as ten ships were
involved (POSENER 1982, 8; GOEDICKE 1991, 90; REDFORD 1992, 79), although at the time GOEDICKE (1991, n. 11) noted the difficulty in reading the numeral. ALTENMÜLLER & MOUSSA (1991, 35, n. 24) are of the opinion that the expedition to %Tt returned on foot. If the dispatch and return entries are connected, QUACK (1996, 79) and EDER (1995, 191) argue that the expedition returned by ship, based on the ship determinative (in the dispatch). GOEDICKE (1991, 93) states that as “the latter [the dispatch to #nty-S] moved by boat ... the same is to be envisaged for the military action [to %Tt].” Perhaps he is of the opinion that the dispatch of forces was by ship and the return on foot. REDFORD (1992, 79, n. 47) associates it with Alse. This site has recently been identified with Tell cAsharneh in Syria (GOREN, FINKELSTEIN and NAÝAMAN 2004, 116–121).
14
15
16
17 18
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 145
expeditions (POSENER 1982, 8), a mixture of commercial and military activity (GOEDICKE 1991, 97; EDER 1995, 176–195; COHEN 2000; 2002a, 45), or a general policy of exploitation backed by punitive expeditions (REDFORD 1992, 79–80).19 Other than ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA (1991, 33–39), who constructed a political history in which this text reflects the last year of coregency between Senusret I and Amenemhet II and, following his father’s death, the latter’s efforts to legitimize his power both within Egypt and without, many, but not all of these assessments were made based on Farag’s preliminary and incomplete copy. The text alone may be equivocal with regards to intention and, indeed, projecting these events on the entire Middle Kingdom may be unfounded. However, the text can and must be considered within a larger contemporary context, as in describing these events and acts, the Egyptian scribe, and his memorializer in stone, used very specific language. Through what POSENER (1982, 8) called “the characteristic Egyptian mania for precision” this text expresses a degree of detail and, perhaps, historical veracity that offer avenues of inquiry yet to be explored, such as the heretofore overlooked maritime aspects.
This practice may be inferred from the expedition dispatched in the 4th Dynasty by Sneferu (see above, n. 2) and is depicted pictorially in both the Old and New Kingdoms, e.g., in the Sahure reliefs and the Tomb of Kenamun, respectively (WACHS20 MANN 1998, 12–15, 42, 314, figs. 2.3, 3.2). The maritime component of the military expedition to %Tt, in which Iwii and IAsii are destroyed, however, is still questionable, but any seafaring would have, at the very least, included voyages to the region and back. Moreover, if these cities are identified, respectively, as Ura or some other site on the continent, and Cyprus, then one or two additional short crossings may have also occurred. In each and all of these instances, the maritime acumen and nautical technology necessary to carry out such voyages existed certainly by the third millennium, BCE, and should not have been beyond the capabilities of the Egyptians early in the subsequent millennium.21 STAGER (2002, 360) sees this text as marking the resumption of the Old Kingdom “Byblos run”, although Egypt’s perennial partner harbor is nowhere mentioned in this text nor in ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA’s (or anyone’s) analysis (contra COHEN 2000, 95; 2002a, 44).22
MARITIME ASPECTS OF THE TEXT
Length and schedule of the voyages
In approaching this text from a maritime perspective a number of salient issues warrant consideration: the voyages themselves, their destination and scheduling; the cargo conveyed, its character and size, and what that may mean regarding the capabilities of the ships of this period.
According to the chronology suggested by ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA, the departure of both expeditions took place at the end of the Axt or the beginning of the prt seasons, approximately the very end of October or beginning of December and the return in the season of šmw, probably by the month of March (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 26–28). If so, the ships would have set sail from Egypt in the winter and returned sometime in spring, placing these voyages outside the normal rhythm of the Mediterranean sailing season (CASSON 1971, 270–272; WACHSMANN 1998, 300–301). Similarly, this period falls outside the typical military campaign season, which avoids the rainy winter season in favor of the spring and summer (GNIRS 2001, 402). However, as these dates follow
The voyages As few as two or as many as six voyages may be inferred from the text under discussion. These include the voyages to and from #nty-S (the Lebanese coast), the existence of which are specifically indicated in the text. The fact that two vessels (out of an unknown number) are mentioned returning to Egypt accords well with the practice of ships sailing in flotillas or convoys.
19 20
21
See, also, SCANDONE-MATTHIAE (1984, 188). The two identical Iron Age wrecks explored in the deep waters off the coast of Sinai were probably part of a convoy (BALLARD, STAGER, MASTER, et al. 2002). For a review of seafaring in the Levant during the preceding millennium, see MARCUS (2002a). Regarding contacts between Egypt, or her Levantine intermedi-
22
aries, with Cyprus and the Aegean, see PELTENBURG (1995) and WARREN (1995, 1–2), respectively. Note the impact such contacts probably had on the development of sailing technology in the latter region (BROODBANK 2000, 342–346). See, also, the discussion below.
146 Ezra S. Marcus the Egyptian civil calendar, which wandered through the actual seasons in what is known as the Sothic cycle, these events should be shifted approximately five months forward in time, placing them precisely in the expected sailing schedule, i.e., departure in spring and return in the autumn.23 The length of the actual voyages is a matter of speculation, but some of the distances and rates of speed can be suggested from later sources (cf. CASSON 1971, 281–296.). A direct sail from the shores of the eastern Delta to the modern border of Lebanon and Syria covers a distance of approximately 270 nautical miles. A vessel sailing at 3 to 6 knots (nautical miles per hour) would make that voyage in 45 to 90 hours, i.e., 2–4 days. In contrast, a ship’s course that brought the vessels as close to the shore as possible would cover approximately 377 nautical miles in 63 to 126 hours, or 2.5–5 days. Naturally, ships would not have traveled in such straight lines, and if they called at ports along the way or were waylaid by inclement weather, the distance covered and the time would have increased commensurately. Even if the speed is cut to 1 knot, the maximum actual time at sea (12–15 days) is fairly negligible compared to the entire length of the expedition. The identification of IAsii with Cyprus The possible mention of Alashiya (Cyprus) is one of the more provocative and problematic issues of the Annals of Amenemhet II. Inherent in this identification is a reassessment of relations between Egypt and Cyprus at this time and the level of social complexity on the largest of the Levantine islands.24 ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA (1991, 35, n. 24) reject the identification of Alashiya with IAsii based on the following argument: 1) the high number of ‘Amw captives; 2) the expedition came on foot, which precludes the toponym being on an island; 3) the two cities are close to each other and, if one is identified as Ura
23
The Sothic cycle, in which the lunar civil year wanders backwards within the sidereal year at a rate of 1 day every four years, is approximately 1456 years long and the two would have coincided in 139, 1317 and 2773 BCE (ROSE 1994; DEPUYDT 1995). If the events in this text occurred in the last year of the coregency of Senusret I and Amenemhet II, i.e., 1908 BCE, following the high chronology, then the civil dates must be shifted approximately five months forward to reflect their actual season, as follows: 1908–1317=591 years;
on the coast of Asia Minor, they would be too far apart; 4) the fortifications seem more likely to reflect a site in the Syrian region; 5) the mnfAt troops are described as returning on foot, eating Asiatic food on the march (M26); and 6) if the chronological reconstruction is to be accepted they argue that the entire campaign lasts no more than four months, which is too short to include an expedition to Cyprus. QUACK (1996, 79–80) refutes several of the main points of their argument by noting the boat determinative in association with the dispatch of this expedition, the fact that the eating of Asiatic food (M 26) was done after the army returned (M 16), and that the four month period is certainly not too short for an expedition to that region. Other aspects of Altenmüller and Moussa’s arguments may also be questioned. First, the booty brought back from these two cities is listed collectively; the aAmw and, in fact, all of the items could have come from Iwii. Second, there are no comparanda for the ethnonym used by the Egyptians to designate the inhabitants of Cyprus during the Middle Kingdom. Third, if the expedition returned on foot, a point which is obscured in the gap at the beginning of the entry, that might have only referred to the final stage of the return. Fourth, by ship, the coasts of Syria and Asia Minor are quite close to Cyprus, between 70 and 120 km, 38 and 65 nautical miles, respectively, depending on where the crossing is made. This distance may be covered by a ship traveling in a straight sail of 3 knots in only 12–21 hours! This leg would be a negligible addition to the estimated sea time for a voyage to the northern Levant. Fifth, following their chronological reconstruction, the army’s departure for %Tt (M8) took place in the season of Axt after the Sokar festival of the fourth month and its return (M16) occurred sometime in the season of šmw, although it is not clear precisely when within that season. Thus, the time frame may range from four
24
591/4=147.75 days to shift forward. If the low chronology is followed the difference is only about 8 days: 1872–1317=555; 555/4=138.75 days forward. The identification of Alashiya with Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age (LBA) has been established with a strong degree of confidence as a result of petrographic analyses of Amarna tablets from Alashiya (GOREN, BUNIMOVITZ, FINKELSTEIN, et al. 2003; GOREN, FINKELSTEIN, et al. 2004).
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 147
to seven months. Even using the minimum time frame, and a rate of movement of between 25 and 30 km per day (DORSEY 1988, 895; MURNANE 1990, 95), a continuous march of between 3000 and 3600 kilometers could have been achieved, which is more than enough to reach Cilicia, carry out a military campaign and return.25 Thus, even a completely land-based expedition could very well have taken place, let alone a return on foot. GOEDICKE (1991, 94) notes that military operations against two walled cities would be difficult and that the number of prisoners of war suggests fair-sized settlements. If the text is taken literally, the first point is indeed well taken given the short time involved and might suggest either relatively soft targets or some degree of exaggeration. However, if the expedition traveled by sea, the army would have had more time to accomplish what was reported. The second point is difficult to assess as there are no details regarding what percentage of the population was taken prisoner and whether they derived from one or both of the two cities.26 However, the figure does provide a minimum estimate for the size of these settlements. Using a population density range of 100–250 individuals per hectare (ha)(BROSHI and GOPHNA 1986; GOPHNA and PORTUGALI 1988; FALCONER 1994, 312; GREENBERG 2002), it may be suggested
25
26
27
28
The length of the coastline from the Egyptian Delta to the modern border of Syria and Turkey is approximately 891 km. The modern road from there to Tarsus is another 300 km. It is interesting to note that the total amount of prisoners divided by two cities equals the same number, 777 (an equivalent human tribute?), who ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA (1991, 36) suggest were destined for the building activities of Amenemhet II. Data for site size and chronology are limited by the degree of excavation. Thus, the following figures should be considered estimates. In Lebanon, for example, some of the possible contemporary sites have the the following sizes: Byblos, Tel Arqa and Kamid el-Loz - 5 ha; and Beirut - 2 ha (THALMANN 1998, 54; BADRE 1997, 90). Despite modern exacavations and geomorphological research on its ancient shoreline (MARRINER, MORHANGE and DOUMET-SERHAL 2006), the limits of Middle Bronze Age Sidon are still unknown. Further north, in Syria, Tell Sukas is also approximately 3.5 ha (calculated based on the topographical map), while Ugarit is 20 ha (THRANE 1978, fig. 1; YON 1997, 255). The absolute chronology of the Middle Cypriot Period, particularly the MC I and II phases, when presumably
that, if the 1554 prisoners transported all derive from the population of the “devastated” cities, they reflect a total settled area of between 6.2 and 15.5 ha. While site sizes of 3–8 ha are not unknown in the northern Levant during this period, the upper limit is quite rare.27 However, the most problematic issues that ensue from the identification of IAsii with Cyprus are the very existence on that island of settlements, let alone fortified, that were worthy of conquest, and the limited evidence for its external contacts during this period. At such an early stage of the Middle Cypriot (MC) Period, settlements of significant size remain rare and for the most part lack the type of wealth that would have attracted Egyptian attention.28 At present, the only exceptions are the wealthy cemeteries on the northern side of the island, at Lapithos-Vrysi tou Barba and Bellpais-Vounous, although their settlements have eluded detection (SWINY 1989, 26–28). Those sites that have been investigated seem to suggest relatively modest degrees of foreign contacts, if at all, with the world off-island.29 In particular, no Middle Kingdom Egyptian finds have yet to be discovered on Cyprus (KNAPP 1994, fig. 9.4). The earliest fortifications on Cyprus date to the very end of the Middle, if not the Late, Cypriot Period (SWINY 1989, 17; HUNT 1992).
29
these events should have taken place, lacks a firm foundation, owing to the paucity of stratified sites, largely one-sided synchronisms with the mainland and insufficient radiocarbon determinations. Typically, the MC I and part of the MC II is synchronized with the Levantine Middle Bronze Age IIa and the Egyptian 12th and 13th dynasties (SALTZ 1977; MERRILLEES 1977; 1992; COLEMAN 1992, I:287, II: 225, table 1; MANNING 1995, 110–115). In her review of scarab-bearing contexts at Megiddo, TUFNELL (1984, 4) takes the available cross-synchronisms a step further and, based on a scarab style associated with Senusret II, argues that MC pottery was not introduced (to Megiddo, at least) earlier than his reign. Radiocarbon assays would place the transition from Early to Middle Cypriot sometime after 2000 BCE (MANNING and SWINY 1994, 162–165, fig. 11). Regarding the nature of the settlements – of which only one, Alambra-Mouttes, might have reached 35 ha – the lack of social complexity and paucity of foreign contacts, see KNAPP (1990; 1994) and SWINY (1989). On the issue of foreign influences on the Cypriot ceramic repertoire, see HERSCHER (1975, 53–56; 1979) and MERRILLEES (1979). Levantine ceramics found on Cyprus include a juglet from Larnaca-Ayios Prodromos, and a Syro-
148 Ezra S. Marcus On the other hand, outside Cyprus, substantial evidence exists for contacts with Alashiya and Cyprus, although all much later than the period of Amenemhet II. Apart from the toponym under discussion, the name Alashiya appears in at least 13 texts from Mari, Babylonia and Alalakh, particularly in relation to the trade in copper (MILLARD 1973; HELTZER 1989, 8; SASSON 1996; WISEMAN 1996; MICHALOWSKI 1996).30 In fact, a rare mention of uruki a-la-ši-ia “the city of Alašiya” (CHARPIN 1990), suggests that the scribes of Mari may have known of the existence of a city with a name that in other instances was also applied to an entire land, which is a common phenomenon among islands (e.g., Rhodes or Samos).31 Middle Cypriot pottery is quite common in the Middle Bronze (MB) Age Levant and in the Egyptian Delta, but the earliest well-stratified examples in Egypt were found at Tell el-Dabca Stratum G/4, which dates to the early 13th Dynasty or more than a century after the Mit Rahina inscription (BIETAK 2002).32 Similar well-stratified examples occur in contemporary (late MB IIa) phases in the southern Levant (ARTZY and MARCUS 1992; STAGER 2002). The only possibly earlier occurrence is at Dhaharat elHumraiya, where two Levantine Painted Ware (LPW) jugs may have been found with an MC jug in Tomb 62, although the excavator notes that the tomb was disturbed (ORY 1948, 88, figs. 36, 37, pl. XXXII:1). However, if the contemporaneity of these two vessels were reliable, and the fact that this cemetery is characterized solely by single interments makes this plausible, it might place this MC import closer to the period in question (see
discussion of Levantine Painted Ware below). Unfortunately, the booty mentioned in the text (M16–18), whether from IAsii or Iwii, or both conquered cities, contributes little to resolving the question. The copper or bronze implements and weapons could have come from Cyprus (cf. BALTHAZAR 1990; PHILIP 1991), although such types are undocumented in Egypt. The quantities of copper and copper scrap certainly are not of levels that would have made IAsii famous for copper, but it must not be forgotten that while evidence exists for smelting, metallurgy and the importation of tin to Cyprus at this time, the beginning of copper exportation from Cyprus to Egypt and the Levant has not been the subject of archaeometalurgal research.33 In the final analysis, the identification of Alashiya in this text is as equivocal as are the possible early contacts of Cyprus with Egypt and the Levantine coast. However, if this toponym should be positively identified with Cyprus it would mark an Egyptian knowledge of this island that, while incompatible with current textual and material evidence, both underscores the insular nature of Cypriot society and culture and opens up further research questions regarding how such contacts were affected.
Cilician jug from Nicosia-Ayia Paraskevi (MERRILLEES and TUBB 1979; HERSCHER 1988, 153, fig. 3:12). Another SyroCilician jug is reported from Lapithos-Vrysi tou Barba (KNAPP 1994, fig. 9.4). Other possible Levantine forms have been illustrated, but they have not been properly examined by specialists during the years since they were published (MARCUS 1998, n. 191). Most of these examples are from periods much later than that under discussion. However, a wheel-made handleless painted jar, with a crude pendant decoration around its neck and two rows of net-pattern-filled triangles (ÅSTRÖM 1972, 129, 232–233, fig. XL:9), shows a strong affinity to early LPW examples from the mainland. Numerous other suspiciously Levantine sherds can be seen on the plates from Kalopsidha and Ayios Iakovos (ÅSTRÖM 1966). Typological and metallurgical analyses of metals (e.g., weapons, tools, and jewelry) show a very selective import and adoption of Levantine and other forms, which may have partially influenced the haphazard implementation of
imported tin-bronze and its technology (GALE and STOSGALE 1989; BALTHAZAR 1990; PHILIP 1991). A recently discovered MBA text from Tell Siyannu is reported to include references to trade with Cyprus and Egypt (BRETSCHNEIDER, AL-MAQDASSI, VANSTEENHUYSE, et al. 2004, 219, n. 12). SASSON (1996, 17) notes the inconsistent use of determinatives among the scribes of Mari. All other Middle Cypriot pottery in MK Egypt derives from insecure or later Egyptian contexts (MERRILLEES 1968, 42–43, 145–147; 2002). That local bronze production and the importation of tin had already begun on the island is indicated by artifactual analysis (GALE and STOS-GALE 1989, 252–255; BALTHAZAR 1990; KNAPP 1994, 279–280; WEBB, FRANKEL, STOS, et al. 2006, 271, table 5), with Ambelikous-Aletri still the earliest identified metalworking site (MERRILLEES 1984; KNAPP 1990, 159–160).
The cargoes At first glance, the cargoes might be described as mixed in terms of the materials and quantities transported. Moreover, had this text lacked all royal and military dimensions, it would be tempting to view these vessels as examples of BRAUDEL’s
30
31
32
33
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 149
“floating bazaars” (1972, 107). However, as will be demonstrated below, both the cargo from #nty-S and from IAsii and Iwii, if indeed the goods from these latter two cities may be described as cargo, are actually dominated, quantitatively, by particular items. Regarding the origin of the cargoes, the toponyms do not allow us to better localize IAsii and Iwii. However, some of the materials and commodities do relate to particular geographical zones and aid in confirming the localization of #nty-S. In addition, details of the cargo size offer an opportunity to assess both the types and scale of material wealth that Levantine polities could accumulate and the capacities of contemporary ships. Note that following the return of these expeditions, the redistribution of gifts and honors bestowed on temples, nobleman, and soldiers, includes much that is clearly of foreign origin and is largely consistent with the goods detailed in the booty and merchandise brought back from the Levant. Distributed items that do not appear among the transported goods may represent items that were listed in unpreserved parts of the inscription. These distributions, however, will not be included in the following discussion. Calculating weights and volumes The detailed information recorded in the Mit Rahina text affords an extraordinary insight into the quantities of raw materials, finished products and people that could be transported by sea during the Middle Kingdom. During this period the standard weight of copper is expressed in the large or copper-dbn of 27.3 gm, and, presumably, everything else in the small gold or standard-dbn of 13.6 gm (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 46–48).34 A study of a Marl C jar from MK Dahshur, bearing an inscription describing a quantity of carob measured in dbn seems to confirm the use of this value (ALLEN 2006, 33–35). ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA (1991, 46) further suggest that bronze and other minerals may have used the copper-dbn. This suggestion, which has
34
35
For unstated reasons, PIERRAT (1994, 24) incorrectly employs the New Kingdom dbn of 91 gm to reach a weight of 150 kg(!) for the silver brought back from xnty-S, a quantity she justifiably finds impressive. However, there is no evidence that this value was used during the Middle Kingdom (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 47, n. 33). Plastered wooden boxes found at the port of Wadi Gawasis bearing inscriptions indicating the transport of
the effect of slightly inflating the amounts calculated below, is followed here. Volume is indicated both in HoAt units of 4.785 liters and sacks that are equivalent to 10 HoAt (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 46–48). In addition, unit volume was apparently expressed in, presumably ceramic, vessels using the Egyptian terms hbnt and Hnw. The text itself does not provide any clear identification of the type or size of the container intended, although there are various relative sizes involved: 1 hbnt equals 10 ds-jugs; and two types of Hnw containers, standard and large, the latter of which is ten times the size of the former (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 45–46). BOURRIAU and QUIRKE (1998) attempted to find a correspondence between the textual evidence for Egyptian ceramic nomenclature and its archaeological realia at Lahun. Their analysis has led them to suggest that hbnt refers to a storage jar of Marl C type and Hnw, which is the most numerous vessel produced (1400 in one document), must refer to the most common vessel encountered, i.e., the Nile B1 drinking cup (BOURRIAU and QUIRKE 1998, 69, 74, 80–81). However true that correspondence may be for Lower Egypt in the late Middle Kingdom, and these terms may vary in time and space even within Egypt (B OURRIAU and Q UIRKE 1998, 73), they may have a completely different connotation in relation to foreign containers. Moreover, clearly in the case of the organic materials they contained, such as incense, oils, aromatics, figs, and wine, these vessels must have been suitable, i.e., sealable, for maritime transport, a capability already well understood in Old Kingdom Egypt (MARCUS 2002a, 409–411; RABAN 1980, 1–8, 57–62).35 Assuming that the Egyptians are systematic in their descriptions, it is possible that one or both represent either Levantine jugs or jars, both of which were suitable maritime containers.36 The fact that Hnw occurs in this text also made out of wood and silver (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 16, 46), is not
36
materials from Punt (ZAZZARO 2006) demonstrates that other types of maritime containers were utilized for organic commodities. However, if the text entry is not referring to the transport, but rather to the formal presentation of goods to the royal court, then Hnw containers could be open offering vessels, following BOURRIAU and QUIRKE’s suggestion. See also the discussion of the Tôd Treasure below.
150 Ezra S. Marcus very helpful in determining the precise identification of the vessel types.37 For purposes of quantification, the absence of any specified unit size for these vessels requires us to model them based on known Levantine forms.38 Unfortunately, until recently, volumetric studies of MB ceramic vessels have been a rarity and the weight of empty vessels has been entirely ignored. A pioneering, but largely overlooked study by RABAN (1980, 64, 204–205, table H-4) notes two main groups of southern Levantine MB IIa transport amphorae that held 10 and 20 liters of volume, which he associated with 2 and 4 Egyptian HoAt; he also notes that those jugs whose volume he calculated were 4.7 and 5.3 liters, also quite close to the Egyptian unit. For the northern Levant, he only calculated the volume of five jars from the Royal Tombs of Byblos, which range from 11 to 34 liters (RABAN 1980, 205, table H-5). Two recent and more systematic studies of MB IIa vessels in Lebanon show groups with capacities of 15 and 2530 liters (THALMANN 2003; 2007; DOUMET-SERHAL 2003b), while a range of 14 to 25 liters was found among imported MB IIa jars at Tell el-Dabca (THALMANN 2007, 437, fig. 7). Thus, for the purposes of modeling that portion of the cargo transported in containers, 10 and 30 liters will serve as a lower and upper bound for jars and a mean of 5 liters for jugs will be used. As information on the weight of these vessels is lacking, at this stage of research, no attempt to calculate their contribution to the mass of the cargo will be attempted.
ver jewelry (possibly inlaid); 58 dbn of amethyst, 1,734 dbn of malachite, and other semi-precious stones; 4 ivory furniture parts, perhaps inlays; 54 examples of Asiatic household goods (pottery?), a box, 13 combs, and 375 dbn of lead; and 1,554 Asiatic prisoners. Clearly, copper, bronze and malachite objects and raw materials could have come from Cyprus, as well as other items, but other materials, such as ivory and lead point to a mainland source. The total weight of material specifically recorded is 2505 copper-dbn plus 434.25 standard-dbn, which results only in 74.3 kg as a minimum weight plus between 270-1620 liters for this cargo (Table 1).39 However, this amount pales at the weight of the prisoners brought back. Assuming a conservative average weight of 40 kg per person, a total of 62,160 kg or 62 tons of human cargo would have been transported. The cargo from #nty-S
This military expedition returned with a mixture of finished products, raw materials and prisoners, including: over 300 assorted hafted copper and bronze weapons, tools and other objects (e.g., balance pans and wheels); 646 dbn of copper, perhaps scrap; 125 dbn of new copper; copper and sil-
This cargo, which was borne by two ships, will be categorized by material. The metals include: 1675.5 dbn silver; an unknown quantity of gold; 4882 dbn of bronze; 15,961 dbn of copper; 1410 dbn of white lead; 16 bronze, gold, and silver (perhaps inlaid) daggers; and 21 bronze and ivory (perhaps pommeled) daggers. Various stones were brought including: 13 pieces of marble; 16,588 dbn of emery, and 39,556 dbn of so-called grinding stone sand. There were also seals of stone, ivory, gold, and silver. The organic cargo included: aromatics, oils, and resins, such as × 5/8 HoAt of (aS) cedar resin; 66 3/8 HoAt of pine (sfT) resin; 5 3/8 HoAt of olive oil; 271 sacks of ti-Sps, perhaps a type of camphor or cinnamon; 92 Hnw vessels of terebinth resin (snTr); 55 3/4 HoAt of coriander; other unidentified plant and fruit products in 7 vessels,12 3/4 HoAt, and 201 sacks; and, finally, trees such as fig and sycamore, and 231 trunks of cedar. In addition, 65 Asiatic men and women were also transported.
37
38
The cargo from IAsii and Iwii
Vessels of metal, let alone silver, are rare, as are those of wood, although their ceramic skeumorphs are well attested in Levantine material culture. Apart from some silver and bronze examples, including types such as bowls, a teapot, a strainer and a flask, from Byblos (MONTET 1928, pl. LXXI:605; TUFNELL and WARD 1966, fig. 9:207–209; AMIRAN 1969, 90, photo 93; ZIFFER 1990, 84*–86*, fig. 139) – among them drinking vessels that would support BOURRIAU and QUIRKE’s identification – no other metal vessels are known. Some small wooden vessels were preserved in MB IIB tombs at Jericho (ZIFFER 1990, 23*–24*, 29–30, figs. 26–28).
39
In fact, the earliest Levantine imports found in MK Egypt are from cEzbet Rushdi, which is roughly contemporary with the text in question, are limited to painted jugs and juglets, and storage jars (CZERNY 1998; 2002; BAGH 1998; 2002b, 93–96). E. Czerny kindly confirmed this point. See also the discussion of these finds below. The other objects for which no weight is specified, but which may be of significant mass, are not included.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 151
Recorded Quantity
Item
Recorded Weight (dbn) 646 125 58 1.25 1734 375
Copper scrap New copper Amethyst? #swD Malachite Lead Asiatic household goods
5 liter jugs 10 liter jars
540
30 l jars
Asiatics @ 40 kg/person
Calculated Volume (liters)
270 54 hnw vessels
1620
Sub-total
Total
Calculated weight (kg) 17.64 3.41 0.79 0.02 47.34 5.10
Cu dbn 2505
Au dbn 434.25
Cu dbn 2505
Au dbn 434.25
1554
74.3 62,160 62,234.3
270–1620
Table 1 A quantitative analysis of cargo brought back from IAsii and Iwii
In contrast to the previous assemblage of goods and materials, and considering that significant portions of this entry have been lost, this cargo is extraordinarily rich and varied. Moreover, while some of the raw materials and finished goods might have had their origin elsewhere, in general, the character of the cargo reinforces the location of #nty-S in the northern Levant.40 The arboreal products, wood, resins and oils, and more specifically the cedar, point to the Lebanon or Syria (LEVYADUN and GOPHNA 1992; see note 10 above). Another significant organic product is snTr or terebinth resin (pistacia atlantica), which has been the subject of considerable research, primarily as a result of its discovery in large quantities on the 14th century BCE Uluburun wreck (PULAK 2005, 73–77). The origin of that particular resin has been localized in the north-central highlands of Israel or northwestern Jordan, based on palynological and malacological study of, respectively, the pollen and land snails that were found in the resin (PULAK 2005, 74). Preliminary petrographic analysis of Canaanite jars from Amarna that contained this resin demonstrate a point of export along the Carmel coast and Akko Plain, either suggesting another production area in the Carmel or Lower Galilee or that these were bottling and transshipment zones (PULAK 2005, 75–76; SERPICO,
40 41
See also the analysis by EDER (1995, 176–195). A detailed petrographic study of the ceramics from the Uluburun wreck is currently being carried out Prof. Y.
BOURRIAU, SMITH, et al. 2003; ARTZY 2006).41 These results do not necessarily mean that these specific regions were the sole source of snTr, or exclude the Lebanon or some other area of the northern Levant as a source utilized during the Middle Kingdom. However, other New Kingdom (NK) sources do refer to the generic RTnw as the source of snTr (KNAPP 1991, 35; ARTZY 1994, 131–132; WACHSMANN 1998, 308). Thus, it is instructive that at the height of NK Egyptian economic and political power, the source of this prized incense for both the Uluburun wreck and Amarna is in the southern, rather than northern, Levant. Among the inorganic materials carried by these ships, some of the stone products also may have derived from the northern Levant. Unfortunately, the philological identifications are for the most part lacking sufficient material confirmation. For example, the import and use of true emery in ancient Egypt, whose closest sources are Asia Minor and the island of Naxos in the Aegean, remains unsubstantiated (LUCAS and HARRIS 1989, 42–43, 260–261; ARNOLD, D. 1991, 265, n. 60). However, MOOREY (1994, 82) notes possible textual references from Mari for its use and for its derivation in the Syrian Steppe. In fact, the Egyptian designation appears to be a Sumerian loan word (EDER 1995, 180). Another
Goren of Tel Aviv University (as reported in a lecture given at the University of Haifa, 28 November 2006).
152 Ezra S. Marcus
Recorded Quantity
Item
Recorded Weight (dbn)
Recorded Volume
1675.5 4882 15,961 1410 16,588 39,556
Silver Bronze Copper White lead Emery Grinding stone sand
Calculated weight (kg) 22.79 133.28 435.73 19.18 225.60 537.96
66 3/8 HoAt Pine resin
hbnt as 5 l jugs
92 Hnw containers 201 sacks 12 ¾ HoAt
5 liter jugs 10 liter jars 30 liter jars Asiatics @40 kg/person
7 Hnw containers 65 275 containers Recorded Quantity
Sub-total L
D 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.4
23 10 5 2
Cedar Planks
880 1760 5280 25.72 12,967.35 266.76 460 920 2760 9617.85 61.01 35 70 210
5 3/8 HoAt 271 sacks 55 ¾ HoAt
Other plant and fruit products
Cedar Trunks
317.6
176 hbnt containers
hbnt as 10 l jars hbnt as 30 l jars Moringa oil Camphor or Cinnamon Coriander 5 liter jugs Terebinth 10 liter jars resin 30 l jars
L
W
23
0.10
23
0.30
10
0.10
10
0.30
5 2
0.55 0.55
Th 0.08 0.15 0.08 0.15 0.08 0.15 0.08 0.15 0.08 0.08
Total Cargo with cargo of cedar trunks Average Cargo per ship Total Cargo with cargo of cedar planks Average Cargo per ship
231
Calculated Volume (liters)
2600 80,072.5 Unit weight (kg) 22,749 58,240 9891 25,320 4946 12,660 1978 5064
4860¼ HoAt Unit volume (m3) 40.62 104 17.66 45.22 8.83 22.61 3.53 9.04
103 0.18 193 0.35 309 0.55 580 1.04 45 0.08 84 0.15 134.4 0.24 252 0.45 89.6 0.16 36 0.064 Weight (kg) 460,879 – 13,457,001 230,440 – 6,728,500 12,253 – 137,863 6127 – 68,931
Table 2 Quantitative analysis of the cargo from #nty-S
3974.54
24313–31188
Total weight (kg) 5,255,088 13,453,026 2,284,821 5,849,142 1,142,411 2,924,571 456,904 1,169,828
Total volume (m3) 9471 24,023 4080 10,445 2040 5222 816 2089
23,802 42 44,629 80 71,407 128 133,888 239 10,349 18.5 19,404 35 31,046 55 58,212 104 20,697 37 8279 15 3 Volume (m ) 45 – 24,054 22.5 – 12,027 39 – 270 19.5 – 135
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 153
abrasive material is the “polishing” or “grinding” stone sand, which, following copper, has the largest weight recorded in the text.42 While there is no elaboration on the precise use or nature of this material, it presumably refers to a material of significant hardness. It is therefore tempting to identify its source either with the black basaltic gravels and sand found on the beaches north of Tripoli (BEYDOUN 1976, 321) or the Neogene basaltic outcrops that are much closer to the shore in the northern Levant (BEYDOUN 1977, 334, fig. 2) and more easily accessible for maritime transport. Lastly, if indeed the identification of n-mH=f is green jasper rather than dolerite (see above, note 9), then its origin might also be sought in the Levant or beyond.43 However, by far, potentially, the most impressive cargo in terms of size and weight is the consignment of 231 trunks of cedar, although, as OBSOMER (1995, n. ae) noted, these could be trunks, beams or boards. While imported planks seem to be more commonly depicted and described in ancient Egypt (WACHSMANN 1998, 310–313),44 the transport of complete trunks should still be considered. Moreover, despite the absence of any details of their dimensions it is nonetheless instructive to model what this timber cargo might have represented to the Egyptian court and to the ships that
42
43
44
In contrast, EDER (1995, 180) suggests that this material should be identified with a kind of frit, acting as a coarse calcareous quartz sand that was used in the production of glass or faience. He further notes that this material is used for the making of seals, has medicinal properties and is also known to come from the Aegean and Mesopotamia. ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA’s identification is followed here as the materials for glass and faience are available in Egypt (NICHOLSON and PELTENBURG 2000, 186–187; NICHOLSON and HENDERSON 2000, 197–198), the seals could have made of a more durable stone like hematite, which might have been mistaken for a black igneous rock and it is not clear what medical purposes this material would have. MOOREY (1994, 98–99) notes possible sources in the Lebanon and Dead Sea region. Jasper of different colors is known in Egypt, but the green type is reported to be speckled with red (LUCAS and HARRIS 1989, 397–398). Unfortunately, seals from the so-called “Green Jasper Workshop”, which is deemed to have been situated in Byblos, have never been subjected to minerological analysis (COLLON 2004). WACHSMANN (1998, 312) cites GLANVILLE’s notion (1932, 8–10) that aS connotes generic “cut wood”, although neither of them explain the term’s occurrence
carried it.45 The basic assumption must be that the Egyptians would have sought to maximize the amount of timber transported, i.e., entire trunks, although The Report of Wenamun speaks of cut boat parts being sent from Byblos to Egypt (WENTE 2003, 121). Thus, both trunks and cut wood are simulated here (Table 2). For length, the maximum upper bound is based on the longest imported timber known from ancient Egypt, which is a 23 m long, 15 cm thick plank of cedar from the Cheops boat (LIPKE 1984, 30; STEFFY 1994, 25).46 The width of this particular timber and other parts of the ship are unknown as no dimensions are published; those quoted are generally derived from drawings (WARD 2000, 54). The unexcavated sister ship has only been explored through fiber optic photography and the dimension of its parts identified and estimated (WARD 2000, 61–68). The widest and narrowest dimensions noted by WARD (2000, 54) are 30 × 10 and 10 × 10 cm, respectively. Thus, for the simulation in Table 2, a minimum length of 2 m is used, based on the notion that a plank 2 × 0.55 × 0.08 m would be sufficient for many ship’s parts as well as material for Egyptian coffin construction (DAVIES 1995, 146–148; WILLEMS 1996, 28–33, table 1; WARD 2000, Tables 5, 11–13, 15). To complete the simulation, lengths of 5 and 10 m are also calculated, as these could have
45
46
along with wood derivatives, such as oil. In addition, he brings the example of wooden planks “among the ships’ cargoes” captured by Kamose at Avaris (WACHSMANN 1998, 312), but the text seems rather to refer to the planks of the ships’ hulls and not the cargo that filled their hulls (HABACHI 1972, 37; REDFORD 1997, 14). In addition to being transported as cargo inside the hull of a ship, WACHSMANN states that timber was towed behind ships in makeshift rafts (1998, 310, n. 118). Apart from the Biblical example he cites wherein timber is transported from the Lebanon on or as rafts, using terms that are open to interpretation, the other example from the palace of Sargon at Khorsabad is of Phoenician logging in a Mesopotamian riverine context (LINDER 1986; TRAKADAS 2002). It is highly unlikely that with the shifting winds in the eastern Mediterranean, which require vessels to change direction frequently in order to navigate, and sailing against the predominant current, that such operations were carried out regularly, if at all. Towing, obviously without an engine, would have placed ships in danger of colliding with the very cargo they towed every time they changed course. Cedars typically grow to a height of 24 m, but examples up to 36 m have been documented (PULAK 2001b, 24).
154 Ezra S. Marcus been used for longer ship parts (WARD 2000, Tables 9–13, 15) or for coffins. For diameter a range or 1.5 to 2.4 meters is used (PULAK 2001b, 24). Thus, volume may be calculated using the equation pR2 × L, where “R” is the radius of the trunk, “L” is the length; weight may be calculated by multiplying the result by 560 (kg/m3), which is the density of cedrus libani (STEFFY 1994, 256; PULAK 2001b, 24).47 The results (Table 2) are extraordinary, as, clearly, if the text is referring to 231 items of uniform size, which was not necessarily the case, then the importation of 5–23 m long trunks of timber was either an immense undertaking or the capabilities of ships during this period is much greater than perhaps surmised (see below). Even the importation of 2 m sections of trunks would entail the transport of between 456 and 1169 tons of timber.48 It would seem more conservative to suggest that planks, representing between 8 and 134 tons of weight and between 15 and 239 m3 (tonnage in nautical terms), were the actual timber cargo. However, note that the 27 planks from the 859 kg Carnegie Dahshur boat were cut from at least 18 different cedar trees (WARD 2000, 84, table 8, 96). In some instances, opposing pairs of planks were cut from the same timber balk after bark was removed (WARD 2000, 21, 96) suggesting that thicker timber or trunks were originally imported. Thus, even though portions of the text are missing, these timber estimates clearly represents the largest component of the merchandise (and subsequent tribute) recorded in the text, both in calculable weight and volume. In addition, this analysis reveals that timber (aS) was the principal cargo and, perhaps, not surprisingly, the very intent of the expedition to #nty-S. Ultimately,
Unlike the Old or New Kingdoms, there are no MK depictions of seagoing vessels (WACHSMANN 1998, 18), or of foreigners arriving by boat to Egypt, although there is no lack of riverine boats in the MK Egyptian artistic repertoire.49 This nearly 1000 year lacuna in the continuum of BA ship depictions has long cast a shadow on studies of
47
49
48
Even if aS proves to be another species, the density of cedar is a useful intermediate value, as other possibilities have greater and lesser densities, e.g., Silver fir (480 kg/m3), European oak (720 kg/m3), Turkey oak (870 kg/m3), and various Mediterranean pines (510580 kg/m3) (STEFFY 1994, 257–259). The entire logistical organization of timber procurement, hauling, preparation for export (i.e., pre-cutting), loading, and transport demands a separate study. Suffice it to say that the calculations here refer to fresh cedar. It may be presumed that the hiatus between cutting and hauling mentioned by Wenamun (WENTE 2003, 121) was as much about letting the cedar dry, with a concomitant loss in weight, as it was about waiting for a more amenable season for transport.
Origin
Weight (kg)
Asiatic tribute Sinai *mpAw
3.8 + 1002 aAmw 1050 3.240 50.5 + 1554 aAmw
IwAi & IAsii #nty-S (minimum)
12,253
Volume (liters) 2238 270–1620 39,000
Table 3 Quantitative comparison of tribute and cargo
while the varied cargo includes many products that are consistent with the eastern Mediterranean littoral zone and specifically Lebanon and Syria, they cannot be used to pinpoint one particular port or region. Rather, they are a combination that could have derived from several ports of call or an entrepôt where such commodities and large quantities of timber were available. The final assemblage of these two ships’ cargoes, as detailed in this entry, should be considered a “bill of lading” or “cargo manifest”, certainly the oldest known from the Mediterranean world and possibly the most detailed. Even at its minimum, the carrying capacity of these ships overshadow any of the land based expedition and the bringing of tribute (Table 3). The ships, their size and significance
Sadly, the only possible exception is the sailing vessel on a locally carved Syrian style cylinder seal from early Dynasty 13 Tell el-Dabca (PORADA 1984), which adorns the cover of this very journal. All that can be said of this ship is that it was powered by both sail and possibly oars (WACHSMANN 1998, 42) and that its iconography reflects the maritime orientation and religious beliefs of its presumably Asiatic user (BRODY 1998, 18, 29; MARCUS 2006, 188). The MK–NK petroglyph boats at Rôd el-Air, Sinai, are nearly all without a mast (i.e., sail) and could very well represent riverine vessels; the only example with a folded sail (no. 13) lacks a secure date (WACHSMANN 1998, 32–38, fig.2.60).
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 155
maritime relations between Egypt and the Levant, by hampering many attempts to assess the character, size and capacity of contemporary seagoing craft. Moreover, this lack has precluded comparisons with and contributions to the meager material evidence and the few extant textual references. Thus, analysis of the Mit Rahina inscription has great potential to impart in this regard. Most of the MK textual references to seagoing ships do not refer to the Mediterranean Sea and generally are from periods other than that of Amenemhet II. One exception to the former is a reference to a kbnt, i.e., a “Byblos” boat (JONES 1988, 148–149)50 in the partially preserved late 12th Dynasty text, Papyrus Lythgoe, from El-Lisht, perhaps part of a literary tale of an Egyptian who traveled to the Levant (SIMPSON 1960). More commonly, references are associated with the Red Sea and Punt. These include several inscriptions from the 12th Dynasty port of Wadi Gawasis (SAYED 1977, 159–163, 170), including a stela of Khentketwer from Amenemhet II’s 28th regnal year (BREASTED 1906, 275, §604–605). The only other exception is the well known story of The Shipwrecked Sailor, in which a ship of one hundred and twenty by forty cubits, with a complement of one hundred and twenty sailors, set sail in the Red Sea (LICHTHEIM 1973, 212–213; SIMPSON 2003a, 48; QUIRKE 2004, 71). Depending on whether the standard (0.45 m) or royal cubit (0.523 m) was implied, this vessel measured 54 m by 18 m, or 63 m by 21 m (WACHSMANN 1998, 10, n. 16).51 In terms of direct archaeological evidence, riverine ships are the only source of evidence for ship form and construction. While it is typically thought that the timber remains of Nile boats, such as those MK examples from Lisht and Dahshur, offer only indirect evidence of the potential of their seagoing counterparts (HALDANE 1984; 1992a; 1992b; PATCH and HALDANE 1990; WARD 2000; WACHSMANN 1998, 220–221), WARD
50
51
52
53
For more recent discussions of this term, see BRADBURY (1996) and FABRE (2005, 92). See, however, MONROE’s caveats about utilizing this text for the dimensions of seagoing vessels (2007, 5). Recent discoveries from Wadi Gawasis include ship planks, ropes and plastered boxes that were used for maritime ventures (FATTOVICH 2005; FATTOVICH and BARD 2006). Two of these anchors were found in the Atlit Bay in close association with MBA storage jars (GALILI,
(2006) now argues that there was no such dichotomy and that Egyptian riverine ships were designed to be disassembled and portaged to the Red Sea for seagoing purposes. In support of this thesis, WARD (2006, 126) notes the similarity between the planking of the aforementioned MK riverine boats and those at 1st Dynasty Abydos, and seagoing cedar ship planks from the MK port at Wadi Gawasis on the Red Sea (SAYED 1980, 156, fig. 3, pl. XXII:5; 1983, 36).52 Another indirect evidence for MK seafaring is the numerous ex-voto and reused anchors, respectively, at Wadi Gawasis (SAYED 1977; 1978; 1980; 1983; WACHSMANN 1998, 259–260) and the Upper Egyptian fort at Mirgissa (NIBBI 1992; BASCH 1994). Lastly, two Egyptian bronze finials in the National Museum in Athens, one of which bears a MK votive inscription, have been interpreted either as tops of mast poles or as supports for a bipodal mast (GOEDICKE 2000). However, given the character of the inscription on the smaller of the two, which is dedicated to “The one whom the land-bringer; the Lord of the Winds and Hathor, Mistress of the North Wind shall love ...” and the functional deficiency of their small diameter (GOEDICKE 2000, 77, 81), they may instead be maritime ex-votos. In the Levant, only indirect archaeological evidence of ships is available in the form of scattered wreck sites and some expressions of maritime cultic practices. These wrecks are reflected in the numerous stone anchors discovered in underwater surveys along the Israeli coast, at least 26 examples of which are datable to the Middle Kingdom/Middle Bronze Age IIA based on terrestrial parallels from Wadi Gawasis, Mirgissa and Byblos (GALILI, SHARVIT and ARTZY 1994; GALILI, SHARVIT and ARTZY 1996).53 The distribution of these anchors is largely limited to the Carmel Coast, with some outliers along the coast of the Sharon Plain, all of which attest to this shoreline being plied during this period.54 The
54
SHARVIT, et al. 1994, 95), but the latter remain unpublished and their precise date within the Middle Bronze Age is unknown. That this section of coastline has been subject to the most intensive surveying of any shore in the eastern Mediterranean should not be overlooked. A single example was found near ancient Arsuf/Apollonia and recently (6 October 2006) five stone anchors of purported Middle Bronze Age date were found near modern Netanya (IAA Press Office 2006).
156 Ezra S. Marcus largest cluster of the so-called Byblian type, 15 in total, was found less than two km north of Tel Nami, near Kibbutz Neve Yam (GALILI 1985; 1987). This particular assemblage presumably came from a single ship that was capable of carrying at least 1,320 kg of weight in anchors.55 Most of that weight is from 13 anchors clustered in an area of 28 m2, which suggests that anchors also served as ballast (GALILI 1985; 1987), a theory supported by evidence found subsequently on the Uluburun wreck, where anchors are aligned along the centerline of the hull and in groups (WACHSMANN 1998, figs. 9.1 and 12.48A). The greatest distance between anchors in this cluster is approximately 7.5 m. The two remaining anchors were found 20 meters apart and approximately 7 and 15 meters, respectively, northeast of the main concentration (GALILI 1985, fig. 5). In reconstructing the wreckage event, GALILI (1985, 149–151, fig. 6) suggests that these two outliers were dragged to these spots by floating parts of the hull. However, it is equally if not more likely that these anchors fell rapidly to the sea bottom from the ship’s stem and stern posts, as the ship swamped and wrecked in the breakers. The 20 m distance between them should, therefore, represent the maximum possible length of the ship, while the 7.5 m between the two most distant anchors within the main cluster, which presumably lay along the bottom of the hull, is the minimum length. In the northern Levant, the absence of systematic underwater survey is likely the principal reason that our knowledge of MB ships and seafaring comes largely from terrestrial evidence of specialized maritime religion (BRODY 1998, passim).56 Ex voto anchors dating to the Middle Bronze Age IIa have been found in the Temple of the Obelisks at Byblos and the Temple of Baal at Ugarit (FROST 1969a; 1969b; 1991).57 These examples, however important for studying and dating the activities of
55
56
The total of the published weights is 1187 kg, but for unexplained reasons the two broken anchors were not weighed. Their combined weight is approximated at 140 kg based on comparison with other anchors in this assemblage. Recently, underwater survey has resumed as a component of archaeological research in Lebanon, e.g., at Tyre (EL-MOURI, EL-HÉLOU, MARQUET, et al. 2005; NOUREDDINE and EL-HÉLOU 2005), along the coast near Tell el-Burak (MAINBERGER 2001) and at Byblos
ancient seafarers, contribute little towards assessing the size and nature of contemporary ships. Thus, the extant textual and archaeological data provides a general range for ship size. The lone contemporary literary reference speaks for vessels of great size (54 × 18 m or 63 × 21 m), while extant riverine vessels have size ranges that are much smaller, less than 10 m long and no more than 2 m wide (WARD 2000, 84). However, the disassembled boat timbers found in secondary use at Lisht have been reconstructed as a vessel with the minimum dimensions of 24 × 8 m (WARD 2000, 126). Moreover, these planks and frames are of a complex and massive construction reflecting a nautical technology for ships capable of carrying extremely heavy loads, such as for the barges that transported Hatshepsut’s obelisks a half millennium later (WARD 2000, 121–128). While these may not represent sea-going craft (WARD 2000, 141–142), they complement the timbers from disassembled Red Sea-going and presumably Punt-bound craft that continue to be uncovered at Wadi Gawasis (SAYED 1980, 156, fig. 3, pl. XXII:5; WARD, C. 2006, 126; FATTOVICH and BARD 2006). In the Mediterranean, the Neve Yam anchor site probably represents a ship of between 7.5 and 20 m in length and carried at least 1.3 tons of anchors. By comparison, the better preserved cargo of the LBA Uluburun wreck is estimated to be approximately 15 m long, with a cargo of at least 20 tons, including 24 anchors totaling 4 tons (PULAK 2001a, 13). A recent study by MONROE (2007) concludes that existing textual and archaeological evidence cannot support much more than 20 tons or 15,000 liters as the upper limit for the capacity of (Late) Bronze Age ships.58 The list of cargo in the Mit Rahina inscription suggests a minimum calculated capacity of approximately 19,500–23,000 liters per ship. Although these figures do not include the volume of those items recorded by weight, nor does it
57
58
(FROST 2001; 2002; 2004; COLLINA-GIRARD, FROST, HÉLOU, et al. 2002). While the anchors from Ugarit can be dated typologically to the Middle Bronze Age, they apparently belong to a Late Bronze context (BRODY 1998, 46–47). In his study, volume is calculated based on ship length, using the amphorae carried by the 4th Century B.C.E. Kyrenia wreck as a guide and extrapolating for the approximately 15% longer Uluburun ship (MONROE 2007, 3, 10, n. 5).
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 157
take into account probable stone anchors or any other non-cargo burden, the volume (tonnage in nautical terms) already exceeds the limits suggested by MONROE. However, if the estimated cut timber component is increased to 5 m planks, this capacity would be increased to approximately 3034,000 liters per ship. Thus, depending on the nature of the timber consignment, this text may require further re-assessment of the size of Bronze Age ships.59 Another consideration in assessing the character and size of the ship is the need to provide room for passengers, whether cargo or crew. While inanimate cargo requires little comfort and extra space, human passengers, even slaves, require a minimum of elbow-room. In both the Old and New Kingdoms, Asiatics are depicted arriving by ship (e.g., the Sahure reliefs and the Tomb of Kenamun), but the number of illustrated individuals is quite small and lacking detail. The MK expedition to Punt led by Antefoker, recorded on a stela from Wadi Gawasis, indicates 3200 soldiers accompanied the expedition (SAYED 1977, 170), but there is no indication of the number or size of the ships involved. The text in question lists two sets of arriving Asiatics, 65 from #nty-S and 1554 from IAsii and Iwii. The significance of these numbers for ship size may be illustrated by comparison with the Atlantic slave trade. Little standardization existed in the transporting of slaves until 1684 C.E., when the Portuguese Crown decreed that the capacity would be set between 2.5 and 3.5 slaves per ton (KLEIN 1999, 148). This ratio declined over time and during the 18th century, C.E., British slave ships, for example, carried an average of 1.6 slaves per ton (GARLAND and KLEIN 1985, 240). By the last decade of the trade this ratio reached one slave per ton (KLEIN 1999, 149–150). Using the range of these ratios as a guideline, the 65 “passengers” on the two ships that returned from #nty-S should have traveled aboard vessels with a capacity of between 32 and 114 tons each. This “comfort” factor would increase ship size considerably. Moreover, if the 1554 Asiatics returning from IAsii and Iwii came by sea, then utilizing the least humane figures of the nefarious Atlantic slave trade would require at least 444 tons of capacity. Clearly, in
59
comparison with the other commodities brought from these two cities, these passengers were the major component of cargo and if, indeed, the Asiatics were transported by ship, multiple craft would have to be inferred. In the absence of any clear reference to shipping and given the otherwise limited size of the remaining goods in the extant portion of this entry, the argument for an overland return is even more compelling. Lastly, in terms of comparative capacity, the text offers unequivocal evidence for the superiority of seaborne over land-based transport. Even the minimum estimated cargo weight and volume borne by the ships returning from #nty-S are, respectively, 12 and 20 times that of the most abundant calculable goods brought back by land, in this case that of the expedition sent to the “turquoise terraces” in Sinai (Table 3). It is unclear why SHAW (1998, 312) claims that the quantities of copper from mining expeditions exceed those obtained by military expeditions. The largest amount of copper recorded in the text was brought back from #nty-S expedition (M19). The quantities transported from Sinai are consistent with the size and carrying capacity of donkey caravans. EVIDENCE FOR MARITIME TRADE DURING THE REIGN OF AMENEMHET II Amenemhet II’s reign is among the least documented of any 12th Dynasty king (FAY 1996, 7; SIMPSON 2001, 455), a evidentiary reality that begs the fundamental question as to whether the maritime aspects of the Mit Rahina inscription are a one-off instance of seaborne trade and belligerency or reflective of the tip of a larger iceberg. In the absence of any textual comparanda, contextualization of these events must rely on a consideration of contemporary archaeological evidence in Egypt and the Levant. Fortunately, the extant data, including the Tôd Treasure, imported finds from the excavations at cEzbet Rushdi, and the development of ports and coastal settlement along the Levantine seaboard, all seem to reflect a wider pattern of interaction that suggests the Mit Rahina inscription is not the sole expression of the increasing importance of the sea in Egyptian foreign relations.
A detailed analysis of the volume, i.e., tonnage, to determine the possible dimensions of these ships will be included in a separate study.
158 Ezra S. Marcus The Tôd Treasure A number of scholars have already considered the historical context that the Mit Rahina text offers the famous Tôd Treasure (LILYQUIST 1993, 35–36; PIERRAT 1994, 23–24). While the correspondence between the contents of the treasure and the text is not one-to-one, the similarity in the types of materials, the reference to endowments to Montu at Tôd (M9–10) and the fact that both are associated with Amenemhet II is certainly a strong circumstantial argument. In addition, consideration of some additional aspects may also serve to shed further light on the possible relationship between the treasure and text. The four copper chests containing an assemblage of imported raw materials and finished goods, which has come to be known as the Tôd Treasure, were found under the floor of a Twelfth Dynasty temple that was originally dedicated to Montu by Senusret I (BISSON DE LA ROQUE 1937; 1950; BISSON DE LA ROQUE, CONTENAU and CHAPOUTHIER 1953). Already during this king’s reign endowments of foreign products were brought, including silver, bronze and lapis lazuli, alongside potentially local copper and gold (REDFORD 1987, 42; BARBOTIN and CLÈRE 1991, 9), which POSENER (1971, 543–544) saw as the background of the Tôd Treasure. However, despite many claims to the contrary, the appearance of Amenemhet II’s names on two of these chests, reanalysis of the stratigraphic context, the character of the silver vessel assemblage, and a review of the foreign comparanda, all support a date contemporary with the royal nomens and are consistent with the textual parallel from Mit Rahina (LILYQUIST 1993, 35–36; PIERRAT 1994; WARREN and HANKEY 1989, 131–134; MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 103–104).60 The treasure comprises finished, partially finished, and fragmentary objects including: four copper boxes and nails, and two shafts of copper; ten ingots, a cup, and two fleurettes of gold; numerous rings (an ingot form?), bracelets, a mirror, zoomorphic figures, pendants (one stamp
60
61
Previously, an extensive debate regarding its date had permeated the literature, with some placing the final deposition as late as Tuthmosis III (KEMP and MERRILLEES 1980, 290–296). This calculation assumes that the relative mass of the remaining silver vessels is nearly the same as those that
seal), an electrum-fastened holster, and over 150 shallow bowls or cups, some crushed, all of silver; cylinder and stamp seals, a scarab, pendants, figurines, plaques, beads, chunks and part of bowl of lapis lazuli; carnelian beads, and fragments of quartz, amethyst, and obsidian. In terms of quantity, the treasure includes nearly 7 kg of gold, at least 9 kg of silver, and the copper boxes, which total 128 kg. These estimates are based on the formal publication of the treasure (BISSON DE LA ROQUE 1950; BISSON DE LA ROQUE, CONTENAU, et al. 1953) without any consideration for the state of preservation and the possible loss of mass over time. Note that the weights of only ninety-six cups are provided, and thus the silver total may be at least 13 kg to double the amount tallied here.61 A comparison between the goods brought back from #nty-S and the artifacts found in the treasure reveal some interesting correlations. Although two of the chests were inscribed by an Egyptian hand, their weight is well within the quantity of copper brought back to Egypt and could have derived from the #nty-S expedition. PIERRAT (1994, 23) is correct in wondering what is meant by the two Hst-vases of Asiatic copper mentioned in the endowment to Montu (M12), which she presumes to have been divided between the temples at Armant and Tôd. The same might be said of the copper mAmA vessel (M24) offered as tribute from RTnw. Both could represent part of the raw material used in the fashioning of the chests. Similarly, nearly 23 kg of silver are recorded in the text as compared to between 13–18 kg as extrapolated for the treasure, which is a close correlation, particularly if the unweighed silver beads are added and some degree of material loss is assumed. In addition, some of the silver redistributed by the state administration is in the form of 20 Hnw vessels (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 16, 46, M22), a vessel type that BOURRIAU and QUIRKE (1998, 69, 74, 80–81) suggest was used at Lahun by the Egyptians to refer to a drinking bowl. The numerous shallow silver bowls in the Tôd Treasure certainly fit this description. The text also refers to an Asiatic seal (M19),
were weighed. Reference is made in the catalogue to “meters” of beads of all different types (BISSON DE LA ROQUE 1950, No. 70706–70708, 70710, 70712–70713), which do not appear to have been weighed, or discussed in any detail. No details of the quantity of lapis lazuli are provided.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 159
which might have been one of the stamp or cylinder seals found in the treasure (PORADA 1982). A silver mirror was found (BISSON DE LA ROQUE 1950, No. 70576; BISSON DE LA ROQUE, CONTENAU, et al. 1953) although the mirror listed in the text is described as being made of bronze, gold and ivory (M21). REDFORD (1992, 79) identifies lapis lazuli among the minerals brought from #nty-S, but this term, xsbD (FAULKNER 1986, 197), does not seems to appear in the text. Perhaps he is referring to one of the unidentified minerals, such as xswD (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 13, M18). Finally, concerning the sea stars (starfish?) among the natural products brought back from Sinai (M14), the starfish form appears a number of times in the Middle Kingdom, including on a bead from the Tôd treasure and as a pendant in a gold necklace from the tomb of Khnumet, the daughter of Amenemhet II (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 11, n. 6; LILYQUIST 1993, 36–37, fig. 8b). Beyond these examples, the lacunae in the text preclude any other possible correlations. The sources of the materials and objects in the Tôd treasure reflect a number of regions in the eastern Mediterranean and Near East and, as such, reveal as complex a picture of exchange as does, perhaps, the Mit Rahina inscription itself. Silver is the most prominent imported component of the treasure and is recorded as being brought from #nty-S, but does not occur in the Lebanon or the Syrian coast (MOOREY 1994, 234–235). However, both material and stylistic analyses of the Tôd treasure’s silver suggest that the raw material and bowls may have been derived from both the Aegean and Anatolia (MAXWELL-HYSLOP 1995; PIERRAT 1994, 24–25; WALBERG 1984; WARREN and HANKEY 1989, 131–134; MENU 1994; ARUZ 1995, 33–35; MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 103–104). The granulation used in the treasure’s silver bands also points to a northern, probably, Anatolian origin (LILYQUIST 1993, 35–37). In addition, LAFFINEUR’s (1988, 23–24) metrological analysis demonstrated that the silver ingot and chain weights were relatively consistent with, but not exclusively, a Syro-Mesopotamian system.62 All of this evidence
62
63
LAFFINEUR (1988, 23–24) eschewed the high (i.e., correct) date for the treasure and therefore found this system too ancient to be accepted. A detailed metrological comparison of the Tôd treasure and the Mit Rahina text will be the subject of a separate study. Note, that if, indeed, the devastated city Iwii is correct-
correlates well with the abundance of silver recorded in Syro-Mesopotamian texts from 24th century Ebla through 18th century Mari (ARCHI 1993; GUICHARD 1993, 198; PIERRAT 1994, 25; MAXWELL-HYSLOP 1995, 248–249). Texts from the latter city, in particular, reveal the custom of giving lavish metal vessels as gifts, and the practice of royalty traveling with enormous drinking(?) sets of vessels. Other components of the Tôd Treasure include material artifacts with an even more distant source, such as the lapis lazuli from Afghanistan that probably traversed Iran, Mesopotamia and Syria, all three of which were the origins for the treasure’s various cylinder and stamp seals (PORADA 1982). Unless Redford’s aforementioned identification is correct, the absence of lapis lazuli in the text might derive from one of the lacuna or possibly its presence in the treasure derives from the earlier endowment by Senusret I. The quartz and amethyst could have derived from local sources and the obsidian from Ethiopia or Eritrea (ASTON, HARRELL and SHAW 2000, 46–47, 50–53), although the latter could have derived from the goods/booty brought back from the attacks against IAsii and Iwii (M18). Thus, quantitatively and, presumably, in terms of value, most, but not all, of the foreign component of the Tôd Treasure could have derived from the expedition dispatched by Amenemhet II to #nty-S.63 Naturally, as has been surmised by many others before, the imported components of the treasure would have been transshipped to one or more Lebanese or Syrian ports before they were shipped to Egypt. If the purported connection between the Mit Rahina inscription and the Tôd treasure is valid, two final issues must be considered: the purpose of the treasure and the date of its internment. Nearly all variety of possible theories have been posited in the past, describing this deposit in terms of booty or tribute (CHAPOUTHIER 1953, 32), a commercial consignment from a North Syrian port (HELCK 1962, 73), trade/booty that was intended for an endowment, but became an emer-
ly identified with Ura in Cilicia, silver might have been expected to have been brought back in that expedition. However, other than an incorrect identification, the lack of any reference to silver could be a result of the text’s lacunae or the complex nature of trade during this period.
160 Ezra S. Marcus gency cache never to be recovered (PORADA 1982, 292), a “motley stock of jeweler’s materials” (KANTOR 1965, 20) and a cache of an aborted endowment ritual that was serendipitously forgotten (PIERRAT 1994, 22–23). However, the evidence from the Mit Rahina inscription underscores the need to distinguish between the origin of the objects, their acquisition and transport and their final interment at the Temple of Montu, as PIERRAT (1994, 22–26) has done to a large extent. If the relationship between the text and the treasure is valid, the text offers contemporary insight into the mechanism of such endowments. The king, following the success of various foreign endeavors (M16–M18), would distribute a portion of the products to the palace (M21–M23), to his commanders, soldiers and officials (M25–M26) and to the gods, as might be inferred from the fragmentary entries that follow (ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991, 20–25, M27-M41; OBSOMER 1995, 601–604; QUIRKE 2003a). Following Altenmüller and Moussa’s political reconstruction of a series of power legitimating acts, it is quite possible that the nature of the deposit was designed to both enhance and legitimize Amenemhet II in one of the temples dedicated by his father. Thus, the gold and silver serve to demonstrate wealth and the eclectic character of the assemblage is meant to show the king’s prowess or control over distant regions, much as was claimed of his father: “The foreign countries are tributary, the mountains become accessible, any place delivered its mystery. His numerous emissaries are in every land, the couriers do what he has willed” (ROWE 1939, 189–190; POSENER 1971, 540).64 Lastly, following the internal chronology of the Mit Rahina text, donations to the warrior god Montu’s temples are made immediately after the expedition sets off (M9–M10) and are perhaps meant to seek that god’s blessing for its success. The deposit of the Tôd Treasure, which could have been recorded in some subsequent unpreserved column of text, was intended to express royal gratitude (VANDIER 1937, 182). If so, as no such specific
entry records a donation to Montu at least prior to the new year (M28), perhaps the terminus post quem claimed by PIERRAT (1994, 23) for this deposit should be refined to Year 4 of Amenemhet II’s reign.
64
66
65
The assemblage, which includes material from Afghanistan to the Aegean, literally covers the known world. The subsequent local strata, which continue into the Hyksos period, and the preceding Stratum f, which is described as a settlement enclosure wall that precedes Stratum e (BIETAK and DORNER 1998, 12–15), are not considered here.
Tell el-Dabca (cEzbet Rushdi) Throughout much of the second millennium BCE, the region of Tell el-Dabca served as the interface between Egypt and the eastern Mediterranean worlds (BIETAK 1996). Indeed, already the founder of the 12th Dynasty, Amenemhet I, inaugurated or enhanced the settlement in this region, which appears to have been named “Door (or Mouth) of the two ways” (BIETAK 1991, 28; 1996, 5; SZAFRAØSKI1998; CZERNY 1999). This toponym probably derived from the split in the Nile near the site, but as this region is the meeting point of the principal land and sea routes (BIETAK 1996, 3), it might reflect, in a figurative sense, its role as a maritime and terrestrial gateway (MARCUS 2006). Therefore, it should not be surprising that the early 12th Dynasty site of cEzbet Rushdi in the Dabca region has produced the earliest MBA Levantine and Middle Minoan (MM) pottery in Egypt. Excavations at cEzbet Rushdi revealed three settlement strata relevant to the present discussion: a local stratum of unclear domestic character (Substrata e/4–e/1 = general Stratum L), followed by an ephemeral Stratum d, upon which a temple (Substrata c/2–c/1 = general Stratum K) was established by Senusret III in Year 5 of his reign, according to a stela previously found in the area (BIETAK and DORNER 1998, 12–22).65 In the absence of any earlier stratified inscriptional evidence, Stratum c provides a general terminus ante quem for Substrata e/4–e/1, which are certainly dated by local Egyptian ceramics to the first half of the 12th Dynasty; this date may possibly be restricted to the very last years of Senusret I, but more probably covers the reign of Amenemhet II (CZERNY 1998; 2002; BAGH 2000, 142–143; BIETAK 2002, 39).66 The activities of the latter ruler in this
My appreciation to E. Czerny, for discussing with me the difficulty in further refining this dating, and the limitations that result from our current understanding of the MK pottery sequence. Hopefully, further study of the cEzbet Rushdi pottery and MK ceramic research will resolve this issue.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 161
region are underscored by a block with his name found at Tell el-Dabca (SZAFRAØSKI 2006, 379–380). Levantine imports were found alongside local ceramics in all of the substrata associated with Amenemhet II’s reign, i.e., e/4–e/1, while Middle Minoan imports are reported, thus far, from Substratum e/3 (CZERNY 1998, 46, fig. 21; 2002, 133; BAGH 1998; 2000, 142–143, fig. 87:e–g; 2002b, 93–96, n. 13). The Levantine imports, while not as abundant in comparison to the later phases at cEzbet Rushdi and the sequence that resumes at Tell el-Dabca Area F/1 (BIETAK 2002, fig. 2), are apparently the earliest well-stratified examples known from Egypt.67 However, in contrast to the later assemblages of Tell el-Dabca, they are comprised solely of storage jars and jugs/juglets, including quite a few (N=14) of the MB IIa Levantine Painted Ware (CZERNY 1998; 2002, 133; BAGH 1998, 47; 2000, 144–146, appendix, fig. 2; 2002b, 96).68 The limited corpus and the fragmentary nature of the sherds published thus far precludes any really definitive typological analysis, but BAGH’s (2002b, 96–101) preliminary comparative analysis offers a number of important observations. Thus far, the cEzbet Rushdi/Tell el-Dabca sequence of Levantine Painted Ware suggests a dichotomy between the early red monochrome bands, band zones and wavy lines, typically with a burnished surface, and the later complex bichrome decorations. Whether this distinction will hold upon further analysis of the cEzbet Rushdi material (and, hopefully, further excavation) and whether it will be independently confirmed in the Levantine sequence will be one of the challenges for further
research.69 Two, she finds the closest parallels to the LPW vessels and decorations from cEzbet Rushdi at Byblos, the Beirut Kharji tombs, and from Ory’s excavation at Aphek-Antipatris, as well as with other slightly later imports to Egypt found at Lisht and Kôm el-Hisn (BAGH 2002b, 96–100).70 BAGH (2000, 29–41; 2002b, 89–93) argues convincingly that there are demonstrably consistent associations of decoration and form and some distinct combinations of particular decorative motifs. However, it is quite possible that the fragmentary decorated sherds from cEzbet Rushdi belie their true decorative and typological range and, therefore, the geographical scope of the parallels to these finds. Comparison should also be drawn with other monochrome painted examples that possess line or band components, many of which she herself has methodically documented (BAGH 2000). Quite a few sites have produced vessels with comparable decorations including some with the same surface treatment documented at cEzbet Rushdi, e.g., a band-painted and burnished juglet from Barqai (GOPHNA and SUSSMAN 1969, 1, 3, 9, fig. 4:1, pl. 11:5); various vessels from Megiddo (e.g., LOUD 1948, pls. 7:19, 8:8, 11:20, 22, 17:13, 20:6; BAGH 2000, figs. 23–28), including two monochrome painted jugs with burnishing (GUY and ENGBERG 1938, 29:2, 3); a jug from Tel Megadim (WOLFF 1998; BAGH 2000, 38, fig. 114:a; 2003, fig. 5:e); Tel Ifshar (PALEY and PORATH 1997, fig. 13:5), Kabri (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY and SCHEFTELOWITZ 2002, figs. 5.22:4–7, 12–14, 5.58:4), one of which has a cream slip (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY, et al. 2002, 114, fig. 5.22:6); the alHourriyé cave in the mountains of northern
67
69
68
Possible earlier or contemporary examples include a single MB Canaanite sherd of a bowl, which was found in a chronologically problematic context in the pyramid of Amenemhet I at Lisht, and the two Levantine Painted juglets from Lisht North Tomb 756, which accompanied Egyptian pottery from the time spanning the reigns of Amenemhet II to Senusret III (ARNOLD, ARNOLD and ALLEN 1995, 16–18). The precise synchronization between the sequence of Levantine imports from cEzbet Rushdi with that of the Levant has not been presented. For a preliminary spatial and quantitative analysis, see BAGH (2000, 143–147, appendix 2). Note the appearance of a well-burnished red-slipped juglet and carinated bowl from substrata ed and e/3 (BAGH 2000, pl. VI: top and middle). This type of surface treatment is usually associated with somewhat later phases of the MB IIa.
70
Levantine Painted Ware appears to have quite a long lifespan at Tell el-Dabca (Stratum L–H) and in fact may continue to exist a half century later than Egyptian synchronized examples at Tel Ifshar (MARCUS 2003, 98). The latter site is currently under study for publication by the author and the excavators. There may be regional variations as well as chronological distinctions to be accounted for in the 100 year sequence of development that is implicit in the finds from cEzbet Rushdi (ca. Amenemhet II) and Tell el-Dabca Stratum H (ca. Amenemhet III). Two monochrome band and wavy line jugs/juglets from Kahun should also be added (PETRIE 1974, 9–10, pl. I:16, 19; BAGH 2000, 160, fig. 117:KA001–002), as well as perhaps a dipper juglet from el-Haraga T.297 (KEMP and MERRILLEES 1980, 34, fig.16).
162 Ezra S. Marcus Lebanon (BEAYNO, MATTAR and ABDUL-NOUR 2002, pls. 4:7, 6:7; BEAYNO and MATTAR 2004, 440–441, pl. 3:17–26, fig. 23);71 and Ugarit (BAGH 2000, figs. 65:e–h, 67:14, 71:passim).72 Even if, at present, the precise chronological horizon of these parallels is unclear, they offer some indication of potential regions in the northern (or southern) Levant in which the cEzbet Rushdi ceramics may have originated. Further elucidation of the nature of these parallels/contacts and the origin of these wares will have to await systematic provenience analysis. In the interim, some light may be shed on this last issue by the preliminary petrographic analysis of finds from cEzbet Rushdi and Kabri. COHENWEINBERGER and GOREN’s analysis (2004, 80–81, 92, table 1) of seven jars (six body sherds and possibly one rim of a handleless jar)73 and three LPW jugs/juglets have confirmed the foreign origin of the sherds from cEzbet Rushdi and localized their production zones as follows: two jars from Substrata e/2-e/1 and Stratum e were produced in the Northwestern Negev or southern Shephelah (Petrographic Group K), one jar from Substratum e/3 originated in the Mt. Carmel region (Petrographic Group F), one jar (Substrata e-d) came from the Akkar Plain (Petrographic Group E), and two jars from Substrata e/2 and c are either from northwestern Syria in the Ugarit or Amuq zone, or Cyprus (Petrographic Group A2).74 One jar attributed to Stratum e and all three LPW jug/juglets, from Substrata e/3–e/2, e/1-d and c are from an indeterminate northern Levantine coastal region somewhere between Akko and the Akkar Plain (Petrographic Group B3). However, three of the monochrome band painted LPW juglets from Kabri (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY, et al. 2002, fig. 5.22:5–7), which is situated
71
72
73
74
This cave has also produced a monochrome painted cup (BEAYNO, MATTAR, et al. 2002, 150, fig. 15, pl. 4:11; BEAYNO and MATTAR 2004, 442, fig. 24, pl. 4:32) similar to examples from Byblos that BAGH associates with the decorations from the early Levantine Painted Ware (2000, 103–106, fig. 54: a-h; 2002b, 97). Unfortunately, many of these examples are lacking detailed description of color and surface treatment. This sample is from the only jar not listed as a body sherd by COHEN-WEINBERGER and GOREN (2004, table 1) and its basket number 7948/2, without the “/2”, is identical to that of a rim published by BAGH (2002b, fig. 3:1). In light of the discussion above, COHEN-WEINBERGER
in the southernmost part of that region, were found to derive from the very northern coast of Lebanon, based on the appearance of basaltic minerals among the inclusions (GOREN and COHEN-WEINBERGER 2002, 440–441). Thus, although the sample set is quite limited in size (N=6), petrography offers some support for the typological argument that the LPW jugs/juglets at cEzbet Rushdi derive from the northern Levant. The imported storage jars, however, derive from a greater variety of regions. While minimalists might offer a facile and passé argument that the Levantine storage jars were transported overland, the Middle Minoan imports to cEzbet Rushdi offer unequivocal evidence for maritime contact. However, in complete contrast to the previously documented pattern of imports to Egypt and the Levant during the Middle Bronze Age, when Minoan pottery was prized for its aesthetic value (KEMP and MERRILLEES 1980; CADOGAN 1983; WARREN and HANKEY 1989; WARREN 1995; 2000, 25; MACGILLIVRAY 1995; FITTON, HUGHES and QUIRKE 1998, 131–133; MERRILLEES 2003), the imports from cEzbet Rushdi are comprised solely of fragments of Minoan oval mouthed amphorae (BIETAK and MARINATOS 2000, 40). This transport containe, whose adaptation for foreign trade was anticipated by FITTON et al. (1998, 131), is unknown in the subsequent Egyptian and Levantine archaeological record, perhaps because the fabric of body sherds has long gone unnoticed and unidentified.75 Ten fragments were found including three handles (one attached to a rim), a rim and five body sherds, the earliest examples of which appear in Substratum e/3 (CZERNY 1998, 46, fig. 21; BAGH 2000, fig. 87:eg, pl. VI:bottom).76 The oval mouthed amphora is well known from MM I to MM III contexts in
75
76
and GOREN (2004, 71–73, 80) are probably correct to exclude Cyprus as the source of these vessels, but according to them this petrographic group also occurs in Cilicia. In this instance, where body sherds have been analyzed and typological indicators absent, perhaps no region should be excluded a priori. In fact, it was Peter Warren’s visit to the Tell el-Dabca excavations that led to the identification of these examples and their relative dating (E. Czerny, personal communication). The current count, photographs, and illustrations of the Middle Minoan sherds from cEzbet Rushdi were kindly supplied by E. Czerny.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 163
Crete (BETANCOURT 1985, 76, 100, 105, figs. 65, 77, pls. 12B–C, 13F; WALBERG 1983, 6, 27).77 Two of the published handles are characterized by dark paint on a light background (CZERNY 1998, 46, fig. 21; BAGH 2000, fig. 87 f–g) and one body sherd has the remains of a dark background (BAGH 2000, fig. 87 e). The first two might belong to the “dark-on-light” style most common in Middle Minoan I, but persisting throughout the Middle Bronze Age (BETANCOURT 1985, 85–87, 95).78 The contents of these imported amphorae was presumably organic and, based on general Bronze Age parallels, might have been some sort of liquid, such as wine or oil, an ointment or resin, dry goods such as an exotic food or spices, or a large quantity of inorganic loose items (MERRILLEES and WINTER 1972, 106–107, 112–115; KNAPP 1991, 41–44; FITTON, HUGHES, et al. 1998, 133–134).79 Specifically regarding the Middle Kingdom, WARREN (1995, 7) argues that lichens for funerary purposes may have been an import from Crete. Later MBA textual evidence, variously, from Egypt and Mari, refer to Minoan textiles, footwear, and medicinals (MERRILLEES and WINTER 1972, 112–113; STRANGE 1980, 93; MALAMAT 1998, 38), all of which would have fared much better in a sealed dry container safe from sea spray and bilge water.80 To date, the earliest and still sole material evidence for an Aegean organic import to the East is the largely overlooked lathyrus clymenum or “Spanish vetchling” from somewhat later MB IIa Tel Nami (KISLEV, ARTZY and MARCUS 1993), which could be the long sought after Keftiw bean (MERRILLEES and WINTER 1972, 112–115; WARREN 1995, 7). In addition to their being an extraordinary ceramic type, the MM ceramics found at cEzbet Rushdi are by far the earliest well-stratified MM imports in Egypt. Stylistically, the small MM Ib floral vase from early 12th Dynasty Qubbet el-
Hawa (KEMP and MERRILLEES 1980, 215–219, 255; WARREN 1995, 3; MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 103), has been touted as the earliest MM import to Egypt (MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 106), but beyond placing its context in the “first part” of the 12th Dynasty, KEMP and MERRILLEES warn that “one cannot put too fine a limit” on its time range (1980, 255; WALBERG 1983, 143; FITTON, HUGHES, et al. 1998, 132). Similarly, the two apparently locallyproduced imitations of MM Ib crinkle rim bowls/cups from T.326 at el-Haraga, which while placed more towards the beginning of this cemetery’s sequence, still has a chronological range from Senusret II to the onset of the Hyksos Period (KEMP and MERRILLEES 1980, 36–39, 56–57, fig. 17; WARREN 1995, 134; MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 103, 106). The MM Ib-MM IIa examples from Lisht also have a broad date from the early 12th to late 13th Dynasties (KEMP and MERRILLEES 1980, 1–6, fig. 1; WALBERG 1983, 141; MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 104). Finally, the parallels drawn between MM Ib–MM IIa ceramics and the silverware from the Tôd Treasure are all relatively coeval with the cEzbet Rushdi material; other MM imports belong to the remainder of the Middle Kingdom (KEMP and MERRILLEES 1980, passim; WALBERG 1983, 141–143; MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 103–105). Given the equivocal nature of much of the other evidence, the MM finds from cEzbet Rushdi, when they are properly studied, should lend further credence to the early date of much of these other imports. Thus, the extraordinary Minoan imports, which mark the renewal of Egyptian contact with the Aegean, and the typological and petrographical evidence from cEzbet Rushdi both demonstrate that imports were arriving from the eastern Mediterranean already in Substratum e/3 and continued throughout Stratum e (those from the Levant increased following the period under dis-
77
78
Parallels: MM IIA Knossos (MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 28, 37, 46, 48, 130, 157, pls. 48:166, 116:740–741, 145:A-C, 150:1010); MM IIA-MM III Kommos (BETANCOURT 1990, 75–76, 79–80, 98, 119, fig. 16:178, 24:474, 36:756). WALBERG (1987, 16, 134–135, tables I-II), who notes that this vessel type has no Early Minoan predecessors, catalogues numerous examples (Form 16, types 69-73) from Phaistos and Knossos, occurring from Early to PostKamares, i.e., MM Ib-MM III I). However, her discussion is largely based on complete examples and there is no specific discussion of this rim type.
79
80
These sherds have yet to be examined systematically by specialists in Minoan pottery. In photographs, the fabrics seem to include both examples with grey buff and pink buff, suggesting that Knossos and the north coast, as well as Phaistos and the Mesara may be respresented (MACGILLIVRAY 1995, 82). Note that WARREN (2000, 25) suggests that the Minoan bridge-spouted jars, which are well represented in Egypt (and the Levant), could have held a solid ointment. See above p. 149, for references to the transport of organics in suitable containers.
164 Ezra S. Marcus cussion). The contacts reflected in these finds can be associated with the end of Senusret I’s coregency with Amenemhet II, if not solely in the junior monarch’s reign. In other words, during the time represented by the Mit Rahina inscription and the Tôd Treasure, cEzbet Rushdi was apparently functioning as a Deltaic port for the transshipment of goods from the Aegean and the Levant. It is not beyond reason that the ships returning from #nty-S and the bearer of the Tôd Treasure’s contents made use of this port. Moreover, the typological and petrographic results may contribute towards narrowing down some of the possible ports-of-call and coastal cities that may have been in existence at that time. Ports-of-call along the Levantine seaboard Although the precise identification of the cities that are subsumed under the regional term #nty-S or referred to as IAsii and Iwii are unknown, the presumed route taken by the ships sailing to and from somewhere in the northeastern Mediterranean would have brought them in proximity to a number of potential MB IIa ports-of-call and settlements in the coastal plain. The former were established inter alia, owing to amenable geographical conditions that may have enabled them to act as havens for ships, but may have merely been fair weather points of transshipment between land and sea, and which could have interfaced with more inland entities. During the Bronze Age, harbors were based on numerous types of marine-landforms, such as offshore islands, promontories, lagoons, bays, and navigable rivers (RABAN 1985; 1995b; BLUE 1995). Unfortunately, due to geomorphological changes since antiquity, Bronze Age anchorages are not easily discerned in the land and seascape (MARRINER and MORHANGE 2007, fig. 8), even at such celebrated port cities such as Byblos (FROST 2004). While, for the purposes of this discussion, the complexities
81
The correlation between the coastal southern Levant and part of the northern Levant with inland Syria is a much more complex question (NIGRO 2000; 2002, 299) and, as it is not relevant to the issues at hand, will not be discussed here. NIGRO’s criticism (2000, n. 1) of the use of painted and specialized wares for chronological synchronization is well taken. Ideally more robust synchronization would result from the comparison of complete ceramic repertoires. However, such synchronizations do have their validity particularly with widely
of coastal palaeogeography will not be considered (MARRINER and MORHANGE 2007), the maritime relations or orientation of a particular site should not be precluded simply because it is currently located on a haven-less open shore, e.g., Ashkelon, or some distance from the shore up a now lessthan-navigable river, e.g., Ugarit or Tel Kabri. Given that cEzbet Rushdi Stratum e is broadly contemporary with the period of the Mit Rahina inscription, comparison between its ceramic finds and those from the results of excavations and surveys along the Levantine littoral zone may aid in determining which ports and coastal plain settlements may have been in existence when these voyages took place. In the absence of more detailed typological data from cEzbet Rushdi, the synchronization of these results with Egyptian chronology must rely solely on the Levantine Painted Ware and the petrographic analysis of these and other pottery. However, while the finds from cEzbet Rushdi suggest that the earliest Levantine Painted Ware is limited to certain monochrome motifs, in considering the antiquity of various MB IIa sites, reference will also be made to the bichrome Levantine Painted Ware, even though its synchronization with Egypt may postdate cEzbet Rushdi Stratum e (and c) and find its best parallels, thus far, in Tell el-Dabca Stratum H (BAGH 2000; 2002b). This consideration is justified and imperative as the suggested LPW developmental sequence is still unsubstantiated outside of Egypt, and since first being discerned in the basal MB IIa levels at Tel Aphek (BECK 1985; KOCHAVI and YADIN 2002), this bichrome pottery has remained an essential fossile directeur for the beginning of much of the MB IIa littoral culture (PALEY and PORATH 1997; BAGH 2000; 2002b; 2004; KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY, et al. 2002).81 Those sites where the incipient MB IIa phase is characterized by the bichrome Levantine Painted Ware may date to a period slightly later than that under dis-
distributed types and their inspirations, which offer potential comparison over much greater distances. Nowhere is this utility underscored than with the incipient MB IIa stratum (14=Phase N) at Tell Arqa, a coastal plain site whose ceramic assemblage shows very striking differences with neighboring, especially coastal, regions, but which includes at least one example of Levantine Painted Ware (THALMANN 2002, 366, 377; 2006, 141, pl. 85:20).
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 165
cussion. Unfortunately, the synchronization of this incipient phase with Egypt has been largely precluded by the relative paucity of Egyptian exports in the MB IIa Levant, particular in the southern half of this region. However, numerous radiocarbon determinations from Tel Ifshar seem to place this phase no earlier, but probably slightly later, than 1930 BCE (MARCUS 2003). This date range certainly coincides with the period under discussion and is consistent with other synchronisms from Egypt (BIETAK 2002, 38–42), but cannot offer any greater refinement at present.82 Therefore, in order to identify the possible ports and settlements with which Egypt may have had contact, the petrographic analysis of the Levantine ceramics of cEzbet Rushdi Stratum e will be used as a guide for narrowing down possible regions and sites involved. In this discussion, it is assumed that transport was by sea and that the variety of disparate regions represented by the imported ceramics to cEzbet Rushdi did not derive from a single entrepôt, although this latter assumption may require modification when the remainder of these imports and comparanda from the Levant has been studied and analyzed by petrography. In the meantime, the northern Levant, i.e., #nty-S, is represented, petrographically, by Group B3, a general indeterminate region, ranging from the port of Akko to the Akkar plain (3 LPW jugs/juglets and 1 jars); Group E, the Akkar plain (1 jar); and Group A2 the Syrian-Cilician coast/Amuq region (1 jar). The southern Levant is represented by Group F, the Carmel coast (1 jar) and Group K, the northern Negev/southern Shephelah (1 jar). Potentially, these zones of production may be further narrowed down to specific sites based on current available archaeological data from MB IIa sites in these regions. Southern Coastal Plain This region, which is represented by petrographic Group K (COHEN-WEINBERGER and GOREN
82
83
A much more limited suite of radiocarbon determinations from Tel Kabri and Tel Aphek are consistent with the results from Tel Ifshar, but due to the small number of samples, not nearly as conclusive. These will be published in a more detailed manner elsewhere. These include a handleless jar with horizontal lines (PETRIE 1933, pl. XXXIII:32A11); a dipper juglet with
2004, 79–80, fig. 1), is characterized both by the lack of solid geomorphological evidence for anchorages and the limited exposure and evidence for early MB IIa remains. The two potential MB IIa ports along this coastline are Tell el-Ajjul, with a theoretical anchorage at the mouth of Nahal Besor/Wadi Gaza (TUFNELL 1962, 1; OREN 1997, 255) and Ashkelon, which has defied considerable attempts to identify the physical geographical conditions that might have offered a haven for seafarers (STAGER 1993, 103). The extant MB IIa remains of the former site are from tombs of the later phases of the period, but a few LPW vessels were found.83 Although COHEN (2000, 189; 2002a, 107; 2002b, 124) claims otherwise, the excavator notes that earliest MB IIa phase is not yet attested at Ashkelon (STAGER 2002, 357). However, even in such a long term excavation, it is possible that these early levels have still not been located. Finally, rather than, or in addition to, the modern fisherman’s port, the BA anchorage of Jaffa may have been based on the wetlands that existed east of the tell prior to modern times (RABAN 1985, 27). In the early 20th century, the remains of large walls and stone anchors are reported to have been found in these swamps (HANAUER 1903a; 1903b; BARTON 1903; SHEPSTONE 1937, 265). Unfortunately, MB IIa Jaffa is known only from some tombs (KAPLAN and RITTERKAPLAN 1993, 659). Further inland, a few sites with possible early MB IIa remains have been found. East of the largely MB IIb anchorage of Yavne Yam, a jug with an LPW pendant motif was found in a surface survey (GOPHNA and BECK 1981, fig. 10:25, pl. 14:8, 35). At the cemetery of Dhaharat el-Humraiya two painted jugs were found in an MB IIa tomb (T.62). They are decorated in red slip, and painted with diagonally-crossed black lines and red paint on their necks and handles (ORY 1948, 88, fig. 36, 37, pl. XXXII:1). As mentioned above, this tomb may contain an example of Middle Cypriot
strokes on its rim, a pendant motif around its neck, and triangles framed with horizontal lines on its body (PETRIE 1931, pl. XLVII:AY; TUBB 1983, 53, n. 9, fig. 1:); and a globular juglet, with strokes on its rim and handle, a pendant motif, and a spiral framed with horizontal lines on its body (PETRIE 1934, pl. LIV:J60N7).
166 Ezra S. Marcus pottery, although it remains unclear as to what stage of the early MB IIa period these LPW vessels belong. Sharon Coastal Plain Although no petrographically demonstrable exports from the Sharon Coastal Plain were identified at cEzbet Rushdi, the two main river systems, the Yarkon and Alexander rivers have two archaeologically important MB IIa sites: Tel Aphek and Tel Ifshar. As previously noted, the key published site of Tel Aphek has provided some of the best parallels for the cEzbet Rushdi Levantine Painted Ware. Unfortunately, while the Yarkon river was still navigable in early modern times up to the later MB IIa site of Tel Jerishe (GEVA 1982; HERZOG 1993), apart from an encampment site at Sde Dov (KAPLAN and RITTER-KAPLAN 1993, 1454, photo), north of the modern river mouth, there does not appear to be any early MB IIa site that might have served as a port. Among the extensive repertoire of Levantine Painted Ware in settlement phases B-C at Tel Ifshar are monochrome painted motifs that are paralleled at cEzbet Rushdi (see above). This ceramic class is found in association with MK Egyptian pottery, which continues into Phase C and possibly Phase E. Contacts with Lebanon are attested by the presence of cedar (PORATH and PALEY 1993, 34) and onion-shaped jugs (PALEY and PORATH 1997, fig. 13.6:6) that are paralleled at Byblos (SAGHIEH 1983, 95, pl. XLI:3639; DUNAND 1937, pl. CLX:3639a-b) and the Kharji tombs (SAIDAH 1993–1994). The fragmentary Egyptian pottery from Phase B and C has yet to be studied typologically, but a complete Marl A vessel is dated no earlier than the reign of Senusret II. As note above, radiocarbon determinations from Phase B suggest that the MB IIa settlement at this site began no earlier than 1930 BCE, although a slightly later date is more probable, statistically. No MB IIa levels were found at Tel Michmoret at the mouth of the Alexander river, which was probably navigable in antiquity. Similarly, no evidence for any anchorage was found at the mouth of the Hadera river. However, more than 10 km up this river is the MB IIa site of
84
LPW vessels are reported at a cemetery excavated at the southern margin of Mt. Carmel, overlooking the Nahal Taninim basin that forms the border between the
Tel Zeror, which produced some remains that are reported to be coeval with the earliest phase at Tel BECK and GOPHNA Aphek (KOCHAVI, 1979, 155–160). One LPW vessel is represented by a body sherd of a jar decorated with concentric circles (KOCHAVI, BECK, et al. 1979, 160, fig. 18:22).84 Carmel Coast In contrast to the Sharon Coastal Plain, there are three MB IIa sites on or close to the modern shoreline of the Carmel Coast that could have been the point of export for the single jar of petrographic Group F: Tel Dor, Tel Nami, and Tel Megadim. Although Tel Dor has been the subject of excavation since 1980 during which, other than stray sherds, no MBA strata were found even in areas where bedrock was reached (STERN 1995, 271); Middle Bronze Age remains were detected on exposed scarp of the so-called “Love Bay” on the northern side of the tell. There, RABAN (1995a, 287, 302–303, 306, 309, n. 38) found MB IIa remains, but none that appear so far to represent the earliest phases of the period. Given these very preliminary findings, and the site’s many coves and protected bodies of water, the underwater surveys of which have produced MB IIa ceramics, anchors and a MC import (WACHSMANN and RAVEH 1984, 239; WACHSMANN 1995, 5; SIBELLA 1995, 13, fig. 1), it seems likely that the remains of a MBA port city may still be discovered at this site. Tel Nami, which is located approximately 5 km north of Tel Dor is one of a cluster of sites that are arrayed around what were probably coastal wetlands with access to the sea (ARTZY 1993; MARCUS 1991). The earliest phase of habitation includes bichrome LPW jugs, jars and juglets (ARTZY 1995, 20, fig. 2.4). In addition, a fragment of cedar was found in an early MB IIa well (LEVYADUN, ARTZY, MARCUS, et al. 1996). Radiocarbon determinations both from settlement and tombs show results similar to that of Tel Ifshar, i.e., the beginning of settlement not much earlier that the last quarter of the 20th century BCE (BRONK RAMSEY, HIGHAM, OWEN, et al. 2002, 80–81). Unpublished salvage excavations at Tel Megadim (WOLFF 1998) have produced examples
Sharon and Carmel Coastal Plains (PEILSTÖCKER and SKLAR-PARNES 2005).
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 167
of Levantine Painted Ware in tombs (BAGH 2000, fig. 1.IIIa). Although the site does not have an obvious anchorage, perhaps the bay at nearby Atlit was already in use in the Middle Bronze Age, as has been suggested for the Early Bronze Age (SHARVIT, GALILI, et al. 2002, 164). Finally, despite its relative distance from the sea, it would be remiss to ignore the important hinterland center of Megiddo, where early MB IIa remains found both on the tell and in the adjoining cemetery (DUNAYEVSKY and KEMPINSKI 1973; KEMPINSKI 1989). As mentioned briefly above, these remains include both monochrome and bichrome Levantine Painted Ware (BAGH 2000, 71–78). The coast of Northern Israel & Southern Lebanon The finds from the excavations of Tel Akko (DOTHAN 1993), the southernmost port in this region, are currently under study by research teams at the University of Haifa.85 In excavation areas where significant MB IIa remains were uncovered, no ceramics typical of the earliest phase of this period, including the Levantine Painted Ware, have been found so far in situ (Area AB: Ron BEERI, personal communication;86 Area F: this author). The only exceptions are some fragmentary sherds of possible bichrome Levantine Painted Ware from later fills and the complete profile of a bichrome jug that was exposed during modern construction west of the MB IIa gate in Area F (DOTHAN and RABAN 1980). However, the possibility that excavations did not reach and sufficiently expose the early MB IIa levels should not be precluded. A recent study of the Akko Plain (PEILSTÖCKER 2005) identified no additional examples of Levantine Painted Ware or other early MB IIa remains between Tel Akko and the modern Israeli-Lebanese border. Thus, the aforementioned examples from Tel Kabri remain the only known examples from this region of early Levantine Painted Ware with monochrome motifs similar to that of cEzbet Rushdi. However, a monochrome juglet was found at the Nahariya temple,
85
Relevant excavation areas include: Area AB, which is being studied by R. BEERI as part of his doctoral dissertation, supervised by Professor M. ARTZY; Area H, which is being studied by Dr. A. BRODY in collaboration with Professor M. ARTZY; and Area F, which is being studied by the author and up until 2003 with the late Professor
albeit with concentric circles and necklace decoration, but was reported to be from a later MB IIa phase (DOTHAN 1981, 76, fig. 2). Bichrome Levantine Painted Ware is known from both Tel Kabri (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY, et al. 2002, 114–116, figs. 5.14, 5.58:3) and the Nahariya temple (DOTHAN 1956, 19, fig. 8; 1981, fig. 1; BEN-DOR 1950, 235, fig. 16:325, 47, pl. VIII).87 Regarding possible anchorages, the largely unknown river mouth port of Tel Nahariya on the southern bank of the Gacaton river, which derives its source at Tel Kabri, has not yet produced early MB IIa remains (PEILSTÖCKER 2005). One explanation is that earlier remains may yet be found there, or that the river mouth functioned as a maritime interface without the existence of a settlement, or that the river may have entered the sea at a location closer to the Nahariya temple complex some 800 m to the north (RABAN 1986, 219; YOGEV 1993). The next two major ports to the north, Akhziv and the palaeo-island of Tyre, have yet to reveal any early MB IIa remains (OREN 1975; BIKAI 1978, 6, 72–73). The former has only been the object of limited excavation, primarily of the rampart fortifications (PRAUSNITZ 1975), while the latter was probed solely in a 150 m2 sondage, which represents merely 1% of the ancient island (BIKAI 1978, 1). Either relevant remains may be discovered elsewhere, such as near the reconstructed northern harbor, or MBA Tyre should be sought to the lee of the island, along the prograded ancient shoreline, perhaps at one of the nearby tells (MARRINER and MORHANGE 2005, 184, fig. 2–3; 2007, fig. 17; MARRINER, MORHANGE, BOUDAGHER-FADEL, et al. 2005; MARRINER, MORHANGE, DOUMET-SERHAL, et al. 2006, 1–2, fig. 1; MARRINER 2007, 330–336, figs. A16, A24, 1.17, 2.1). To date, the most extensive MB IIa remains discovered in this section of coastline are from the port of Sidon, where five phases of 60 graves, spanning the Middle Bronze Age, have been exposed (DOUMET-SERHAL 2001, 162–171; 2002, 188–189; 2003a, 179–182; 2003c, 9–14;
86 87
A. Raban. The latter two studies are funded by the White-Levy program for archaeological publication. For intial results, see BEERI (2003). These remains are currently being studied by S. Zuckerman of the Hebrew University.
168 Ezra S. Marcus 2004b, 112–118; 2004c, 90–103, 148–149; 2004d, 48, 51–53).88 So far, only some fragmentary sherds decorated with monochrome black or red horizontal lines or bands have been found among the pottery of a floor underneath the largest substantial MB wall found thus far (DOUMET-SERHAL 2003a, 191, 195). However, significant amounts of bichrome Levantine Painted Ware are present in tombs of Phases 1-2 (BAGH 2004). Synchronizing this sequence with Egypt is currently based on two complete Egyptian vessels: one small Marl C jar in burial 13 of Phase 1, which first appears in the time of Senusret I, but continues throughout the 12th Dynasty, and Phase 2, Burial 24 utilizes a Marl C storage jar for an infant burial (BADER 2003). This example, too, has a broad chronological range from the mid12th through 13th Dynasties.89 However, an Upper Egyptian vessel found above a warrior grave and provisionally assigned to Phase 2 can be placed more narrowly within a timeframe covering the reigns of Senusret I and Senusret III, and has good parallels at cEzbet Rushdi during the reign of Amenemhet II (FORSTNER-MÜLLER and KOPETZKY 2006). Phase 1 also produced scarabs typical of the first half of the 12th Dynasty (TAYLOR 2004, 157; MLINAR 2004, 63). An additional find of note is an MM IIA-early MM IIb cup found perhaps as a ritual deposit in Phase 2 (MACGILLIVRAY 2003; 2004). A single radiocarbon determination on an animal bone from underneath this deposit (DOUMET-SERHAL 2004a) produced a 2 sigma range of 2030-1770 BCE, although the highest probability (81%) within that range is between 2030 and 1860 BCE, which is consistent with first half of MM IIA beginning around the end of Senusret I’s reign (MACGILLIVRAY 1998, fig. 3.3). It also might suggest a provisional terminus ante quem of 1860 for Phase 2. Finally, research on the palaeogeography of Sidon has a revealed a number of possible Bronze Age anchorages (MARRINER and MORHANGE 2005, 186–188, figs. 4, 6; MARRINER,
MORHANGE, et al. 2006, 1–2, figs. 2, 5; MARRINER, MORHANGE, et al. 2006; MARRINER 2007, 337–379). Another potential port might eventually be revealed at Tell el-Burak, a small coastal site between Tyre and Sidon (FINKBEINER and SADER 2001; KAMLAH and SADER 2003). Recent excavations revealed a massive mudbrick building, possibly a fortress, dating to the Middle Bronze Age II (KAMLAH and SADER 2003, 159–166). While the excavators are understandably hesitant to refine their date at this stage of research, some of the published pottery (KAMLAH and SADER 2003, pl. 3) could possibly date to the early stages of the Middle Bronze Age. Coastal geomorphological studies of the shoreline are planned for the identification of possible harbor installations (KAMLAH and SADER 2003, 166) and an underwater survey of a nearby reef may indicate its use as an offshore anchorage (MAINBERGER 2001).
88
90
89
In addition to the finds from Sidon itself, early MB IIa remains, including Levantine Painted Ware vessels, have been found in various tombs located in its hinterland (GUIGES 1937, figs. 3a, 3c, 6, 7a, 22, 23b, 28f; 1938, figs. 46, 57e, 58e, 59; BAGH 2000, appendix). Egyptian imports increase significantly (N=51) in Phase 4 (FORSTNER-MÜLLER, KOPETZKY and DOUMET-SERHAL 2006).
Northern Lebanon The extensive salvage excavations that preceded the reconstruction of Beirut’s Central District have revealed significant MBA remains from the ancient tell (BADRE 1997; 1998). The preliminary publication includes the profile of a handleless jar decorated with sets of 4–6 horizontal bands (BADRE 1997, 22, fig. 9.4). This member of the Levantine Painted family, and other examples, suggest the presence of MB IIa levels, but how early in this sub-period is still unclear. At the very least, the locating of the BA tell of Beirut offers a settlement context for the tombs and other relevant finds previously discovered, such as the Kharji and Sin el Fil tombs, both of which contain examples of both monochrome and bichrome Levantine Painted Ware (SAIDAH 1993–1994, pls. 5, 6, 9:2, 10, 11:1–2, 12:1, 16:2–32; CHÉHAB 1939, figs. 7a–b, 8a–c).90 The reconstruction of Beirut’s ancient harbor, suggests a nearby anchorage situated between the Nahr Beirut, two rocky promontories and an island (MARRINER 2007, 380–422).
The absence of proper documentation and the fact that the finds are missing and cannot be re-examined is a hindrance to a full assessment of what they represent for the MB IIa chronology of Beirut. However, BAGH (2000, 89–93) suggests that there may be reason to separate the two MB IIa assemblages, i.e. chambers, T.1 and T.2, in which case an early monochrome painted phase would be isolated.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 169
Only 20 km north of Beirut is the port of Byblos, which served Egypt during the Old and Middle Kingdom as its principal commercial partner in the Levant. Although stratigraphic ambiguities and discarded material may for ever prevent a full understanding of the nature of that relationship, there are some architectural complexes dated by foundation deposits or caches (TUFNELL and WARD 1966; NEGBI and MOSKOWITZ 1966; PORADA 1966) and tombs (TUFNELL 1969; BARAMKI 1973), all of which provide some chronologically secure contexts for comparing the remaining equivocal data. The beginning of the Middle Bronze Age take its terminus post quem from the upper phases of the stratified Early Bronze Age-Intermediate Bronze Age sequence, as reconstructed by SAGHIEH (1983).91 The Levantine Painted Ware at Byblos has been discussed in detail by BAGH (2000, 94–112; 2002b), where she notes the preference for monochrome red band and wavy line decorations, the latter of which she derives from motifs common in the preceding Early Bronze Age IV. Byblos provides her with the best parallels for the LPW sherds from cEzbet Rushdi, but note the discussion above. Regarding the synchronization with Egypt, the Montet Jar scarabs provide the earliest 12th Dynasty imports (BEN-TOR, D. 1998). Although their stratigraphic assignment is equivocal, royal names are attested at Byblos beginning with Senusret I, whose cartouche was found on a limestone fragment (WARD, W. A. 1971, 68, n. 272); Amenemhet II’s name appears on a bone cylinder (JIDEJIAN 1971, 25). Finally, despite its ancient prominence as a port, Byblos appears to have had a number of seemingly poorly protected shoreline and offshore anchorages (FROST 2002; FROST 2004; COLLINA-GIRARD, FROST, et al. 2002; STEFANIUK, MORHANGE, SAGHIEH-BEYDOUN, et al. 2005). The Akkar Plain (petrographic Group E), which extends from northern Lebanon into modern Syria, has been the subject of regional surveys and extensive excavations at such key sites as Tell Arqa and Tell Kazel (BARTL 1998–1999; THALMANN 2000; 2002; 2006). Although a number of sites
91
Among the MB IIa contexts she considers are the Obelisk Temple and its jar deposits (SAGHIEH 1983, 18–20, 24, fig. 7–7b, pl. XLI:15979); the Champ des Offrandes temple and Enceinte Sacrée MBA jar deposits (SAGHIEH 1983, 31, 35, 38–9, figs. 9, 11, 12b, pl. XLI:10585); the Temple Syrien (or Batiment II) and its jar
apparently possess MB ramparts and quite a few rural sites are dated to the Middle Bronze Age (THALMANN 2006, 211–212, fig. 85), only the MB sequence of Tell Arqa has been excavated and studied in detail (THALMANN 2006). Only one imported example of Levantine Painted Ware was found in Stratum 14 (=Phase N) (THALMANN 2002, 373–374, fig. 8; 2006, 141, pl. 85:20). However, more substantial early MB IIa remains, including monochrome and bichrome Levantine Painted Ware are known from the tombs at the coastal site of Amrith (DUNAND, SALIBY and KHIRICHIAN 1954, pls. III:2, 4; TUBB 1983, fig. 1:3–4; BAGH 2000, appendix). In the absence of any coastal geomorphological studies it is impossible to assess the possibility of any anchorages among the MB coastal sites in this region (THALMANN 2006, pl. 2). Syrian Coast In this petrographic group’s (A2) region (COHENWEINBERGER and GOREN 2004, 71–73, fig. 1), Ugarit is undoubtedly the principal BA port of the Syrian coast, based on its geographical location, its anchorages, such as Minet el Beida, archaeological finds and textual references. However, much of the MBA city is known only from tombs and various objects found in later contexts (YON 2006, 16–17, fig. 5). Among the latter are a bead with the name of Senusret I, a sphinx in the Temple of Baal and a statue of Khnumet, daughter of Amenemhet II and wife of Senusret II (YON 2006, 16–17). Nevertheless, re-examination of the finds from the Schaeffer excavations stored at the Louvre enabled BAGH (2000, 118–123) to catalogued 39 LPW vessels or fragments thereof, many of which were not always clearly assigned by the excavator. Band line decorations appear in both monochrome and bichrome although sometimes two shades of red can be discerned creating a “bichrome impression” (BAGH 2000, 119). Although the southern limit of petrographic group A2 is the port of Latakiya (COHEN-WEINBERGER and GOREN 2004, 71–73, fig. 1), the Jableh
deposits, including the Montet Jar (SAGHIEH 1983, 50–1, 57–8, fig. 13). These are assigned to her Period H, along with other stray MB IIa finds, such as LPW dipper juglets and an isolated jar deposit (SAGHIEH 1983, 5, figs. 1:12472, 4:10882, pl. XLI:18903).
170 Ezra S. Marcus (Gabla) coastal plain of Syria south of Latakiya, which is considered the southern extent of the kingdom of Ugarit in the Late Bronze Age (YON 2006, 9, fig. 6), should also be considered. Excavations at two potential ports, Tall Sukas (THRANE 1978) and Tall Daruk (OLDENBURG and ROHWEDER 1981) both produced early MB remains. Tall Sukas is situated on a promontory between two natural bays (LUND 1986, fig. 2), but no details of their viability as anchorages are available. Although the MB finds have yet to be fully published, the earliest MB IIa stratum (layer 18) is dated by a burial (LUND 1986, 16). This so-called collective grave contained numerous examples of monochrome and bichrome Levantine Painted Ware that were found in Level 3 of the tomb (THRANE 1978, figs. 72:79, 80:80–83, 85:85, 88, 91, 92:92–94).92 Tall Daruk, which is located at a possible river mouth anchorage of the Nahr Sinn (OLDENBURG and ROHWEDER 1981, 6, fig. 52), produced sherds of monochrome, but, principally, bichrome Levantine Painted Ware in a number of MB levels (OLDENBURG and ROHWEDER 1981, figs. 29:79, 80, 30:84, 86, 87, 89, 91, 38: 79, 80).93 In addition, recent excavation at Tell Tweini, which is 1.7 km up the once navigable Rumailiah river, has produced possible early MB IIa remains (BRETSCHNEIDER, AL-MAQDASSI, et al. 2004, 217–218). However, until this region is defined petrographically (COHEN-WEINBERGER and GOREN 2004, fig. 1), the relationship between these important finds and those imported to Egypt will remain unclear.
cient body of material evidence for assessing the maritime “events” described in the text and interpreting them within a broader context. For example, the Tôd Treasure may be seen as a reflection of the types of endowments or tribute that may have derived from royal, or royally sanctioned, commercial expeditions. Conversely, the finds from cEzbet Rushdi provide an insight into the contemporary Deltaic ports or interfaces through which such expeditions may have passed. The material “drop off” found there offers an archaeological and petrographical imprint of other Levantine regions that may have been visited and those that directly or indirectly provided goods. Despite the text’s reference solely to the Lebanon, it may be envisioned that these voyages were a form of cabotage wherein ships leaving the Delta may have made land fall somewhere along the southern coast of Israel (Tell el-Ajjul or Ashkelon?) and the Carmel coast (Tels Dor, Nami or Megadim) before they reached their final destination in Lebanon and Syria. The possibility of relations with all of these regions has implications far beyond the immediate events under discussion. THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS OF THE MIT RAHINA INSCRIPTION AND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS FROM
AMENEMHET II’S REIGN
Thus, despite the lack of any additional contemporary textual evidence for foreign relations with which the Mit Rahina inscription might be compared, the archaeological record provides a suffi-
If the maritime-oriented events detailed in the Mit Rahina text and the archaeological evidence from Egypt and the Levant – at least that which can be synchronized with the finds from cEzbet Rushdi Phase e – had spanned the entire Middle Kingdom, they would naturally have been considered simply individual manifestations of the long term relations between Egypt and the Levant. However, as this evidence may be associated with a fairly distinct period in the 12th Dynasty, namely the reign of Amenemhet II, they might better
92
93
Summary
In her analysis of this assemblage, BAGH (2000, 113–117) correctly assigns it to the MB IIa phase, but her correspondence with Aphek Phase 3 should only be considered with regards to the sealing of this phase. Many of the types that she considers early (BAGH 2000, 116) do not appear in Aphek Phase 3 and would be best placed in Aphek Phase 2, or, better, Phase 1 (BECK 1985; KOCHAVI and YADIN 2002). This assemblage appears much more likely to represent a mixture of five interments (THRANE 1978, 21–29) spanning a number of MB IIa phases.
A single radiocarbon determination of a charcoal sample of wood (Quercus sp.) from MB Layer 32 produced a date of 3660±110 (OLDENBURG and ROHWEDER 1981, 67; TAUBER 1973, 109). Recalibrated, this low precision measurement produces a broad range of 24501700 BCE (2 sigma) and 2200-1890 (1 sigma), which while consistent cannot be a conclusive arbiter for the calendrical date of these finds.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 171
be considered to be related parts of a political and economic process of broader significance. In particular, they may shed light on the juncture and circumstances at which contacts between Egypt and the Levant were restored in the Middle Kingdom, the character of Egyptian foreign trade during this period, and the possible impact of these developments on the transformation that the Levant was undergoing in the early Middle Bronze Age.
The reestablishment of unified rule in Egypt under the Middle Kingdom has long been considered a return to patterns already well-established in the Old Kingdom (HAYES 1971, 468; KEMP 1983, 71). When, precisely, foreign relations with the Levant and the eastern Mediterranean resumed has up until now been somewhat unclear. A review of the currently available evidence will demonstrate that Amenemhet II’s reign may very well represent a watershed in this regard. In the interval between the collapse of the Old Kingdom, when Egypt’s relations with Byblos cease and prior to the 12th Dynasty, the textual
record is somewhat vague regarding relations with the Levant and the origin of foreign materials.94 Moreover, since WARD’s study (1971), no detailed review of FIP imports to Egypt has been made. Cedar, some imported ceramics, bronze and silver all attest to sporadic contacts with the eastern Mediterranean.95 In the twenty-fourth year following the founding of the 12th Dynasty, Amenemhet I’s general, Nesumontu, engaged in attacks against peoples to the north and east (i.e., Asiatics), against their fortresses and against “sand dwellers” (BREASTED 1906, §470-§471; WARD 1961, 38; REDFORD 1992, 77). Beni Hasan tomb No. 14 of Khnumhotep I, who was a contemporary of Amenemhet I, includes a martial scene that depicts different groups of foreigners, among them bearded, weapon-brandishing Asiatics (NEWBERRY 1893a, 84–85, pl. XLVII). An inscription from this tomb also records a naval expedition to Upper Egypt involving twenty ships of cedar and attacks against Asiatic groups (NEWBERRY 1893a, 84, pl. XLIV; BREASTED 1906, §463–§465; WARD 1961, 38; REDFORD 1992, 74). In addition to the aforementioned inscription of Senusret I from the Temple of Montu, he himself is described as “one who severs
94
95
The resumption of Egyptian relations with the Levant in the Middle Kingdom
During the First Intermediate Period, there is a reference to an offering of sft oil and a door of aS wood (WARD 1971, 49–50). Under Mentuhotep II, texts and pictorial scenes continue the familiar “smiting of the Asiatic” formula, along with a military campaign to the Qedem (eastern) lands and a presumably sea-borne expedition to the “cedar slopes” to cut wood (WARD 1971, 58–62, fig. 8; REDFORD 1992, 69–70; HAYES 1949, 46, n. j). The tomb of Antef includes a rare depiction of the siege of a fortified Asiatic stronghold (ARNOLD and SETTGAST 1965, pl. 2), and a riverine engagement (SETTGAST 1969), but the location of this walled settlement and the engagement are unknown and the former could be a continuation of an OK artistic idiom (SCHULMAN 1982, 168–170, 179). REDFORD (1992, 70) notes the Eleventh Dynasty attack on the Asiatics of +Aty, a toponym that he associates with the Jordan Valley despite the reference to “sailing with the south wind”. The acquisition of coniferous timber may be reflected in a funerary stela that mentions a coffin made of fresh aS wood (WARD 1971, 62) and an expedition by Henu, who records the building of a “Byblosship” for a voyage to Punt (BREASTED 1906, §432–§433; SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH 1946, 48), although the precise construction material is unspecified.
Although there is no precluding a re-use of previously imported products at the beginning of the period, the later textual and archaeological evidence suggest that fresh goods were imported, albeit in limited quantities. Cedar was used for the construction of boxes and coffins, and a model was made of an unidentified conifer (LUCAS and HARRIS 1989, 430–432; WARD 1971, 62; DAVIES 1995, 146–147, n. 31, table 1, pl. 10:1). Some ceramic forms of southern Levantine or Syrian origin or inspiration are found in the Delta and Upper Egypt (SHAHEEN 1992; BIETAK 1996, 9). Copper, which was most likely imported via northern Sinai, but could have come from regions further to the north, was used for a range of objects, including a bowl, a statuette, epsilon axes, and plaques (WARD 1971, 51–54, fig. 7; HAYES 1953, fig. 92; 1971, 464; LUCAS and HARRIS 1989, 219; SHAHEEN 1990; GARENNE-MAROT 1984, 116–117). The statuette may be bronze (LUCAS and HARRIS 1989, 210) and, indeed, analyses of FIP tools and weapons indicate sporadic examples of tinbronzes (GARENNE-MAROT 1984, 117; DAVIES 1987, 24, passim; COWELL 1987, 98–99, table 2b). Some silver finds are also reported (LUCAS and HARRIS 1989, 246). Finally, WARD (1971, 54) reports a lapis lazuli bead, which is one of the materials acquired in a recorded expedition to the Sinai.
172 Ezra S. Marcus the neck of those who are among the Asiatic” (ROWE 1939, 188–191; POSENER 1971, 538, 540). His vizir Mentuhotep was “one who pacifies the sand dwellers,” a written allusion, perhaps, to the vanquished Asiatic depicted on a block from his regent’s funerary temple (POSENER 1971, 538). In the tomb of Amenemhat (No. 2), who was buried in the forty-third year of Senusret I, Asiatic soldiers also appear in a battle scene, which may or may not be part of scene depicting the siege of a fortified city (NEWBERRY 1893b, 24, 32–3, pls. XIV, XVI; SCHULMAN 1982, 176–178). In addition to the Mit Rahina inscription, a brief reference exists of Asiatic cattle brought during the reign of Amenemhet II or III (BLACKMAN 1915). Finally, regardless of whether the Tale of Sinuhe is a historical autobiography or a dreamlike fantasy-nightmare (PARKINSON 1997, 21–26), a few aspects of this characterization of the early 12th Dynasty are relevant to the present discussion. First, the mention of Egyptian emissaries in the Levant and that Egyptian was spoken (PARKINSON 1997, 29, 32; SIMPSON 2003b, 57, 59; QUIRKE 2004, 59–60) reflects the security they enjoyed and the degree of interaction that was maintained. The laconic reference to Byblos (PARKINSON 1997, 29; SIMPSON 2003b, 56; QUIRKE 2004, 60) is perhaps more revealing than it seems. The reasons for the fleeing Sinuhe’s avoidance of Byblos, Egypt’s traditional Levantine commercial counterpart and the most Egyptianized center abroad have ranged from that of a fugitive evading the Egyptian sphere of influence (ALBRIGHT 1928, 225) to a more literary allegory wherein his dearest intention – to find the best substitute Egypt – was denied him in exile, owing to circumstance and his own failings (GOEDICKE 1992, 30–35; PARKINSON 1997, 23). If, indeed, the Tale of Sinuhe was composed shortly after the reign of Senusret I (PARKINSON 1997, 21), the total absence of this toponym in the Mit Rahina inscription is conspicuous, particularly given the detailed description of the expeditions and the arriving tribute. Although Byblos might have been mentioned in a later unpreserved entry, clearly, when the extant portion of the text was recorded, i.e., during Year 3 of Amenemhet II, there were avenues available to the Egyptians for the procurement of Levantine products, including the much coveted cedar, that did not involve Byblos (contra WARD 1971, 67–68; BEN-TOR 1998, 14–15). Moreover, even the ships employed are not “Byblos-ships”,
although this type is known already from the third millennium BCE and in the early 12th Dynasty. The archaeological evidence, too, offers little unequivocal evidence for such early contacts. As noted above, the earliest 12th Dynasty royal nomen at Byblos, Senusret I, lacks a secure context. That leaves the Montet Jar scarabs as the earliest stratified 12th Dynasty finds attested at Byblos, which are paralleled by sealings from the site of Abu Ghâlib (BEN-TOR 1998, 14–15). These sealings are dated by pottery of the so-called “transitional style,” which precedes the classic MK pottery that develops in the middle or later years of the reign of Senusret I or even Amenemhet II, as established by parallels from the foundation deposits of the former’s pyramid at Lisht (BEN-TOR 1998, 14 following ARNOLD 1988, 143–146). In support of this claim, BENTOR (1998, 14) notes a comparable date for the Abu Ghâlib pottery based on Tell el-Dabca Area F/I, levels e/1–3 (BIETAK 1991, 31). However, she fails to note Bietak’s caveat regarding the terminus ad quem for Abu Ghâlib in the reign of Senusret II (BIETAK 1991, 31, n. 7). Although some doubt exists regarding the validity of the cylinder seal of Senusret II that provides this lower bracket, some ceramic forms may date as late as the end of the 12th Dynasty (BAGH 2002a, 39–41, 43–44). Thus, it is unclear how long the pottery and the scarab sealings continued in use. BEN-TOR herself (1998, 12) notes that, “The exact date of the beginning of mass production of Middle Kingdom scarabs cannot be determined at this point of scarab research ... The Montet Jar scarabs, displaying stylistic features and designs which precede the Middle Kingdom groups, should therefore be placed within the range of the early Middle Kingdom, somewhere during the late 11th–mid 12th Dynasty.” As there is no clear delineation of where “early” ends and “middle” begins (BEN-TOR 1998, n. 4), the date of production of the Montet scarabs and their arrival at Byblos cannot be further refined. Regarding the deposition of this assemblage, as with any archaeological context, it is axiomatic that the latest material must be considered the definitive dating criterion. While the jar itself is clearly an example of the early monochrome red Levantine Painted Ware (see BAGH 2000, 95–99 and discussion above), the latest date
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 173
comes from the jar’s cylinder seals, which are dated by PORADA’s (1966) to the 19th century BCE (middle Mespotamian chronology). Few scholars have taken note of this factor in their assessment of this assemblage (BIETAK 1991, 54, n. 34; LILYQUIST 1993, 38–41) and it should be considered valid until otherwise superseded.96 This archaeological and chronological reality, however, does not detract from the antiquity or the significance of the Montet Jar scarabs as the earliest evidence for contacts between Egypt and Byblos.97 The notion that relations with Byblos resumed immediately with the reunification of Egypt does not seem to be supported by the currently available evidence. Other than the Tale of Sinuhe, of which actual copies are known from Amenemhet III’s time onwards (PARKINSON 1997, 21), the earliest MK mention of Byblos appears to be in the Mirgissa Execration texts, a fortress which was in use during the reigns of Amenemhet II and Senusret II (KOENIG 1990, 102, 111). In addition, an unpublished text from the mastaba tomb of Khnumhotep III at Dahshur (Senusret III), son of the noted Khnumhotep II of Beni Hasan, which is being studied by J. ALLEN and recounts a conflict involving Byblos and Ullaza (WIMMER 2005, 131; RAINEY 2006, 281–282, 285). Thus, formal contacts between Egypt and Byblos may even postdate the events detailed in the Mit Rahina inscription. Perhaps, at this point in time, Egypt’s interests and activities in the Levant may have been geographically broader than previously supposed (EDER 1995, 183–184, 188–189, 194). Beyond the general reference to #nty-S, the localization of the toponyms of Iwii and IAsii in the northeastern
Mediterranean and Cilicia gains external support from SCHNEIDER’s reanalysis (2002) of the toponyms in Sinuhe B219–222. Among his identifications are a reference to the “king of Qatnah”, which uses a Semitic title; “the rulers of the south of Kauzza land”, which employs a Luwian title and may indicate an early reference to Kizzuwadna (Cilicia); and “the sovereigns of the two lands of the Fenekhu”, which employs a Hurrian term. His new reading of the statement that follows these terms, “Die Gewährsmänner der Titel sind Herrscher, die in Loyalität zu dir existieren”, suggests to him a parallel in, inter alia, the arrival of foreign tribute of the Mit Rahina inscription (SCHNEIDER 2002, 268–269, 271–272). These toponymic references in the northern Levant lend credence to Quack’s identification of Yamhad in the Mirigissa Execration Texts (QUACK 1992). Thus, Egypt’s military expedition to Iwii and IAsii and its “involvement” in the later conflict between Byblos and Ullaza may represent a projection of power on a geographical scale heretofore unimagined in the Middle Kingdom.98 If such is the case, perhaps the superlatives associated with early MK rulers should not be considered exaggerations.
96
98
97
Some of the metal vessels in the Montet Jar also suggest later dates, based on parallels with examples in stone at Ebla, but while these could be the latest material in the jar, they also could be earlier metal prototypes (BAGH 2000, 98–99). At the risk of generating discord in the chronological harmony of the House of Ben-Tor, should the new low Mespotamian chronology be accepted (BEN-TOR 2004), it would certainly have an effect of lowering the date of the cylinder seals by the very same amount of time (ca. 100 years). Thus, unless MK Egyptian chronology is also shifted downwards, a significant extension of the lifespan of the MONTET Jar scarabs would be required. Moreover, some explanation would be required as to how no mid-MK scarabs appear in the assemblage.
Aspects of Egyptian foreign trade While the projection of power by the Egyptian royal court into the eastern Mediterranean probably served domestic ideological and religious purposes that strengthened the authority and legitimacy of the Egyptian king, the concomitant procurement of foreign goods was an important material reification and reminder of the econom-
Typically, with the exception of sealed deposits at Byblos, many of the 12th Dynasty Egyptian objects and statues in the Levant found in later contexts are assumed to have arrived after the Middle Kingdom (see discussion in AHRENS 2006, 25–27). However, in light of the increasing evidence for (early) 12th Dynasty activities, perhaps it is not unreasonable to assume that some objects, such as the statue of Khnumet, daughter of Amenemhet II, from Ugarit (CAUBET and YON 2006, 88, fig. 2), that of his daughter Ita, at Qatnah (AHRENS 2006, 26–27), or even the examples from Central Anatolia (ALLEN 1929) and Cilicia (AHRENS 2006, n. 66), were originally exported during the 12th Dynasty.
174 Ezra S. Marcus
L
Cedar Trunks
23 10 5 2
Cedar Planks
L
W
23
0.40
10
0.40
D
Total volume (m3)
Total weight (kg)
Potential number of coffins
1.5 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.4
9471 24,023 4080 10,445 2040 5222 816 2089
5,255,088 13,453,026 2,284,821 5,849,142 1,142,411 2,924,571 456,904 1,169,828
43,050 109,195 18,545 47,477 9,273 23,736 3,709 9,495
Potential number of Dashur size ships 5255 13,453 2284 5849 1142 2924 456 1169
Potential number of Cheops size ships 138 (105) 354 (269) 60 (46) 154 (117) 30 (23) 77 (58) 12 (9) 31 (23)
Th 0.08
170
95,209
773
95
2 (1)
0.15
318
178,517
1445
178
4 (3)
0.08
74
41,395
336
41
1
0.15
139
77,616
632
77
2 (1)
5
0.55
0.08
37
20,697
168
20
<1
2
0.55
0.08
15
8279
68
8
<1
Table 4 Building potential of the cedar cargo from #nty-S (estimates for requisite raw material are derived from WILLEMS 1996; WARD 2000; STEFFY 1994). For the Cheops boat, the higher value is based on the net weight of the boat and that in parenthesis is based on Steffy's estimate for gross raw materials
ic capacity of the crown. Given the royal nature of the evidence for Egyptian foreign exchange it is not surprising that, typically, such activity is subsumed within the long tradition of tribute giving (BAGH 2006). Unfortunately, the Middle Kingdom is lacking in the types of pictorial depictions of tribute bearers that are common in other periods, leaving only the textual descriptions of such activities from the Mit Rahina inscription (BAGH 2006, 17). The text further distinguishes between goods procured abroad and those received as tribute at home. Thus, it is feasible that part of Egyptian exploitation of foreign sources was commercial, however coerced that exchange may have been. It seems likely that the Egyptians had foreknowledge that the materials they coveted were available in the Levant. This knowledge may have been part of long standing traditions and perceptions going back into and before the Third Millennium BCE or the result of previous unrecorded MK expeditions and contacts. The obtaining of some of these items may have been without prior design, but given the logistical complexities of timber procurement (viz. The Tale of Wenamun) assuring availability of the principal cargo
99
The same could be said for MC jars and juglets.
may have required prior negotiation before the expedition to #nty-S set sail. In addition to timber and other more commonly known trade items, EDER (1995, 184) suggests a commercial role for physicians in such expeditions as medical relief for the crew and in the selection and purchase of exotic medicines and remedies. WIENER (1987, 264, n. 30) notes the importance of such trade items in various historical periods. These may very well be the types of contents that originally were held in many of the small Levantine (LPW?) jugs and juglets found at cEzbet Rushdi, and elsewhere, and even depicted in MK Egypt (BAGH 2006, 17).99 Upon arrival in Egypt, some of imported goods that were presented at court were redistributed as tribute to various state institutions and individuals (M21–M26). Unfortunately, there is no one-to-one correspondence between the imports and the distributions in what SHAW (1998, 250) calls a “detailed balance sheet of economic activity.” Some of the foreign goods do not appear in the extant portions of the distributions; the procurement of others is not recorded. Moreover, some of the items are imported by weight and then distributed by number of items, or vice
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 175
versa. It is also not clear, for example, whether the 73 trunks (?) of cedar given as tribute from #ntyS are derived from or in addition to the expedition cargo. Such disbursements of imports to the state administration might have been used for terrestrial construction activities (doors, floors, roofs, etc.) or served to provide ship timber for subsequent Mediterranean maritime expeditions or for Red Sea voyages out of the port of Wadi Gawasis, as is documented in the of Khentketwer stela from Amenemhet II’s 28th regnal year (BREASTED 1906, 275, §604–605). The significance of royally imported timber also may have filtered down through gifts and endowments to the nobility, who were commonly buried in cedar coffins during the Middle Kingdom (DAVIES 1995). The potential use of the cedar cargo from #nty-S is simulated in Table 4. Note that even the minimum import scenario, 2 m planks, would have resulted in a significant quantity of coffins. Thus, the capability to plan, finance, and execute such expeditions, whose “fruits” had such a direct impact upon the burial traditions of the nobility must have had an enormous effect on the prestige and power of the king. The potential impact of Egyptian interests on the Levant While the concomitant social, cultural and economic processes that occurred in the Levant of Amenemhet II’s reign are beyond the focus of the present work, it would be remiss not to mention at least some of the ways in which the Mit Rahina inscription, and other evidence discussed above, may shed light on developments along the eastern Mediterranean littoral. First and foremost, that significant amounts of accumulated materials and finished goods were available in certain northern Levantine and, possibly, southern Anatolian coastal cities, is implicit in the finished goods and raw materials imported to Egypt. Archaeological investigations still only provide a limited picture of this early phase of Levantine coastal history, but some serendipitous material evidence does exist for the types of raw materials that are listed in the Mit Rahina inscription and found in the Tôd Treasure. Among the more precious materials listed is silver of which quantities were clearly available in the early MB IIa northern Levant, particularly at Byblos (TUFNELL and WARD 1966), but also at Beirut (SAIDAH 1993–1994, 188, pl. 1:1–2), Sidon (DOUMET-SERHAL 2004b) – an example of which
apparently derives from Anatolia (VÉRON and LE ROUX 2004) – and token amounts at Nahariya (BEN-DOR 1950, 40) and Kabri (SCHEFTELOWITZ 2002, 31, fig. 4.15). In which sites was the requisite level of economic complexity reached to an extent that Egyptian could find a trading partner willing and able to supply this precious metal is unclear and need of research, although there is certainly some evidence to suggest that, in the northern Levant, the process began before the events of the Mit Rahina inscription and seems to have preceded similar developments in the southern Levant (VAN LOON 1992). However, beyond the ceramic evidence suggested above for southern Levantine ports-of-call, the Mit Rahina inscription and finds from Tel Ifshar suggest that maritime developments between Egypt and the northern Levant were already having their impact on the southern Levant at this time. The possible import of terebinth resin (snTr) indirectly or directly from the southern Levant, perhaps via the Carmel Coast, could indicate that groups there were exploiting and trading valuable commodities that were entering the nascent eastern Mediterranean maritime network, where they were destined for the Egyptian market. In addition, the appearance of cedar timber already in the earliest substantial MB IIa level (B) of Tel Ifshar, which also contained still unstudied Egyptian ceramic imports together with early Levantine Painted Ware and other ceramics (see above), all demonstrate a connection with both Egypt and the northern Levant at this site’s incipient stage of settlement. Thus, if longshore maritime trade had an impact on the development of urban culture, and influenced the trajectory of the predominantly coastal settlement of the MB IIa southern Levant, in ways that STAGER’s “Port Power” (2001; 2002) or other models suggest (MARCUS 1998; 2002b), its origin can be traced back, at least, to the reign of Amenemhet II. CONCLUSIONS In its maritime context, the Mit Rahina inscription containing portions of the Annals of Amenemhet II, together with the contemporary archaeological comparanda from Egypt and the Levant, offer a new perspective on the scope of Egyptian relations with the Levant in the early 12th Dynasty and of the means by which these contacts were affected. The evidence suggests that, by the inauguration of Amenemhet II’s reign, Egyptian foreign relations were characterized by a combina-
176 Ezra S. Marcus tion of military and commercial activities with the northern Levant (Lebanon, Syria and possibly Cilicia), in general, and only later in the 12th Dynasty is the traditional relationship with Byblos renewed. Whether these early contacts included Cyprus remains an open question. Regardless of the nature of the contacts detailed in the annals under discussion, it is clear that the Egyptians were cognizant of the advantages of maritime transport for commercial and, if the meaning of the boat determinative associated with the expedition to IAw of %Tt, for military purposes, as well. The latter should not be of any surprise, as the projection of military might by sea is documented already by the end of the Old Kingdom. The imported cargo detailed in the “bill of lading” or “cargo manifest” from #nty-S demonstrates Egypt’s capacity to transport large quantities of goods and bulk items. In particular, the shipment of cedar, which may have been the principal incentive for the commercial expedition to the northern Levant, may have been so voluminous as to require some reevaluation of the size of Egyptian and Bronze Age ships. When synthesized with the archaeological evidence from the Tôd Treasure, the finds from cEzbet Rushdi, and those from the Levantine coast, the Mit Rahina inscription suggests that during the reign of Amenemhet II maritime trade in the eastern Mediterranean experienced a major leap forward in geographical scope and scale. Although there is evidence to suggest that earlier 12th Dynasty contacts with the Levant may have existed, and it is feasible that much of what was accomplished by Amenemhet II was predicated on previous efforts of his father, to date, the finds
that may be associated with his reign represent the beginning of demonstrable Egyptian imports from the Levant and the Aegean. While these finds are far from the quantities of ceramic imports evident in the latter part of the 12th Dynasty (ARNOLD, ARNOLD and ALLEN 1995; BIETAK 1996), qualitatively, they certainly indicate that a significant material wealth was flowing into Egypt from the North. In Egypt, this wealth may have had a significant social impact on the prestige of the king among the nobility and downwards. Abroad, along the eastern Mediterranean littoral, this trade may have been a catalyst that spurred maritime ventures, coastal settlement and urbanization. Acknowledgements The origin of this work is in ideas and preliminary analysis presented in my D.Phil. thesis (MARCUS 1998), supervised by the late P.R.S. Moorey. In the long interim, as this research evolved and progressed, I have enjoyed a Sir Maurice Hatter postdoctoral fellowship and a Dusty & Etty Miller award for scholastic excellence. To both funds, I am grateful. Some aspects of this paper were presented in the Maritime/Nautical Archaeology session at the ASOR annual meeting in Atlanta, Georgia in 2003. Portions of the text were written while I was a visiting scholar at the SFB of the Austrian Academy, SCIEM2000. My thanks to my hosts: M. Bietak, D. Melman, and A. Schwab, for making my stay enjoyable and productive. My appreciation, too, to many colleagues with whom I discussed aspects of this work and who provided me with useful references: M. Bietak, A. Brody, E. Czerny, K. Kopetzky, C. Monroe, and R. Schiestl.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 177
Bibliography AHRENS, A.
ARTZY, M.
2006
1993
Tel Nami, 1095–1098, in: E. STERN, A. LEWINSONGILBOA and J. AVIRAM (eds.), 1993.
1994
Incense, Camels and Collared Rim Jars: Desert Trade Routes and Maritime Outlets in the Second Millennium, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13: 121–147.
1995
Nami: A Second Millennium International Maritime Trading Center in the Mediterranean, 17–40, in: S. GITIN (ed.), Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to the West, American Institute of Archaeology Colloquia and Conference Papers, no. 1. Dubuque, Iowa.
2006
The Carmel Coast During the Second Part of the Late Bronze Age: A Center for Eastern Mediterranean Transshipping, BASOR 343: 45–64.
A Journey’s End – Two Egyptian Stone Vessels with Hieroglyphic Inscriptions from the Royal Tomb at Tell Mišrife/Qa7na. Ä&L 16: 15–36.
ALBRIGHT, W.F. 1928
The Egyptian Empire in Asia in the Twenty-First Century B.C., Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 8: 223–256.
ALLEN, S.J. 2006
Two Vessels with Measured Commodities from Dahshur, with contributions by J.P. ALLEN, 29–36, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN, and A. SCHWAB (eds.) 2006, vol. 1.
ALLEN, T.G. 1929
A Middle Kingdom Egyptian Contact with Asia Minor, 66–67, in: H.H. VON DER OSTEN (ed.), Explorations in Central Anatolia, Season 1926, OIP 5. Chicago.
ARTZY, M., and MARCUS, E. 1992
ALTENMÜLLER, H. 1990
1998
Ein Edelstein: Einmal Um die Ecke Gedacht, 1–8, in: R. SCHULZ and M. GÖRG (eds.), Lingua Restituta Orientalis: Festgabe Für Julius Assfalg, ÄÄAT 20, Wiesbaden. Zwei Stiftungen von Tempelbauten Im Ostdelta und in Herakleopolis Magna Durch Amenemhet II, 153–163, in: H. GUKSCH and D. POLZ (eds.), Stationen: Beiträge Zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens (Rainer Stadelmann gewidmet), Mainz.
ALTENMÜLLER, H., and MOUSSA, A. M. 1991
Die Inschrift Amenemhets II. Aus dem Ptah-Tempel von Memphis. ein Vorbericht, SAK 18: 1–48.
ARUZ, J. 1995
Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land: From Its Beginnings in the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age, Jerusalem.
ARCHI, A. 1993
Syrie: Mémoire et Civilization, S. CLUZAN, E. DELPONT and J. MOUIÉRAC (eds.), Exposition présentée à L’IMA du 14 Septembre 1993 au 30 Avril 1994. Paris.
ARNOLD, D. 1991
2000
1965
Erster Vorbericht Über die Vom Deutschen Archäologischen Institut Kairo Im Asasif Unternommen Arbeiten. MDAIK 20: 47–61.
ARNOLD, DO. 1988
Pottery, 106–46 in: D. ARNOLD, The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret I, The South Cemeteries of Lisht, vol. 1, Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition 22, New York.
ARNOLD, DO., ARNOLD, F., and ALLEN, S. 1995
Canaanite Imports at Lisht, the Middle Kingdom Capital of Egypt, Ä&L 5: 13–32.
Stone, 5–77, in: P.T. NICHOLSON and I. SHAW (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge.
ÅSTRÖM, P. 1966
Excavations at Kalopsidha and Ayios Iakovos in Cyprus, SIMA 2, Lund.
1972
The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, 4 /1B. The Middle Cypriote Bronze Age. LUND, Sweden.
BADER, B. 2003
The Egyptian Jars from Sidon in Their Egyptian Context, AHL 18: 31–37.
BADRE, L. 1997
Bey 003 Preliminary Report: Excavations of the American University of Beirut Museum 1993– 1996, BAAL 2: 6–94.
1998
Beyrouth: dévouverte d’une cité fortifée, 76–78, in: Liban, l’autre rive,Paris.
Building in Egypt: Pharaonic Stone Masonry, New York.
ARNOLD, D., and SETTGAST, J.
Imagery and Interconnections. Ä&L 5: 33–48.
ARUZ , B. G., HARRELL, J. A., and SHAW, I.
AMIRAN, R. 1969
Stratified Cypriote Pottery in MBIIa Context at Tel Nami, 103–110, in: G. IOANNIDES (ed.), Studies in Honor of Vassos Karageorghis, Nicosia.
BAGH, T. 1998
cEzbet
Rushdi and the 12th Dynasty Levantine Connection. Ä&L 8: 47–49.
2000
The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Egypt and the Levant: A Study of the So-Called Levantine Painted Ware and Related Painted Pottery Styles of the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, Focusing on Chronology (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). The Carsten Niebhur Institute of Near Eastern Studies, University of Copenhagen.
2002a Abu Ghâlib, an Early Middle Kingdom Town in the Western Nile Delta: Renewed Work on Material Excavated in the 1930s, MDAIK 58: 29–61.
178 Ezra S. Marcus 2002b Painted Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age: Levantine Painted Ware, 89–101, in: M. BIETAK (ed.) 2002. 2003
2004 2006
1950
Levantine Painted Ware from the Middle Bronze Age Tombs at Sidon, AHL 20: 40–57.
BEN-TOR, A.
‘Tributes’ and the Earliest Pictorial Representations of Foreign Oil and Wine Vessels, 9–23, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN, and A. SCHWAB (eds.) 2006, vol. 2.
Iron Age Shipwrecks in Deep Water Off Ashkelon, Israel, AJA 106(2): 151–168.
BEN-DOR, I.
Copper and Bronze Working in Early Through Middle Bronze Age Cyprus, SIMA-Pb 84, Jonsered.
New Light on the Relations Between Egypt and Southern Palestine During the Early Bronze Age, BASOR 281: 3–10.
2004
Hazor and Chronology, Ä&L 14: 45–67.
BEN-TOR, D. 1998
A Survey of Pottery Recovered from the Sea Off the Coast of Israel, IEJ 13: 13–19.
BARAMKI, D. 1973
A Tomb of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages at Byblos, Bulletin Du Musée de Beyrouth 26: 27–30.
1991
L’inscription de Sésostris Ier à Tôd, BIFAO 91: 1–32.
1985
The History of Minoan Pottery. Princeton, New Jersey.
1990
Kommos II: The Final Neolithic Through Middle Minoan III Pottery. Princeton.
BEYDOUN, Z.R. 1976
Observations on Geomorphology, Transportation and Distribution of Sediments in Western Lebanon and Its Continental Shelf and Slope Regions, Marine Geology 21: 311–324.
1977
The Levantine Countries: The Geology of Syria and Lebanon (Maritime Regions), 319–353, in: A.E.M. NAIRN, W.H. KANES and F.G. STEHLI. (eds.), The Ocean Basins and Margins, vol. 4A, The Eastern Mediterranean, New York.
BARTL, K. 1998–99 Akkar Survey 1997. Archaeological Surface Investigations in the Plain of Akkar/Northern Lebanon. Preliminary Results, Baal 3: 169–179. BARTON, G. A. 1903
Examination of the Supposed Inner Harbor of Joppa, Journal of Biblical Literature 22: 183–186.
BASCH, L. 1994
Some Remarks on the Use of Stone Anchors and Pierced Stones in Egypt, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 23: 219–227.
BEAL, R. H. 1992
2002
BIETAK, M. 1991
Egypt and Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age, BASOR 281: 27–72.
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.
2002
Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Middle Bronze Age: Comments on the Present State of Research, 30–42, in: M. BIETAK (ed.) 2002.
The Location of Cilician Ura, Anatolian Studies 42: 65–73.
BEAYNO, F., MATTAR, C., and ABDUL-NOUR, H. Mgharet al-Hourriyé (Karm Saddé, Caza de Zgharta): Rapport Préliminaire de la Fouille de 2001, in collaboration with C. Berszin, O. Cichocki, R. Gèze and C. Yazbeck, BAAL 6: 135–178.
BIETAK, M. (ed.) 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 Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–2nd EuroConference, Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, CChEM 4, Vienna.
BEAYNO, F., and MATTAR, C. 2004
Mgharet al-Hourriyé: Sépultre Collective de l’Âge Du Bronze dans une Caverne de la Qadisha, 426–47, in: C. DOUMET-SERHAL (ed.) 2004.
BECK, P. 1985
The Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Aphek, 1972–1984: First Summary, Tel Aviv 12(2): 181–203.
Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, Vol. 2, The Archaeological and Documentary Evidence, New Brunswick.
BETANCOURT, P.P.
BARBOTIN, C., and CLÈRE, J.-J. 1991
The Absolute Date of the MONTET Jar Scarabs, 1–17, in: L.H. LESKO (ed.), Ancient Egyptian and Mediterranean Studies in Memory of William A. WARD, Providence.
BERNAL, M.
BARAG, D. 1963
A Middle Bronze Age Temple at Nahariya, QDAP 14: 1–41.
1991
BALTHAZAR, J. W. 1990
Middle and Late Bronze Age Tombs from Tel Akko (Area AB). (Unpublished master’s thesis). Haifa.
The Relationship Between Levantine Painted Ware, Syro/Cilician Ware, and Khabur Ware and Their Chronological Implications, 219–237, in: BIETAK, M. (ed.) 2003.
BALLARD, R. D., STAGER, L., MASTER, D., YOERGER, D., MINDELL, D., WHITCOMB, L. L., SINGH, H., and PIECHOTA, D. 2002
BEERI, R. 2003
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 179
Religion of Canaanite and Phoenician Seafarers, Harvard Semitic Monograph 58, Atlanta.
BIETAK, M., and DORNER, J. 1998
Der Tempel und die Siedlung des Mittleren Reiches bei cEzbet Rushdi, Ä&L 8: 9–40.
BIETAK, M., and MARINATOS, N. 2000
Avaris (Tell el-Dabca) and the Minoan World, 40–44, in: A. KARETSOU (ed.), Crete–Egypt: Three Millennia of Cultural Contacts, Heraklion.
BIKAI, P.M. 1978 1937
Tôd, 1934 à 1936. FIFAO, Cairo.
1950
Le Trésor de Tôd, nos. 70501–754, Catalogue Générale des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Cairo.
BISSON DE LA ROQUE, F., CONTENAU, G., and CHAPOUTHIER, F. Le Trésor de Tôd. DFIFAO, Le Cairo.
BLACKMAN, A.M. 1915
An Indirect Reference to Sesostris III’s Syrian Campaign in the Tomb-Chapel of Dhwty-Htp at ElBersheh, JEA 2: 13–14.
BLUE, L.K. 1995
2002
A Topographical Analysis of the Location of Harbours and Anchorages of the Eastern Mediterranean in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, and Their Relation to Routes of Trade (D.Phil. dissertation). Pembroke College, Oxford, University of Oxford.
Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Datelist 31, Archaeometry 44(3): 1–149.
BROODBANK, C. 2000
The Pottery of Tyre, Warminster.
BISSON DE LA ROQUE, F.
1953
BRONK RAMSEY, C., HIGHAM, T., OWEN, D., PIKE, A., and HEDGES, R.
An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades, Cambridge.
BROSHI, M., and GOPHNA, R. 1986
Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Its Settlement and Population, BASOR 261: 73–90.
CADOGAN, G. 1983
Early Minoan and Middle Minoan Chronology, AJA 87: 507–18.
CASSON, L. 1971
Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton.
CAUBET, A., and YON, M. 2006
Ougarite et l’Égypte, 87–95, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN, and A. SCHWAB (eds.) 2006, vol. 2.
CHAPOUTHIER, F. 1953
L’influence égéenne sur le trésor de Tôd, 4–35, in: F. BISSON DE LA ROQUE, et.al. 1953.
BOURRIAU, J., and QUIRKE, S.
CHARPIN, D.
1998
1990
The Late Middle Kingdom Ceramic Repertoire in Word and Object, 60–83, in: S. QUIRKE, Lahun Studies, Surrey.
BRADBURY, L. 1996
Kpn-Boats, Punt Trade, and a Lost Emporium, JARCE 33: 37–60.
BRANDL, B. 1992
Evidence for Egyptian Colonization in the Southern Coastal Plain and Lowlands of Canaan During the EB I Period, 441–477, in: E.C.M. VAN DEN BRINK (ed.), The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th–3rd Millennium B.C., Proceedings of the seminar held in Cairo, 21–24 October 1990, at the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies, Tel Aviv.
BRAUDEL, F. 1972
The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II, trans. Siân Reynolds, London.
BREASTED, J.H. 1906
Une mention d’Alasiya dans une lettre de Mari, Revue d’Assyriologie 84: 125–127.
CHÉHAB, M. 1939
Tombe phénicienne de Sin el Fil, 803–810, in: Mélanges Syriens Offerts à René Dussaud. Paris.
COHEN, S.L. 2000
Canaanites, Chronology, and Connections: The Relationship of Middle Bronze Age IIa Canaan to Middle Kingdom Egypt (Ph.D. dissertation), Cambridge, Mass.
2002a Canaanites, Chronologies, and Connections: The Relationship of Middle Bronze Age IIa Canaan to Middle Kingdom Egypt. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant - SAHL 3. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 2002b Middle Bronze Age IIA Ceramic Typology and Settlement in the Southern Levant, 113–131, in: M. BIETAK (ed.) 2002. COHEN-WEINBERGER, A., and GOREN, Y. 2004
Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest, vol. 1, Chicago.
Levantine-Egyptian Interactions During the 12th to 15th Dynasties Based on the Petrography of the Canaanite Pottery from Tell el-Dabca, Ä&L 14: 69–100.
BRETSCHNEIDER, J., AL-MAQDASSI, M., VANSTEENHUYSE, K., DRIESSEN, J., and VAN LERBERGHE, K.
COLEMAN, J. E.
2004
1992
Tell Tweini, Ancient Gabala, in the Bronze Age, Ä&L : 215–230.
BRODY, A.J. 1998
“Each Man Cried Out to His God”: The Specialized
Greece, the Aegean and Cyprus, Part 2: Cypriot Chronology from the First Occupation Until the End of the Middle Bronze Times, I:279–88, II:222–229, in: R.W. EHRICH (ed.),. Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 3rd ed., Chicago.
180 Ezra S. Marcus COLLINA-GIRARD, J., FROST, H., HÉLOU, M., and NUREDDINE, I. 2002
COLLON, D. 2004
The GREEN Jasper Workshop Revisited, 348–358, in: C. DOUMET-SERHAL (ed.), 2004.
COWELL, R. M. 1987
Scientific Appendix I: Chemical Analysis, 96–118, in: W.V. DAVIES, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities n the British Museum VII, London.
CZERNY, E. 1998
Zur Keramik von cEzbet Rushdi (Stand Mai 1997), Ä&L 8: 41–46.
1999
Tell el-Dabca IX: Eine Plansiedlung des Frühen Mittleren Reiches. UZK 15, Vienna.
2002
Egyptian Pottery from Tell el-Dabca as a Context for Early MB IIa Painted Ware, 133–142, in: M. BIETAK (ed.) 2002.
CZERNY, E., HEIN, I., HUNGER, H., MELMAN, D., and SCHWAB, A. (eds.) 2006
Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred BIETAK, vols.1–3, OLA 149.1–3, Leuven.
DANTONG, G. 1998
1981
Sanctuaries Along the Coast of Canaan in the MB Period: Nahariya, 74–81, in: A. BIRAN (ed.), Temples and High Places in Biblical Times, Proceedings of the Colloquium in Honor of the Centennial of Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion, Jerusalem, 14–16 March, 1977, Jerusalem.
1993
Acco, 16–24, in: E. STERN, A. LEWINSON-GILBOA and J. AVIRAM (eds.), 1993.
Un promontoire sous-marin au large du port antique de Byblos: cartographie, interprétation géologique et implications archaeologiques, Baal 6: 317–324.
The Relationship of Egypt and the Western Asia During the Middle Kingdom Reflected in the Inscription of Amenemhet II from Memphis, Journal of Ancient Civilizations 13: 83–90.
DAVIES, W.V.
DOTHAN, M., and RABAN, A. 1980
The Sea Gate of Ancient Akko, Biblical Archaeologist 43: 35–39.
DOUMET-SERHAL, C. 2001
Third Season of Excavation at Sidon, Preliminary Report, Baal 5: 153–172.
2002
Fourth Season of Excavation at Sidon, Preliminary Report, Baal 6: 179–210.
2003a Fifth Season of Excavation at Sidon, Preliminary Report, Baal 7: 175–207. 2003b Middle Bronze Age Jars from Lebanon: A Comparison According to Vessel Capacities, AHL 17: 38–41. 2003c Sidon – British Museum Excavations, 1998–2003, AHL 18: 2–19. 2004a Animal Bone Deposit under Sidon’s Minoan Cup: C14 Analysis, AHL 20: 60. 2004b Sidon – British Museum Excavations 1998, 2000–2003, 102–123 in: C. DOUMET-SERHAL (ed.) 2004. 2004c Sidon (Lebanon): Twenty Middle Bronze Age Burials from the 2001 Season of Excavation. Levant 36: 89–154.
1987
Tools and Weapons I: Axes, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities n the British Museum VII, London.
2004d Sixth and Seventh Seasons of Excavation at Sidon, Preliminary Report. Baal 8: 47–82.
1995
Ancient Egyptian Timber Imports: An Analysis of Wooden Coffins in the British Museum, 146–156, in: W.V. DAVIES and L. SCHOFIELD (eds.), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC, London.
DOUMET-SERHAL, C. (ed.)
DE
FIDANZA, M.V.P.
1998 DE
The *mpAw People in the Amenemhet II’s Annals, GM 167: 89–94.
2004
DUNAND, M. 1937
The Socio-Political Dynamics Activity of Egyptian–Canaanite Interaction in the Early Bronze Age, 39–57, in: E.C. VAN DEN BRINK and T.E. LEVY (eds.), 2002 .
DEPUYDT, L. 1995
On the Consistency of the Wandering Year as Backbone of the Egyptian Chronology, JARCE 32: 43–58.
DORSEY, D.A. 1988
Travel; Transportation, 891–897, in: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Grand Rapids.
DOTHAN, M. 1956
The Excavations at Nahariya: Preliminary Report (Seasons 1954/55), IEJ 6: 14–25.
Fouilles de Byblos I: 1926–32 (Atlas). Paris.
DUNAND, M., SALIBY, N., and KHIRICHIAN, A. 1954
MIROSCHEDJI, P.
2002
Decade: A Decade of Archaeology and History in the Lebanon, Beirut.
Les Fouilles d’Amrith en 1954: Rapport Préliminaire, Annales Archéologique Arabes Syriennes 4: 189–204.
DUNAYEVSKY, I., and KEMPINSKI, A. 1973
The Megiddo Temples, ZDPV 89: 161–187.
EDER, C. 1995
Die Ägyptischen Motive in der Glyptik des Östlichen Mittelmeerraumes zu Anfang des 2. Jts. v. Chr. OLA 71, Leuven.
EL-MOURI, M., EL-HÉLOU, M., MARQUET, M., NOUREDDINE, I., and SECO ALVAREZ, M. 2005
Mission d’expertise archéologique du port sud de Tyr. Résultats préliminaires, 91–110, in: C. MORHANGE and M. SAGHIEH-BEYDOUN (eds.), La mobilité ses paysages portuaires antiques du Liban, Baal horssérie 2, Beyrouth.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 181
FABRE, D. 2005
FALCONER, S.E. 1994
The Development and Decline of Bronze Age Civilization in the Southern Levant: A Reassessment of Urbanism and Ruralism, 305–333, in: C. MATHERS and S. STODDART (eds.), Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 8, Sheffield.
FARAG, S. 1980
Une Inscription Memphite de la XIIe Dynastie, RdE 32: 75–82.
FATTOVICH, R. 2005
Joint Archaeological Expedition at Mersa/Wadi Gawasis (Red Sea, Egypt) of the University of Naples “l’Orientale” (Naples, Italy), Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente (Rome, Italy), and Boston University (Boston, USA) – 2005–2006 Field Season. http://www.archaeogate.org/egittologia/article/441/9/joint-archaeological-expedition-at-mersawadi-gawasis-re.html
FAULKNER, R. 1953
2001
The Necropolis, Trench and Other Ancient Remains: A Survey of the Byblian Seafront, Baal 5: 195–217.
2002
Fourth Season of Marine Investigations: Preliminary Charting of the Offshore Shallows, Baal 6: 309–316.
2004
Byblos and the sea, 316–347 in: C. DOUMET-SERHAL (ed.) 2004.
GALE, N.H., and STOS-GALE, Z. 1989
Marsá Gawásís: A Pharaonic Coastal Settlement by the Red Sea in Egypt, 15–22 in: J.C.M. STARKEY, People of the Red Sea, Proceedings of Red Sea Project II held in the British Museum, October 2004, BAR IS 3, Oxford.
FATTOVICH, R., and BARD, K.A. 2006
ra, 1986; The Stone Anchors Revised and Compared, 355–410, in: M. YON (ed.), Arts et Industries de la Pierre, Ras Shamra – Ougarit VI, Paris.
Seafaring in Ancient Egypt, London.
GALILI, E. 1985
A Group of Stone Anchors from Newe-Yam, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 14(2): 143–153.
1987
A Group of Stone Anchors from Newe-Yam: Corrections and Additions to the Article in IJNA, 1985, 14.2, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 16(2): 167–168.
GALILI, E., SHARVIT, J., and ARTZY, M. 1994
Reconsidering Byblian and Egyptian Stone Anchors Using Numerical Methods: New Finds from the Israeli Coast, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 23(2): 93–107.
1996
Reconsidering Byblian and Egyptian Stone Anchors: New Finds from the Israeli Coast, 199–211, in: H.E. TZALAS (ed.), Tropis IV (4th international symposium on ship construction in Antiquity), Athens.
Egyptian Military Organization, JEA 39: 32–47.
1986 [1962] A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, Oxford. FAY, B. 1996
The Louvre Sphinx and Royal Sculpture from the Reign of Amenemhet II. Mainz.
FINKBEINER, U., and SADER, H. 2001
The Tell el-Burak Archaeological Project: A Preliminary Report on the 2001 Season, in collaboration with I. Gamer-Wallert, J. Kamlah, R. Kirreh and Mainberger, Baal 5: 173–194.
FITTON, L., HUGHES, M., and QUIRKE, S. 1998
Northerners at Lahun: Neutron Activation Analysis of Minoan and Related Pottery from the British Museum, 112–140, in: S. QUIRKE, Lahun Studies, Surrey.
FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., KOPETZKY, K., and DOUMET-SERHAL, C. 2006
Egyptian Pottery of the Late 12th and Early 13th Dynasty from Sidon, AHL 24: 52–59.
Some Aspects of Cypriote Metallurgy in the Middle and Late Bronze Age, 251–256, in: R. LAFFINEUR (ed.), Transition: Le Monde Égéen du Bronze Moyen au Bronze Recent, Actes de la deuxième rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Univesité de Liège (18–2 Avril 1988), Aegaeum 3, Liège.
GARENNE-MAROT, L. 1984
Le cuivre en Égypt pharaonique: sources et métallurgie, Paléorient 10(1): 97–126.
GARLAND, C., and KLEIN, H.S. 1985
The Allotment of Space for Slaves aboard Eighteenth-Century British Slave Ships, The William and Mary Quarterly 42 (2 April): 238–248.
GEVA, S. 1982
Tell Jerishe: The Sukenik Excavations of the Middle Bronze Age Fortifications, Qedem 15, Jerusalem.
FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., and KOPETZKY, K.
GIUMLÍA-MAIR, A., and QUIRKE, S.
2006
1997
An Upper Egyptian Import at Sidon, AHL 24: 60–62.
Black Copper in Bronze Age Egypt, RdE 48: 95–108.
FROST, H.
GLANVILLE, S.R.K.
1969a The Stone-Anchors of Byblos, Mélanges de l’Université Saint Joseph 45: 426–442.
1932
Records of a Royal Dockyard of the Time of Tuthmosis III: Papyrus British Museum 10056, Part II. Commentary, ZÄS 68: 7–41.
1969b The Stone-Anchors of Ugarit, 235–245, in: Ugaritica VI, Mission de Ras Shamra, Leiden.
GNIRS, A.M.
1991
2001
Anchors Sacred and Profane: Ugarit – Ras Sham-
Military: An Overview, 400–406, in: D.B. REDFORD
182 Ezra S. Marcus (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, vol. 2, Oxford.
and J. MOUIÉRAC (eds.), Syrie: Mémoire et Civilization, Exposition présentée à L’IMA du 14 Septembre 1993 au 30 Avril 1994, Paris.
GOEDICKE, H. 1991
Egyptian Military Actions in “Asia” in the Middle Kingdom, RdE 42: 89–94.
1992
Where Did Sinuhe Stay in ”Asia“? (Sinuhe B29–31), CdE 67: 28–40.
2000
An Ancient Naval Finial of the Middle Kingdom, Ä&L 10: 77–81.
GOPHNA, R. 2002
Elusive Anchorage Points Along the Israel Littoral and the Egyptian–Canaanite Maritime Route During the Early Bronze Age I, 418–421, in: E.C. VAN DEN BRINK and T.E. LEVY (eds.), 2002.
GUIGES, P. 1937
Lébéà, Kafer-Garra, Qrayé: nécropoles de la région Sidonienne, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 1: 35–76.
1938
Lébéà, Kafer-Garra, Qrayé: Nécropoles de la Région Sidonienne (Suite), Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 2: 27–72.
GUY, P., and ENGBERG, R.M. 1938
HABACHI, L. 1972
GOPHNA, R., and BECK, P. 1981
The Rural Aspect of the Settlement Pattern of the Coastal Plain in the Middle Bronze Age II, Tel Aviv 8: 45–80.
GOPHNA, R., and LIPSCHITZ, N. 1996
The Ashkelon Trough Settlements in the Early Bronze Age I: New Evidence of Maritime Trade, Tel Aviv 23: 143–153.
GOPHNA, R., and PORTUGALI, J. 1988
Settlement and Demographic Processes in Israel’s Coastal Plain from the Chalcolithic to the Middle Bronze Age, BASOR 269: 11–28.
GOPHNA, R., and SUSSMAN, V. 1969
A Middle Bronze Age Tomb at Barqai, (Hebrew Series) 5: 1–13.
cAtiqot
GOREN, Y., BUNIMOVITZ, S., FINKELSTEIN, I., anD NA’AMAN, N. 2003
The Location of Alashiya: New Evidence Petrographic Investigation of Alashiyan Letters from ElAmarna and Ugarit, AJA 107: 233–255.
GOREN, Y., and COHEN-WEINBERGER, A. 2002
Petrographic Analyses of Selected Wares, 435–442, in: A. KEMPINSKI, Tel Kabri, The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons, N. SCHEFTELOWITZ and R. OREN (eds.), Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 20, Tel Aviv.
The Second Stela of Kamose and His Struggle Against the Hyksos Ruler and His Capital, ADAIK, Glückstadt.
HALDANE, C.W. 1984
A Fourth Boat from Dashur, AJA 88: 389.
1992a “A Pharaoh’s Fleet:” Early Dynastic Hulls from Abydos, The INA Quarterly 19(2): 12–13. 1992b The Lisht Timbers: A Report on Their Significance (Appendix), 102–112, in: D. ARNOLD, The South Cemeteries of Lisht, Vol. 3. The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret I, Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition 25, New York. HANAUER, R.J. 1903a The Traditional “Harbour of Solomon” and the Crusading Castle at Jaffa, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, July, 258–264. 1903b The Traditional “Harbour of Solomon” at Jaffa, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, October, 355–356. HAYES, W.C. 1949
Career of the Great Steward Henenu under Nebhepetre Mentuhotpe, JEA 35: 43–49.
1953
The Scepter of Egypt, Vol. 1. From the Earliest Times to the End of the Middle Kingdom (A background for the study of the Egyptian antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art), New York.
1971
The Middle Kingdom in Egypt: Internal History from the Rise of the Heracleopolitans to the Death of Ammenemes III, 464–531 in: I. EDWARDS, C. GADD and N. HAMMOND (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 1, part 2. Early History of the Middle East, Cambridge.
GOREN, Y., FINKELSTEIN, I., and NA’AMAN, N. 2004
Megiddo Tombs, OIP 33, Chicago.
Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Letters and Other Near Eastern Texts, Monographs Series of the Institute of Archaeology 23, Tel Aviv.
GREEN, M.
HELCK, W.
1983
1962
Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., ÄA 5, Wiesbaden.
1989
Ein Ausgreifen Des Mittleren Reiches in Den Zypriotischen Raum? GM 109: 27–30.
The Syrian and Lebanese Topographical Data in the Story of Sinuhe, CdE 58: 38–59.
GREENBERG, R. 2002
Early Urbanization in the Levant: A Regional Narrative. New Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology, London.
GUICHARD, M. 1993
Trésors a Mari, 196–199, in: S. CLUZAN, E. DELPONT
HELTZER, M. 1989
The Trade of Crete and Cyprus with Syria and Mesopotamia and Their Eastern Tin Sources in the XVIII–XVII Century B.C., Minos 24: 7–27.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 183
HERSCHER, E. 1975
New Light from Lapithos, 39–60, in: N. ROBERTSON (ed.), The Archaeology of Cyprus: Recent Developments, Park Ridge, New Jersey.
1979
Cretan and Cypriote Ceramic Techniques in the Late Third Millennium B.C, 1–7, in: Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium “The Relations Between Cyprus and Crete, Ca. 2000–500 B.C,” Nicosia 16–22 April 1978, Nicosia.
1988
Kition in the Middle Bronze Age: The Tombs at Larnaca-Ayios Prodromos, RDAC.
HERZOG, Z. 1993
Gerisa, 480–484, in: E. STERN, A. LEWINSON-GILBOA and J. AVIRAM (eds.)1993.
KEMPINSKI, Tel Kabri, The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons, N. SCHEFTELOWITZ and R. OREN (eds.), Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 20, Tel Aviv. KISLEV, M., ARTZY, M., and MARCUS, E. 1993
KLEIN, H.S. 1999
Nitovikla Reconsidered, Medelhavsmuseet Memoir 8, Stockholm.
IAA Press Office 2006
A Lifeguard’s Alertness Resulted in an Underwater Archaeological Discovery: The Very First Evidence of an Ancient Anchorage for Sailing Vessels in Netanya (October 30th 2006). Israel Antiquities Authority Website www.israntique.org.il/article_ Item_eng.asp?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1117& module_id=#as.
KNAPP, A.B. Production, Location, and Integration in Bronze Age Cyprus, Current Anthropology 31: 147–176.
1991
Spice, Drugs, Grain, and Grog: Organic Goods in Bronze Age East Mediterranean Trade, 21–68, in: N. GALE (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, SIMA 90, Jonsered.
1994
Emergence, Development and Decline on Bronze Age Cyprus, 271–304, in: C. MATHERS and S. STODDART (eds.), Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 8, Sheffield.
KOCHAVI, M., BECK, P., and GOPHNA, R. 1979
JIDEJIAN, N. 1971
Byblos Through the Ages, Beirut.
JONES, D. 1988
A Glossary of Ancient Egyptian Nautical Titles and Terms, New York.
KAMLAH, J., and SADER, H. 2003
The Tell el-Burak Archaeological Project: Preliminary Report on the 2002 and 2003 Seasons, Baal 7: 145–173.
KANTOR, H.J. 1965
The Relative Chronology of Egypt and Its Foreign Correlations Before the Late Bronze Age, 1–46, in: R. EHRICH (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 1st ed., Chicago. Tel Aviv, 1451–1457, in: E. STERN, A. LEWINSONGILBOA and J. AVIRAM (eds.), 1993.
KEMP, B.J. 1983
Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period c. 2686–1552 BC, 71–182, in: Ancient Egypt: A Social History, Cambridge.
KEMP, B.J., and MERRILLEES, R.S. 1980
Aphek-Antipatris, Tel Poleg, Tel Zeror and Tel Burga: Four Fortified Sites of the Middle Bronze Age IIA in the Sharon Plain, ZDPV 95: 121–165.
KOCHAVI, M., and YADIN, E. 2002
Typological Analysis of the MB IIA Pottery from Aphek According to Its Stratigraphic Provenance, 189–225, in: M. BIETAK (ed.) 2002.
KOENIG, Y. 1990
Les textes d’envoûtement de Mirgissa, RdE 41: 101–125.
LAFFINEUR, R. 1988
Reflexions sur le Tresor de Tod. Aegaeum 2, Liège.
LEV-YADUN, S., ARTZY, M., MARCUS, E., and STIDSING, R. 1996
KAPLAN, J., and RITTER-KAPLAN, H. 1993
The Atlantic Slave Trade, Cambridge.
1990
HUNT, G. 1992
Import of Aegean Food Plant to a Middle Bronze IIA Coastal Site in Israel, Levant 25: 145–154.
Wood Remains from Tel Nami, a Middle Bronze IIa and Late Bronze IIb Port, Local Exploitation and Levantine Cedar Trade, Economic Botany 50(3): 310–317.
LEV-YADUN, S., and GOPHNA, R. 1992
Exportation of Plant Products from Canaan to Egypt in the Early Bronze Age I: A Rejoinder to William A. WARD, BASOR 287: 89–90.
LICHTHEIM, M. 1973
Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt, Mainz.
Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. 1. The Old and Middle Kingdoms, Berkeley.
KEMPINSKI, A.
LILYQUIST, C.
1989
1993
Megiddo, a City-State and Royal Centre in North Israel, Materialien zur Allgemeinen und Verlgleichender Archäologie 40, München.
Granulation and Glass: Chronological and Stylistic Investigations at Selected Sites, ca. 2500–1400 B.C.E., BASOR 290–291: 29–94.
KEMPINSKI, A., GERSHUNY, L., and SCHEFTELOWITZ, N.
LINDER, E.
2002
1986
Pottery. III. Middle Bronze Age, 109–175 in: A.
The Khorsabad Wall Relief: A Mediterranean
184 Ezra S. Marcus Times through the MB IIa Period (Dissertation submitted to Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford).
Seascape or River Transport of Timbers, JAOS 106(2): 273–281. LIPKE, P. 1984
The Royal Ship of Cheops. National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, Archaeological Series, no. 9, Oxford.
LOUD, G.
2002a Early Seafaring and Maritime Activity in the Southern Levant from Prehistory through the Third Millennium BCE, 403–417, in: E.C. VAN DEN BRINK and T.E. LEVY (eds.), 2002.
1989 [1962] Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, London.
2002b The Southern Levant and Maritime Trade During the Middle Bronze IIa Period, 241–263, in: eds. E.D. OREN and S. A%ITUV (eds.), Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume: Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines, Studies by the Department of Bible and Ancient Near East 15, Beer Sheva.
LUND, J.
2003
Dating the Early Middle Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: A Preliminary Comparison of Radiocarbon and Archaeo-Historical Synchronizations, 95–110, in: M. BIETAK (ed.) 2003.
2006
Venice on the Nile? On the Maritime Character of Tell Dabca/Avaris, 187–190, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN, and A. SCHWAB (eds.) 2006, vol. 2.
1948
Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–39, OIP 62, Chicago.
LUCAS, A., and HARRIS, J.
1986
Sukas VIII: The Habitation Quarters, Publications of the Carlsberg Expedition to Phoenicia 10, Copenhagen.
MACGILLIVRAY, J. 1995
A Minoan Cup at Tell el-Dabca, Ä&L 5, 81–84.
1998
Knossos: Pottery Groups of the Old Palace Period, British School at Athens Studies 5, Nottingham.
MARRINER, N.
2003
A Middle Minoan Cup from Sidon, AHL 18: 20–24.
2007
2004
A Middle Minoan Cup from Sidon, 124–131, in: C. DOUMET-SERHAL (ed.) 2004.
MAINBERGER, M. 2001
6. The “Seven Captains” Reef – an Archaeological Underwater Survey Off the Coast of Tell el-Burak, in: U. FINKBEINER and H. SADER, The Tell el-Burak Archaeological Project: A Preliminary Report on the 2001 Season, Baal 5: 191–194.
MARRINER, N., and MORHANGE, C. 2005
Under the City Centre, the Ancient Harbour. Tyre and Sidon: Heritages to Preserve, Journal of Cultural Heritage 6: 183–189.
2007
Geoscience of Ancient Mediterranean Harbours, Earth-Science Reviews 80: 137–194.
MALAMAT, A. 1998
Mari and Its Relations with the Eastern Mediterranean, 33–40, in: Mari and the Bible, Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 12, Leiden.
MARRINER, N., MORHANGE, C., BOUDAGHER-FADEL, M., BOURCIER, M., and CARBONEL, P. 2005
MALEK, J. 1992
The Annals of Amenemhet II, Egyptian Archaeology 2: 18. Memphis, 1991: Epigraphy, JEA 78: 13–18.
Geoarchaeology of Tyre’s Ancient Northern Harbour, Phoenicia, Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 1302–1327.
MARRINER, N., MORHANGE, C., and DOUMET-SERHAL, C. 2006
MALEK, J., and QUIRKE, S. 1992
Paléoenvironments Littoraux Du Liban à l’Holocene. Géoarchéologie Des Ports Antiques de Beyrouth, Sidon et Tyr. 5000 Ans d’Interactions Nature-Culture (These de Doctorat en Geographie). Université Aix-Marseille I.
Geoarchaeology of Sidon’s Ancient Harbours, Phoenicia, Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 1514–1535.
MANNING, S.W.
MARRINER, N., MORHANGE, C., DOUMET-SERHAL, C., and CARBONEL, P.
1995
2006
The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: Archaeology, Radiocarbon and History, Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 1, Sheffield.
MAXWELL-HYSLOP, K. 1995
MANNING, S.W., and SWINY, S. 1994
Sotira Kaminoudha and the Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in Cyprus, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13(2 July): 149–172.
Geoscience Rediscovers Phoenicia’s Buried Harbors, Geology 34(1): 1–4. A Note on the Anatolia Connections of the Tôd Treasure, Anatolian Studies 45: 243–250.
MEIGGS, R. 1982
Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Oxford.
MARCUS, E.S.
MENU, M.
1991
1994
1998
Tel Nami: A Study of a Middle Bronze IIA Period Coastal Settlement (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Haifa. Maritime Trade in the Southern Levant from Earliest
Analyse du trésor de Tôd, BSFE 130: 29–45.
MERRILLEES, R. S. 1968
The Cypriot Bronze Age Pottery Found in Egypt, SIMA 18, Gothenburg.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 185
1977
The Absolute Chronology of the Bronze Age in Cyprus, RDAC.
1979
Cyprus, the Cyclades and Crete in the Early to Middle Bronze Ages, 8–55, in: Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium “The Relations Between Cyprus and Crete, ca. 2000–500 B.C,” Nicosia 16–22 April 1978, Nicosia.
NEGBI, O., and MOSKOWITZ, S. 1966
The “Foundation Deposits” or “Offering Deposits” of Byblos, BASOR 184: 21–26.
NEWBERRY, P.E. 1893a Beni Hasan I. Archaeological Survey of Egypt, London. 1893b El Bersheh (the Tomb of Tehuti-Hetep). Archaeological Survey of Egypt, London.
1984
Ambelikou – Aletri: A Preliminary Report, RDAC.
1992
The Absolute Chronology of the Bronze Age in Cyprus: A Revision, BASOR 288: 47–52.
2002
The Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Cypriote White Painted Pendant Line Style, BASOR 326: 1–9.
1992
2003
The First Appearance of Kamares Ware in the Levant: An Interim Report, 341–344, in: M. BIETAK (ed.) 2003.
NICHOLSON, P.T., and HENDERSON, J.
NIBBI, A.
2000
MERRILLEES, R. S., and TUBB, J. N. 1979
A Syro/Cilician Jug from Middle Bronze Age Cyprus, RDAC. Bronze Age Trade Between the Aegean and Egypt. Minoan and Mycenaean Pottery in the Brooklyn Museum, Miscellanea Wilbouraniana 1: 101–55.
2000
Akkadian Documents from Babylon, 30, in: A.B. KNAPP, P.W. WALLACE and A.G. ORPHANIDES (eds.), Sources for the History of Cyprus, vol. 2. Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from the Third to the First Millennia BC, Nicosia.
NIGRO, L. Coordinating the MB I Pottery Horizon of Syria and Palestine, 1187–1210, in: P. MATTHIAE, A. ENEA, L. PEYRONEL and F. PINNOCK (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18th–23rd1998, vol. 2, Rome.
2002
The MB Pottery Horizon of Tell Mardikh/Ancient Ebla in a Chronological Perspective, 297–328, in: M. BIETAK (ed.) 2002.
MILLARD, A. 1973
Cypriote Copper in Babylonia, c.1745 B.C., Journal of Cuneiform Studies 25: 211–14.
NOUREDDINE, I., and EL-HÉLOU, M. 2005
MLINAR, C. 2004
Egyptian Faience, 177–194, : P.T. NICHOLSON and I. SHAW (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge.
2000
MICHALOWSKI, P. 1996
Glass, 195–224, in: P.T. NICHOLSON and I. SHAW (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge.
NICHOLSON, P.T., and PELTENBURG, E.
MERRILLEES, R. S., and WINTER, J. 1972
A Group of Stone Anchors from Mirgissa on the Upper Nile, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 21(3): 259–267.
Sidon. Scarabs from the 2001 Season of Excavation: Additional Notes, AHL 20: 61–64.
Tyre’s Ancient Harbor(s). Report of the 2001 Underwater Survey in Tyre’s Northern Harbor, 111–128, in: C. MORHANGE and M. SAGHIEH-BEYDOUN (eds.), La mobilité ses paysages portuaires antiques du Liban, Baal hors-série 2, Beyrouth.
MONROE, C.M.
O’CONNOR, D.
2007
1996
Vessel Volumetrics and the Myth of the Cyclopean Bronze Age Ship, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 50(1): 1–18.
Egypt and Greece: The Bronze Age Evidence, 49–61, in: M.R. LEFKOWITZ and G.M. ROGERS (eds.), Black Athena Revisited, Chapel Hill.
MONTET, P.
OBSOMER, C.
1928
1995
Byblos et l’Égypte, Cairo.
MOOREY, P. 1994
Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence, Oxford.
OLDENBURG, E., and ROHWEDER, J. 1981
MURNANE, W. J. 1990
The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of the Battle Reliefs of King Sety I at Karnak. 2nd ed., SAOC 42, Chicago.
Eretz-Israel in the Canaanite Period, in: I. EFAL (ed.), The History of Eretz-Israel, Vol. 1. Introduction to the Early Periods, Jerusalem.
The Excavations at Tall Daruk (Usnu?) and cArab alMulk (Paltos), Publications of the Carlsberg Expedition to Phoenicia 8, Copenhagen.
OREN, E.D. 1975
NA’AMAN, N. 1982
Sésostris Ier. Etude chronologique et historique du règne, Etude 5, Bruxelles.
The Pottery from the Achzib Defence System, Area D: 1963 and 1964 Seasons, IEJ 25: 211–225.
OREN, E.D. (ed.) 1997
The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, UMM 8, Philadelphia.
186 Ezra S. Marcus 1997
The “Kingdom of Sharuhen” and the Hyksos Kingdom, 253–283, in: E.D. OREN (ed.) 1997.
ORY, J. 1948
1984
The Cylinder Seal from Tell el-Dabca, AJA 88: 485–488.
PORATH, Y., and PALEY, S. A Bronze-Age Cemetery at Dhahrat el Humraiya, QDAP 13: 75–89.
1993
Tel Hefer – 1990, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 12: 32–34.
PALEY, S.M., and PORATH, Y.
POSENER, G.
1997
1971
Syria and Palestine: Relations with Egypt, 532–558, in: I. EDWARDS, C. GADD and N. HAMMOND (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 1, part 2. Early History of the Middle East, Cambridge.
1982
A New Royal Inscription of the XIIth Dynasty, JSSEA 12: 7–8.
Early Middle Bronze Age IIa Remains at Tel elIfshar, Israel: A Preliminary Report, 369–378, in: E.D. OREN (ed.) 1997.
PARKINSON, R.B. 1997
The Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems 1940–1640 BC, Oxford.
PATCH, D.C., and HALDANE, C.W. 1990
The Pharaoh’s Boat at the Carnegie. The Carnegie Series on Egypt, Pittsburgh.
PRAG, K. 1978
Silver in the Levant in the Fourth Millennium B.C, 36–45, in: R. MOOREY and P. PARR (eds.), Archaeology in the Levant: Essays for Kathleen Kenyon, Warminster.
1986
Byblos and Egypt in the Fourth Millennium B.C., Levant 18: 59–74.
PEILSTÖCKER, M. 2005
The Plain of Akko from the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age to the End of the Middle Bronze Age (A historical geography of the plain of Akko from 3500–1500 BC: a spatial analysis), Tel Aviv.
PEILSTÖCKER, M., and SKLAR-PARNES, D. A. 2005
‘Enot Shuni. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 117: www.hadashot-esi.org.il.
PELTENBURG, E. 1995
Kissonerga in Cyprus and the Appearance of Faience in the East Mediterranean, 31–41, in: S.J. BOURKE and J.-P. DESCOEUDRES (eds.), Trade, Contact, and the Movement of People in the Eastern Mediterranean: Studies in Honour of J. Basil Hennessey, Mediterranean Archaeological Supplement 3, Sydney.
PETRIE, W.M.F. 1931
Ancient Gaza I: Tell el Ajjul, London: British School of Archaeology, London.
1933
Ancient Gaza III: Tell el Ajjul, London: British School of Archaeology, London.
1934
Ancient Gaza IV: Tell el Ajjul, London: British School of Archaeology, London.
PRAUSNITZ, M. 1975
The Planning of the Middle Bronze Age Town at Achzib and Its Defences. IEJ 25: 202–210.
PULAK, C. 2001a The Cargo of the Uluburun Ship and Evidence for Trade with the Aegean and Beyond, 13–60 in: L. BONFANTE and V. KARAGEORGHIS (eds.), Italy and Cyprus in Antiquity: 1500–450 BC, Proceedings of an international symposium held at the Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America at Columbia University, November 16–18, 2000, Nicosia. 2001b Cedar for Ships, AHL 14: 24–36. 2005
Das Schiffswrack von Uluburun, 55–102, in: Ü. YALÇIN, C. PULAK and R. SLOTTA (eds.), Das Schiff von Uluburun: Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren, Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bochum vom 15. Juli 2005 bis 16. Juli 2006. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum.
QUACK, J. F. 1992
Eine Erwähnung des Reiches von Aleppo in den Ächtungstexten? GM 130: 75–78.
PHILIP, G.
1996
KftAw and IAcsy, Ä&L 6: 75–81.
1991
QUIRKE, S.
1974 [1891] Illahun, Kahun, and Gurob. Warminster.
Cypriot Bronze work in the Levantine World: Conservatism, Innovation and Social Change, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 4(1): 59–107.
PIERRAT, G. 1994
À Propos de la Date et de l’Origine Du Trésor de Tôd, BSFE 130: 18–27.
PORADA, E. 1966
Les cylindres de la jarre Montet, Syria 43: 243–258.
1982
Remarks on the Tôd Treasure in Egypt, 285–303 in: M. DANDAMAYEV (ed.), Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of I.M. Diakonoff, Warminster.
2003a Kingship in Ancient Egypt, http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/ideology/king/kingrepertory.html in Digital Egypt for Universities, managed by S. QUIRKE, University College London. 2003b Memphis: Before the New Kingdom. P. http:// www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/memphis/beforenk.h tml in Digital Egypt for Universities, managed by S. Quirke, University College London. 2004
Egyptian Literature 1800 BC: Questions and Readings, Egyptology 2, London.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 187
RABAN, A.
SALTZ, D. L.
1980
1977
The Commercial Jar in the Ancient Near East: Its Evidence for Interconnections Amongst the Biblical Lands (Unpublished Phd. dissertation submitted to the Hebrew University), Jerusalem.
1985
The Ancient Harbours of Israel in Biblical Times, 11–44, in: A. RABAN (ed.), Harbour Archaeology: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Ancient Mediterranean Harbours, Caesarea Maritima 24–28.6.83, BAR IS 257, Oxford.
1986
Rock Cut Installations along the Coast of the Western Galilee, 209–234, in: M. YEDAYA (ed.), Qadmoniyot Galil HaMaaravi [The Western Galilee Antiquities], (in Hebrew), Ministry of Defense/Asher Regional Council, Tel Aviv.
1995a Dor-Yam: Maritime and Coastal Installations at Dor in Their Geomorphological and Stratigraphic Context, 285–354, in: STERN, E. (ed.), Excavations at Dor, Final Report, Volume 1, Qedem Reports, vol. 1, Jerusalem. 1995b The Heritage of Ancient Harbour Engineering in Cyprus and the Levant, 139–189, in: V. KARAGEORGHIS and D. MICHAELIDES (eds.), Cyprus and the Sea: Proceedings of the International Symposium, Nicosia. RAINEY, A.F. 2006
Sinuhe’s World, 277–299, in: A.M. MAIER and P. DE MIROSCHEDJI (eds.), “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, Winona Lake.
SASSON, J.M. 1996
The Tod Inscription of Senwosret I and Early 12th Dynasty Involvement in Nubia and the South, JSSEA 17(4): 36–55.
Akkadian Documents from Mari and Babylonia (Old Babylonian Period), 17–19, in: A.B. KNAPP, P.W. WALLACE and A.G. ORPHANIDES (eds.), Sources for the History of Cyprus, Vol. 2. Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from the Third to the First Millennia BC, Nicosia.
SAYED, A.M.A. 1977
Discovery of the Site of the 12th Dynasty Port at Wadi Gawasis on the Red Sea Shore, RdE 29: 140–178.
1978
The Recently Discovered Port on the Red Sea Shore, JEA 64: 69–71.
1980
Observations on Recent Discoveries at Wâdi Gawâsîs, JEA 66: 154–157.
1983
New Light on the Recently Discovered Port on the Red Sea Shore, CdE 58: 23–37.
SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH, T. 1946
The Navy of the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty, Uppsala Universitets Ärsskrift 6, Uppsala.
SCANDONE-MATTHIAE, G. 1984
La Statuaria Regale Egiziana del Medio Regno in Siria: Motivi di una Presenza, UF 16: 181–188.
SCHEFTELOWITZ, N. 2002
REDFORD, D.B. 1987
The Chronology of the Middle Cypriote Period, RDAC.
Stratigraphy, Architecture and Tombs. I. Area B, 19–34, in: A. KEMPINSKI, Tel Kabri, The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons, N. SCHEFTELOWITZ and R. OREN (eds.), Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 20, Tel Aviv.
SCHNEIDER, T. 2002
Sinuhes Notiz Über die Könige: Syrisch-Anatolische Herrschertitel in Ägyptischer Überlieferung, Ä&L 12: 257–272.
1992
Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton.
1996
A Response to Anson RAINEY’s “Remarks on Donald REDFORD’s Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times”, BASOR 301: 77–81.
1964
Textual Sources for the Hyksos Period, 1–44, in: E.D. OREN (ed.) 1997.
Military Rank, Title, and Organization in the Egyptian New Kingdom, MÄS 6, Berlin.
1982
The Battle Scenes of the Middle Kingdom, JSSEA 12: 165–183.
1997
SCHULMAN, A.R.
ROSE, L.E. 1994
The Astronomical Evidence for Dating the End of the Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt to the Early Second Millennium: A Reassessment, JNES 53(4): 237–261.
SERPICO, M., BOURRIAU, J., SMITH, L., GOREN, Y., STERN, B., and HERON, C. 2003
ROWE, A. 1939
Three New Stelae from the South-Eastern Desert, ASAE 39: 187–194.
SAGHIEH, M. 1983
Byblos in the Third Millennium B.C., Warminster.
SAIDAH, R. 1993–94 Beirut in the Bronze Age: The Kharji Tombs, Berytus 41: 137–210.
Commodities and Containers: A Project to Study Canaanite Amphorae Imported Into Egypt during the New Kingdom, 365–375, in: M. BIETAK (ed.) 2003.
SETTGAST, J. 1969
Zu Ungewöhnlichen Darstellungen von Bogenschützen, MDAIK 25: 136–138.
SHAHEEN, A. E.-D. M. 1990
EB III–MB I Axe in the Egyptian Private Middle Kingdom Tombs: An Assessment, GM 117–118: 203–217.
188 Ezra S. Marcus 1992
A Possible Synchronization of EB IV C / MB I Ceramic Ware in Syro-Palestinian and Egyptian Sites, GM 131: 101–109.
SHARVIT, J., GALILI, E., ROSEN, B., and VAN DEN BRINk, E.C. 2002
Predynastic Maritime Traffic along the Carmel Coast of Israel: A Submerged Find from North Atlit Bay, 159–166, in: E.C. VAN DEN BRINK and E. YANNAI (eds.), In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Ram Gophna, 2nd ed., Tel Aviv.
STEFANIUK, L., MORHANGE, C., SAGHIEH-BEYDOUN, M., FROST, H., BOUDAGHER-FADEL, M., BOURCIER, M., and NOUJAIM-CLARK, G. 2005
STEFFY, J.R. 1994
SHAW, I. 1998
Exploiting the Desert Frontier: The Logistics and Politics of Ancient Egyptian Mining Expeditions, 242–258, in: A.B. KNAPP, V.C. PIGOT and EW. HERBERT (eds.), Social Approaches to an Industrial Past: The Archaeology and Anthropology of Mining, London.
SHEPSTONE, H.J. 1937
Localisation et Étude Paléoenvironnementale Des Ports Antiques de Byblos, 19–41, in: C. MORHANGE and M. SAGHIEH-BEYDOUN (eds.), La mobilité ses paysages portuaires antiques du Liban, Baal hors-série 2, Beyrouth. Wooden Ship Building and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks, College Station.
STERN, E. (ed.) 1995
Historical Conclusions, 271–283, in: Excavations at Dor, Final Report, vol. 1, Qedem Reports, vol. 1, Jerusalem.
STERN, E. LEWINSON-GILBOA, A., and AVIRAM, J. (eds.) 1993
Palestine’s New Lighterage Ports, PEQ 69: 263–267.
The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Jerusalem.
SIBELLA, P.
STRANGE, J.
1995
1980
The Ceramics, The INA Quarterly 22(2): 13–16.
Caphtor/Keftiu: A New Investigation, Leiden.
SIMPSON, W.K.
SWINY, S.
1960
Papyrus Lythgoe: A Fragment of a Literary Text of the Middle Kingdom from El-Lisht, JEA 46: 65–70.
1989
2001
Twelfth Dynasty, 453–457, in: D.B. REDFORD (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, vol. 3, Oxford.
2003a The Shipwrecked Sailor, 45–53, in: W.K. SIMPSON (ed.), The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry, 3rd ed., New Haven. 2003b The Story of Sinuhe, 54–66, in: W.K. SIMPSON (ed.), The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry, 3rd ed., New Haven. SMITH, W.S. 1971
The Old Kingdom in Egypt and the Beginning of the First Intermediate Period, 145–207, in: I. EDWARDS, C. GADD and N. HAMMOND (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 1, part 2. Early History of the Middle East, Cambridge.
STAGER, L.E. 1985
The First Fruits of Civilization, 172–188, in: J. TUBB (ed.), Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Papers in Honor of Olga Tufnell, Institute of Archaeology Occasional Publication 11. London
1993
Ashkelon, 103–112, in: E. STERN, A. LEWINSONGILBOA and J. AVIRAM (eds.), 1993.
2001
Port Power in the Early and Middle Bronze Age: The Organization of Maritime Trade and Hinterland Production, 625–638, in: S.R. WOLFF (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse, SAOC 5, Atlanta.
2002
The MB IIA Ceramic Sequence at Tel Ashkelon and Its Implications for the “Port Power” Model of Trade, 353–362, in: M. BIETAK (ed.) 2002.
From Round House to Duplex: A Re-Assessment of Prehistoric Cypriot Bronze Age Society, 14–31, in: E. PELTENBURG (ed.), Early Society in Cyprus, Edinburgh.
SZAFRAØSKI, Z.E. 1998
The Djadjawy of the Palace of Amenemhat I at Tell el-Dabca (©ADAwy-a¢-Imn-m-xAt), Ä&L 8: 101–106.
2006
Two New Royal Inscriptions from Tell el-Dabca, 377–380, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN, and A. SCHWAB (eds.) 2006, vol. 1.
TAUBER, H. 1973
Copenhagen Radiocarbon Dates X, Radiocarbon 15(1): 86–112.
TAYLOR, J. H. 2004
Scarabs from the Bronze Age Tombs at Sidon (Lebanon), Levant 36: 155–158.
THALMANN, J.-P. 1998
Le Liban à l’âge du bronze, du village à la citéétat, 50–59, in: Liban, l’autre rive, Paris.
2000
Le peuplement de la plaine du Akkar à l’âge du bronze, 1615–1632, in: P. MATTHIAE, A. ENEA, L. PEYRONEL and F. PINNOCK (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18th–23rd1998, vol. 2, Rome.
2002
Pottery of the Early Middle Bronze Age at Tell Arqa and in the Northern Levant, 363–377, in: M. BIETAK (ed.) 2002.
2003
Transporter et conserver: jarres de l’âge du bronze à Tell Arqa, AHL 17: 25–37.
2006
Tell Arqa I, with contributions by H. CharafMullins, É. Coqueugniot and G. Gernez, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, Beyrouth.
Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription 189
2007
A Seldom Used Parameter in Pottery Studies: The Capacity of Pottery Vessels, 431–438, in: M. BIETAK, E. CZERNY (eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May– 1st of June 2003, CCHEM 9, Vienna.
WALBERG, G. 1983
Provincial Middle Minoan Pottery, Mainz am Rhein.
1984
The Tod Treasure and Middle Minoan Absolute Chronology, Opuscula Atheniensia 15: 173–177.
1987
Kamares: A Study of the Character of Palatial Middle Minoan Pottery. SIMA-Pb 49, Göteborg.
THRANE, H.
WARD, C.A.
1978
2000
Sacred and Secular: Ancient Egyptian Ships and Boats, Boston.
2006
Boat-Building and Its Social Context in Early Egypt: Interpretations from the First Dynasty Boat-Grave Cemetery at Abydos, Antiquity 80: 118–129.
Sukas IV: A Middle Bronze Age Collective Grave on Tall Sukas, Publications of the Carlsberg Expedition to Phoenicia, vol. 5, Copenhagen.
TRAKADAS, A. 2002
The Khorsabad Timber Transport Relief, 753–761, in: H.E. TZALAS (ed.), Tropis VII, vol. 2, 7th international symposium on ship construction in Antiquity, Pylos, 26–29 August, 1999, Athens.
WARD, W.A. 1961
Egypt and the East Mediterranean in the Early Second Millennium B.C., Orientalia 30: 22–45, 129–155.
1971
Egypt and the East Mediterranean World 2200–1900 B.C.: Studies in Egyptian Foreign Relations during the First Intermediate Period, Beirut.
1987
Scarab Typology and Archaeological Context, AJA 91: 507–532.
1991
Early Contacts between Egypt, Canaan, and Sinai: Remarks on the Paper by Amnon Ben-Tor, BASOR 281: 11–26.
TUBB, J.N. 1983
The MBIIA Period in Palestine: its Relationship with Syria and its Origin, Levant 15: 49–62.
TUFNELL, O. 1962
The Courtyard Cemetery at Tell El-cAjjul, Palestine: Excavations of 1931–1932, a Type Site Reconsidered, Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology London 3: 1–37.
1969
The Pottery from Royal Tombs I-III at Byblos, Berytus 18: 5–33.
1984
Studies on Scarab Seals II: Scarab Seals and Their Contribution to History in the Early Second Millennium B.C., Warminster.
WARREN, P. 1995
Minoan Crete and Pharaonic Egypt, 1–18, in: W.V. DAVIES and L. SCHOFIELD (eds.), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC, London.
Relations between Byblos, Egypt and Mesopotamia at the End of the Third Millennium B.C., Syria 43: 165–241.
2000
Crete and Egypt: The Transmission of Relationships, 24–28, in: A. KARETSOU (ed.), Crete–Egypt: Three Millennia of Cultural Contacts, Heraklion.
VAN DEN
BRINK E.C. and LEVY T.E. (eds.)
WARREN, P., and HANKEY, V.
2002
Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the Fourth Through the Third Millennia BCE, London.
1989
TUFNELL, O., and WARD, W.A. 1966
VAN LOON, M. 1992
WEBB, J. M., FRANKEL, D., STOS, Z. A., and GALE, N. 2006
The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria, Ä&L 3: 103–107.
VANDIER, J. 1937
A propos d’un dépôt de provenance asiatique trouvé a Tôd, Syria 18: 174–182. Provenance of Silver Artefacts from Burial 27 at Sidon, AHL 20: 34–38.
WACHSMANN, S. 1995
The 1994 INA/CMS Joint Expedition to Tantura Lagoon,The INA Quarterly 22(2): 3–8.
1998
Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant, College Station.
2003
A Concise Nautical History of Dor/Tantura, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 13(3): 223–241.
The Report of Wenamon, 116–124, in: W.K. SIMP(ed.), The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry, 3rd ed., New Haven.
SON
WIENER, M. H. 1987
WACHSMANN, S., and RAVEH, K. 1984
Early Bronze Age Metal Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. New Compositional and Lead Isotope Evidence from Cyprus, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25(3): 261–288.
WENTE, E.F., Jr.
VÉRON, A., and LE ROUX, G. 2004
Aegean Bronze Age Chronology, Bristol.
Trade and Rule in Palatial Crete, 261–266, in: R. HÄGG and N. MARINATOS, (eds.), The Function of the Minoan Palaces, Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June, 1984, Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska institutet i Athen, 4/35. Stockholm.
WILKINSON, T. A. 2000
Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt: The Palermo Stone and Its Associated Fragments, London.
190 Ezra S. Marcus WILLEMS, H.
YOGEV, O.
1996
1993
The Coffin of Heqata (Cairo JdE 36418). A Case Study of Egyptian Funerary Culture of the Early Middle Kingdom, OLA 70, Leuven.
Nahariya, Excavations on the Mound, 1088–1090, in: E. STERN, A. LEWINSON-GILBOA and J. AVIRAM (eds.), 1993.
WILSON, J.A.
YON, M.
1950
1997
Ugarit, 255–262, in: E.M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, New York.
2006
The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
Egyptian Historical Texts, 227–264, in: J.B. PRITCHARD (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton.
WIMMER, S.J. 2005
Byblos Vs. Ugarit: The Alalakh Seal Impression 194 Once Again, Levant 37: 127–132.
WISEMAN, D.J. 1996
ZAZZARO, C. 2006
Akkadian Documents from Alalakh (Old and Middle Babylonian Period), 20, in: A.B. KNAPP, P.W. WALLACE and A.G. ORPHANIDES (eds.), Sources for the History of Cyprus, Vol. 2. Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from the Third to the First Millennia BC, Nicosia.
WOLFF, S. 1998
Tel Megadim (Tel Sahar), Hadashot Arkheologiyot 108: 31–33.
YEKUTIELI, Y. 2002
Settlement and Subsistence Patterns in North Sinai During the Fifth to Third Millennia BCE, 422–433, in: E.C. VAN DEN BRINK and T.E. LEVY (eds.), 2002 .
Finds: Other ‘Boxes’, http://www.archaeogate. org/egittologia/article/441/9/joint-archaeological-expedition-at-mersawadi-gawasis-re.html in Joint Archaeological Expedition at Mersa/Wadi Gawasis (Red Sea, Egypt) of the University of Naples “l’Orientale” (Naples, Italy), Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente (Rome, Italy), and Boston University (Boston, USA) – 2005–2006 Field Season, R. Fattovich and K. A. Bard.
ZIFFER, I. 1990
At That Time the Canaanites Were in the Land: Daily Life in the Middle Bronze Age 2 2000–1550 B.C.E, Tel Aviv.
EGYPTIAN AND EGYPTIAN-STYLE POTTERY AT TEL DAN By Mario A.S. Martin1 and Rachel Ben-Dov 2
INTRODUCTION This article discusses a small group of vessels and sherds from Late Bronze Age contexts at Tel Dan that can be related to the Egyptian pottery tradition.3 Tel Dan is situated at the foot of Mount Hermon in northern Israel (Fig. 1). The site covers an impressive area of 50 acres. It was identified with Biblical Dan and Laish – its earlier name. DanLaish appears in the Bible, in the Egyptian Execration texts and in the records of Thutmosis III (BIRAN 1994: 21–23). Large-scale excavations at the site were carried out by A. Biran from 1966–1999 first under the auspices of the Department of Antiquities and Museums and after 1974 on behalf of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Jerusalem (BIRAN 1994: 7–8). Late Bronze Age remains were excavated in various areas. Two main strata were exposed, VIII and VII, covering the LB I–LB II periods (Table 1). Stratum VII was further subdivided into VIIB and VIIA, VIIA into two subphases VIIA2 and VIIA1 (BEN-DOV forthcoming). The most prominent feature of the Late Bronze Age II is the ‘Mycenaean’ tomb (Tomb 387) in Area B, which was published by R. BEN-DOV (2002). This tomb belongs to Stratum VIIB and was dated from the second half of the fourteenth to the early-mid thirteenth centuries BCE, mainly based on its rich collection of Mycenaean imported vessels (Table 1). Stratum
Feature
VIII
Period
Date BCE
LB I
16th–15th century
VII
‘Mycenaean’ Tomb (VIIB)
LB II
14th–13th century
VI
Iron Age pits
Iron I
12th century
Table 1 Stratigraphy at Tel Dan4
1 2 3
SCIEM2000, Austrian Academy of Sciences – Vienna. Hebrew Union College – Jerusalem. Some vessels of this group were already presented pre-
Fig. 1
The small assemblage under review includes vessels and sherds that are either actual Egyptian imports or of Egyptian form only. The latter form the bulk of the assemblage and are well known at Egyptian-controlled sites in the southern Levant, Beth Shean being the most prominent (MARTIN 2006; forthcoming a; for other sites see MARTIN 2004; 2005). They may be referred to as Egyptian-style vessels. While such Egyptian-style vessels were generally locally produced at the sites at which they were found, a petrographic analysis conducted by Y. Goren, Tel Aviv University, points to the Lebanese coast as
4
viously (BEN-DOV 2002: figs. 2.29.1–3; 2.30.1, 9, 17; 2.31.4–6). The artefacts were drawn by Noga Zeevi. Based on BIRAN and BEN-DOV 2002: Table 1.1.
192 Mario A.S. Martin and Rachel Ben-Dov
Fig. 2 Topographic site plan of Tel Dan showing distribution of Egyptian-type vessels (after BIRAN and BEN-DOV 2002)
source for most of the examples from Tel Dan (see below). Most of the here presented vessels and sherds are characterized by a red slip; hence our designation as ‘red-slipped group’. With the exception of a couple of jar rims (Fig. 4:5–7) this group is represented by flat-based simple bowls only (Fig. 3).5 On the bowls the slip is always applied on both sides, the jars are externally slipped. On the bulk of the examples the slip appears in red (10R 4/6) to dark red (2.5 YR 3/6) shades. Some vessels have a light red (2.5 YR 6/6) slip.6 Several bowls bear the light red slip on the outside and the red to dark red slip on the inside. On many examples irregular brush strokes are visible, indicating that the colour was applied by painting
(and not by dipping), and not on the rotating wheel. A few bowls have a glossy shine on one or either sides.7 Apart from the red-slipped group the Egyptian assemblage includes three fragmentary large bowls (Fig. 4:1–3), an ovoid body of a jar, most probably to be identified as funnel-necked jar (Fig. 4:9),8 and an intact carinated jar (Fig. 4:4). The Egyptian-type vessels and sherds come from Areas B1, AB, B (east) and Y (see Fig. 2). As to the contextual setting of the assemblage, the carinated jar originates from Stratum VIII. Two of the large bowls (Fig. 4:1–2) come from Stratum VIIB. Most of the other vessels and sherds originate from Stratum VIIA2. Some Egyptian-type pottery was found in unlined Iron Age pits of Stratum VI,
5
7
6
Ca. 50 such bowls were collected, mostly comprising rim fragments. Figure 3 shows a sample of the better preserved and well stratified examples. The light red slip seems like a faded version of the darker variants.
8
This shine does, however, not seem to be result of burnishing or any other known deliberate surface treatment. An additional storage jar rim with bulging neck (Fig. 4:8) possibly also belongs to this type.
Egyptian and Egyptian-Style Pottery at Tel Dan 193
which were cut into earlier levels. We can assume that also the Egyptian-type pieces from those pits originally come from Stratum VIIA2. FABRICS Fresh breaks of the vessels under review were examined through a binocular microscope at 20 x magnification (by Martin).9 According to their fabric properties they were categorized in groups, representatives of which were petrographically examined by Y. Goren (BEN-DOV forthcoming).10 Fabric Group (FG) 1 More than three quarters of the Egyptian-type bowls and jars can be ascribed to a single, rather homogenous fabric group. Vessels of this group consist of marly clay. The sections most commonly have a light reddish-brown to light brown core with light red to pink oxidation zones. They are speckled with white and grey mineral inclusions, the occasional terra rossa balls, and vegetal temper, which is mostly well combusted and discernible in form of elongated voids. Petrographic analyses of representatives of this group point to the Lebanese coast as their origin.11 The deliberate admixture of vegetal material (chopped straw) into the clay of Egyptian-style vessels, among them mainly simple bowls, is a well-known practice at Egyptian-controlled sites in the southern Levant and was explained as technological influence of the Egyptian pottery tradition (MARTIN 2004: 274–277). Fabric Group (FG) 2 A couple of simple bowls (e.g. Fig. 3:9), two of the large bowls (Figs. 4:1 and 4:3) and the funnelnecked jar (Fig. 4:9) belong to a different fabric group. The clays of this group are characterized by marl as well as silt components. Sections have red or zoned red and light red to light brown outer zones and a thick, grey to greyish-brown core. The main inclusions comprise mica, lime-
9
10
11
It was noted above that only a sample of the red-slipped bowls is presented in the figures. For the fabric analysis many more fragments were taken into account. The bowl in Figure 3:6 could not be affiliated with any of the groups. For the result of a petrographic analysis see BEN-DOV forthcoming. Several sherds have a light brown section without above-referred oxidation zones (Figs. 3:2–4, 4:5), but are characterized by the same inclusions. They are
stone grits and phytolithic material. Based on a petrographic analysis Y. Goren suggests that the fabric of the funnel-necked jar can most likely be identified as Egyptian mixed marl-and-silt clay (personal communication).12 D. Aston, K. Kopetzky and one of the authors (Martin), on the other hand, reject an Egyptian origin of this jar and of all other vessels of this fabric group, based on a microscopic analysis at 20 x magnification (courtesy of D. Aston and K. Kopetzky). Presently, both options have to be considered. In any event, while an Egyptian origin is feasible for the funnelnecked jar, it would be exceptional for the open forms, which in the southern Levant almost exclusively appear as local products (e.g. MARTIN 2006: 140-142; for imported exceptions from Tell Abu Hawam see below). If Fabric group 2 is not of Egyptian origin, then the carinated jar treated below (Fabric group 3) would be the only vessel in the assemblage under review that actually originates from the Nile Valley. Fabric Group (FG) 3 – Egyptian ‘Marl A’ The carinated jar from Stratum VIII (Fig. 4:4) is undoubtedly of Egyptian origin, an identification confirmed both in the microscopic analysis at 20 x magnification and in the petrographic analysis. Its fabric is marly, hard and dense and homogeneous in matrix. The section is pink (5 YR 7/4). Inclusions comprise limestone particles, sand, mica and additional red and small black mineral grits. The fabric can readily be identified as Marl A of the ‘Vienna system’ of classification, variant Marl A2 being the most likely candidate (NORDSTRÖM and BOURRIAU 1993: 176; ASTON 1998: 64). Marl A2 was usually fired at high temperatures (around 1000°C). In Egypt it is most common in the late Second Intermediate Period and the Eighteenth Dynasty. Its distribution argues for an origin in Upper Egypt. Carinated jars were commonly made of Marl A (Marl A2 and, more rarely, the coarser Marl A4).13
12
13
probably of the same petrographic origin as the other specimens and were thus also attributed to FG 1. The identification is not straight forward. In any case, an identification as Egyptian Nile silt can be excluded. For Egyptian mixed marl-and-silt clay fabrics see BOURRIAU, SMITH and NICHOLSON 2000: esp. 19–26. Carinated jars of Marl A were discussed in BOURRIAU 1981: 25–41. For a pot of this fabric from Tell ed-Dabca see HEIN 1994: Abb. 12a. A photograph of a Marl A2
194 Mario A.S. Martin and Rachel Ben-Dov
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Type Bowl, Type A Bowl, Type A Bowl, Type A Bowl, Type A Bowl, Type A Bowl, Type A Bowl, Type B Bowl, Type B Bowl, Type C Bowl, Type C Bowl, Type C Bowl, Type C Bowl, Type C Bowl, Type C Bowl, Type C Bowl, Type ?
Area B1 B1 B1 AB B east B east B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B east B east B east B1 B1
Reg. No. 23071/1 10650/8; 10 23034/2 23950/1 1584/5 1584/6 23034/1 23347/1 10667/9 10650/7 23375/1 6321/1 6275/5 1584/4 24905/8 10685/1
Locus 4626 1229 4613 7160 363 363 4613 7054 1229 1229 7055 437 438 363 7240 1229
Stratum VIIA2 VI VIIA2 VIIA2 VIIA2 VIIA2 VIIA2 VI VI VI VI VIIA2 VIIA2 VIIA2 VI VI
Fabric FG 1 FG 1 FG 1 FG 1 – ? FG 1 FG 1 FG 2 FG 1 FG 1 FG 1 FG 1 FG 2 FG 1 FG 1
Fig. 3 Red-slipped Egyptian-type bowls (Scale 1:5)
Previously Published
BEN-DOV 2002: fig. 2.29.3 BEN-DOV 2002: fig. 2.29.1
BEN-DOV 2002: fig. 2.30.1 BEN-DOV 2002: fig. 2.29.2
Egyptian and Egyptian-Style Pottery at Tel Dan 195
Despite the rather fragmentary nature of the assemblage the existence of three simple bowl types can be inferred, referred to as Types A-C.14 All three types are rather shallow and stand on flat bases. Bowls of Type A are characterized by rounded sidewalls and a plain rim (Fig. 3:1–6). Bowls of Type B are straight-sided with a plain rim (Fig. 3:7–8). On bowls of Type C, finally, the rim is everted (Fig. 3:9–15). Bowls of this type are most commonly referred to as flaring or splayed rim bowls (MARTIN 2006: 142). Rim diameters of Type A bowls vary between 20 and 23 cm, of Type B bowls between 22 and 26 cm and of Type C bowls between 21 and 28 cm. Bases range between 7.5 and 10 cm in size (Fig. 3:16). The only two complete profiles restored have a vessel height of 7 cm (Fig. 3:2) and 6.5 cm (Fig. 3:12) respectively. Bowls of these shapes and sizes are best known from New Kingdom Egypt and Nubia, where they form the main component of every ceramic assemblage of that period (MARTIN 2006: 142). In the southern Levant they occur mainly in the thirteenth-first half of twelfth centuries BCE and mostly at sites under direct Egyptian control. Thus, they were directly related to the New Kingdom Egyptian pottery tradition. Main sites include Beth Shean, Tell es-Sacidiyeh, Tel Aphek, Tel Mor, Ashkelon, Tel Serac, and Deir el-Bala5 (MARTIN 2005: Types BL10, 12 and 13; MARTIN 2006: BL70 and 73). They also occur at northern
Levantine sites, such as Kamid el-Lôz (METZGER 1993: pls. 81–87, 96; mainly Temple 2)15 and Ugarit (MONCHAMBERT 2004: 27-70, Types 1-2 and 5–7 of plates (‘assiettes’); Ugarit récent 3 = mainly LB IIB).16 Indirect evidence of their existence at the Lebanese coast is provided by the examples from Tel Dan themselves (see above, Fabric group 1). Examples with a red or reddish-brown slip are common in Level VII at Beth Shean (JAMES and MCGOVERN 1993: e.g., figs. 12:9, 36:3, 41:2) and in correlating strata of the Hebrew University Excavations17 (MARTIN 2006: 142, 149-150; MARTIN forthcoming a). They are also common in tombs of the cemetery at Tell es-Sacidiyeh, dated towards the end of the Late Bronze Age (PRITCHARD 1980: 3; 28–29). Two examples come from Stratum VIII at Megiddo (LOUD 1948: pl. 61:10–11), however not from reliable loci.18 From Tell Abu Hawam comes a group of red-slipped bowls of Type A (BALENSI 1980: pl. 6:5–8), which is reported to be of Egyptian origin (BALENSI 1980: 344–345, 377).19 As noted above this can be regarded as exceptional, as these utilitarian forms were generally locally produced. One very shallow example – best referred to as ‘plate’ – with splayed rim (Type C) originates from local Phase B in Area P at Hazor (MAZAR 1997: fig. V.1:25), which was correlated with general Stratum 1B (and 2?) of the lower tell (MAZAR 1997: 354). The stratigraphic affiliation of the vessel is, however, not unambiguous.20 Also among the bowls at Kamid el Lôz (METZGER 1993: pls. 83:1, 5; 84:8; 85:4; 86:2; 96:3;
example from Diospolis parva is shown in NORDSTRÖM and BOURRIAU 1993: fig. 18. At Qustul and Adindan in Nubia carinated jars were produced of ‘hard pink pottery’ – clearly also Marl A fabrics (WILLIAMS 1992: 24–25, 40). BEN-DOV forthcoming: Types BO5a–c. Type A: METZGER 1993: e.g., pls. 81:2, 6–8, 11; 84:3, 6–8, 10–11; 85:2–4, 6, 10–11; Type B: METZGER 1993: e.g., pls. 82:5; 83:7; 85:9; 86:10; 96:1, 2, 10; Type C: METZGER 1993: e.g., pls. 83:1, 5; 96: 3–5, 7–9 Type A: MONCHAMBERT 2004: 28, Type 5 (‘assiettes’); Type B: MONCHAMBERT 2004: 28, Type 1 (‘assiettes’); Type C: MONCHAMBERT 2004: 28, Types 2 and 7 (‘assiettes’). Types 2a–c, 2f and 3a of Monchambert’s ‘bols’ (MONCHAMBERT 2004: 71–85) are deeper variants of above-listed plate types and may also be regarded as comparanda for the Tel Dan bowls. Conducted in the years of 1989–1996 under the direction of Amihai Mazar. Plate 61:10 is additionally decorated with a red band on
the rim. For a list of reliable Stratum VIII loci refer to FINKELSTEIN and ZIMHONI 2000: 227–228. By courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority one example from the Rockefeller Museum was inspected by D. Aston and M. Martin and identified as Egyptian Nile B2 of the ‘Vienna System’ of classification (NORDSTRÖM and BOURRIAU 1993: 171–173). The vessel comes from Locus 1413B in the gate tower. The conjectured floor of this locus is at an elevation of 192.28 m (see locus list in MAZAR 1997: 385). However, the vessel was found at 192.75 m, which is only 5 cm below the conjectured floor of Phase A. The Phase B affiliation should therefore be treated with caution. In the southern Levant plate variants of Type C are unattested prior to the thirteenth century (MARTIN forthcoming b; for the chronology of flaring rim bowls in general see MARTIN 2006: 143). Thus, if really belonging to Phase B, the plate from Hazor contradicts the fourteenth century date assigned to Stratum 1B by YADIN (1993: 595).
RED-SLIPPED SIMPLE BOWLS
14 15
16
17
18
19
20
196 Mario A.S. Martin and Rachel Ben-Dov
No. 1 2
Type Large bowl Large bowl
Area B east B east
Reg. No. 6296/1 6371/2
Locus 443 442
3
Large bowl
B east
1564/6
358
4 5 6 7 8 9
Carinated jar Neckless jar Neckless jar Neckless jar Funnel-necked jar? Funnel-necked jar
Y B1 AB AB B1 B1
17191/1 23039/4, 5 24032/7 23826/4 23365/9 24810/4
3214 4609 7005 7145 7059 7230
Stratum VIIB VIIB Mixed locus VIII VIIA2 VIIA2 VIIA2 VIIA2 VIIA2
Fabric FG 2 FG 1?
Previously Published BEN-DOV 2002: fig. 2.30.9 BEN-DOV 2002: fig. 2.30.17
FG 2 FG 3, Marl A FG 1 FG 1 FG 1 FG 2 FG 2
Fig. 4 Egyptian-type large bowls and jars (Scale 1:5)
155:6, 10) and Ugarit (MONCHAMBERT 2004: 29) examples with red or reddish-brown slip appear occasionally. They are also attested in the south, such as at Tel Aphek, Tel Mor and Tel Serac (MARTIN 2005: 185–189). If the bowls from Tel Dan can be directly linked with the Egyptian pottery tradition or if they are just coincidental in shape with their Egyptian counterparts, might be a matter of debate (particularly if Fabric group 2 turns out not to be Egyptian; see above). Especially bowls of Types A and B are so basic in shape that they might have evolved independently in various regions. The fact that for northern Levantine sites the likelihood – or unlikelihood – of an Egyptian association of these bowls was never thoroughly discussed, makes this issue even more intricate. However, even if Fabric group 2 is not of Egyptian origin, the authors argue for a link of the redslipped bowls at Tel Dan to the Egyptian potting
tradition. This assumption is first corroborated by the fact that Types A–C appear together (the ensemble of these three types forms the backbone of every Egyptian and Egyptian-style ceramic assemblage in the Ramesside period) and, secondly, by their co-occurrence with the red-slipped Egyptian-style neckless jars with rolled rim (Fig. 4:5–7; and see below), the Egyptian association of which is beyond doubt based on their morphology only. Note that these jars are also of the same petrographic origin as most of the red-slipped bowls – the Lebanese coast (Fabric group 1). LARGE BOWLS Three rim fragments in the assemblage under review belong to large, open bowls with thick, straight to slightly curved sidewalls and squaredoff or modeled rim. All three examples were found in Area B east in close vicinity to each other. Two originate from Stratum VIIB (Fig.
Egyptian and Egyptian-Style Pottery at Tel Dan 197
4:1–2), one comes from a mixed locus (Fig. 4:3).21 According to their Egyptian and Egyptian-style counterparts such bowls most commonly stand on ring bases. The rim diameter of the Tel Dan fragments ranges around 35–40 cm, elsewhere examples occur in sizes of 30–60 cm. In Egypt these large, open bowls are characteristic Nile silt types. They appear with various rim variants (squared-off, profiled, outer-thickened, folded or ledged) and are common throughout the entire New Kingdom. They are most commonly undecorated, like the examples from Tel Dan, occasionally also red-slipped or red-rimmed. Occurrences were collected in MARTIN 2005: Type BL20–21. All three examples under review exhibit a series of two to three spaced, impressed horizontal bands of different widths (varying between 0.1–0.8 cm) encircling the upper exterior part of the body below the rim. Characterized by horizontal veining (Fig. 5) these bands clearly derive from thin, long leaves impressed into the wet clay. The same impressed bands were identified on two large Egyptian-style bowls from Stratum X-14 at Tel Aphek, where N. Lipschitz suggested their derivation from thin leaves of date palms or certain graminae, such as wheat, barley or reed (MARTIN, GADOT and GOREN forthcoming: Type EgB 7a–b). Several such leaves (one for each impressed band) were evidently tied around the upper part of such large bowls to hold them together during the drying process. One of the Tel Dan fragments preserves the spot, where one of these leaves was tied up (Figs. 4:3 and 5). This practice can probably be related to the Egyptian pottery tradition, where it was twined ropes instead of the leaves, which were tied around such large bowls (ARNOLD 1993: 91; ASTON 1998: 110). The impressions they made are commonly found on finished products (for an example from Qantir see ASTON 1998: no. 329). Such rope impressions appear on most large Egyptian-style bowls in
21
22
Figures 4:1 and 4:3 concur in fabric and shape and may be part of the same vessel (originally deposited in Stratum VIIB). However, as the fragments do not join and come from different contexts, it was decided to draw them separately. HOLTHOER notes that the carination of these vessels typologically is of less importance and otherwise very similar jars occur also without it (1977: 33). Therefore, he includes also those vessels with a more rounded pro-
Fig. 5 Horizontal leave impressions (upper one with knot) on large Egyptian-type bowl (Fig. 4:3, Scale 1:1)
Levels VII–VI at Beth-Shean (e.g., YADIN and GEVA 1986: fig. 35:1; MARTIN 2006: pl. 2:8). They are also attested on large Egyptian-style bowls at Kamid el-Lôz (METZGER 1993: pl. 90:9–11; Temple 2b-a), Lachish (TUFNELL, INGE and HARDING 1940: pl. 38:55–56; Fosse temple III) and Deir el-Bala5 (BEIT-ARIEH 1985: fig. 5:13). CARINATED JAR An almost intact jar (Figs. 4:4 and 6) from Stratum VIII in Area Y was identified as Egyptian Marl A import (see Fabric group 3 above). This 15 cm high vessel is characterized by a squat, carinated body, a straight neck with a shelf rim and a slightly convex base. Despite the somewhat soft carination it may be readily associated with the Egyptian family of carinated jars (see mainly HOLTHOER 1977: 133–145 and BOURRIAU 1981: 25–41).22 More specifically, it can be ascribed to the broadnecked variant (cf. broadnecked carinated vessels [CV 1] of HOLTHOER’s typology; 1977: pls. 30–32; for good comparanda see Type IIIP/5D/a–d).23 Carinated jars in general appear with round, slightly convex, flat, disc or ring base. Examples have
23
file into his family of carinated jars (HOLTHOER 1977: pls. 30–32). HOLTHOER distinguishes between shortnecked (his Class CS), ordinary carinated (CV) and widemouthed (CW) carinated vessels (1977: 133–145; pls. 30–32). Ordinary carinated vessels are distinct from shortnecked carinated vessels by their longer neck. They are further subdivided into broadnecked (CV 1) and narrownecked (CV 2) carinated vessels.
198 Mario A.S. Martin and Rachel Ben-Dov
been found containing doum-fruits and honeycombs. While the surface of the jar from Tel Dan is heavily worn, remains of a cream slip (2.5 Y 8/2 ‘white’) were encountered in certain spots, which originally covered the entire exterior of the vessel. At one place right below the neck faint traces of a bundle of three vertical, black lines can be recognized. Such vertical line bundles appear commonly on the upper body of carinated jars and are generally combined with one or more horizontal lines at the base of the neck, remains of which can also be discerned on the jar under review. At times, they are paired with a criss-cross decoration (e.g., HOLTHOER 1977: pl. 31 Type IIIP/5D/a–d).24 Other examples are characterized by horizontal bands only, which may appear on the upper body and neck (e.g., HOLTHOER 1977: pl. 32 Type IIIR/3D/ad). Moreover, these jars are often burnished, a trait not verifiable on the Tel Dan specimen. In Egypt carinated jars are common in the Second Intermediate Period and Eighteenth Dynasty. While shortnecked carinated vessels (Holthoer’s CS) occur from the Second Intermediate Period to the early Eighteenth Dynasty, broadnecked carinated vessels (Holthoer’s CV1) appear only from
the late Second Intermediate Period and are most common in the early-mid Eighteenth Dynasty (HOLTHOER 1977: 133–134; BOURRIAU 1981: 29–30; HOLTHOER, SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH and TROY 1991: 25, 30, 39; WILLIAMS 1992: 41–42). While popular already in the early Eighteenth Dynasty, the peak of the latter is clearly in the reigns of Hatschepsut-Thutmosis III, as in the cemetery of Fadrus in Nubia, where they are most common in local Phases IIa-b (HOLTHOER, SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH and TROY 1991: 30; SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH and TROY 1991: 225–244).25 From the time of Thutmosis III comes an example from Tell el-Dabca (HEIN 1994: 43 fig. 12a). Soon after the reign of Thutmosis III broadnecked carinated jars decrease in popularity and have disappeared by the late Eighteenth Dynasty. At Fadrus they still appear in considerable numbers in Phase IIc (Amenophis II-Thutmosis IV), are almost absent in Phase IIIa (Amenophis III) and have completely disappeared in Phase IIIb (late Eighteenth Dynasty) (SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH and TROY 1991: 225–244). They are unattested in the palace complex of Amenophis III at Malqata (HOPE 1989), at Tell elAmarna (PEET and WOOLLEY 1923; FRANKFORT and PENDLEBURY 1933) and in the tomb of Tutankhamun (HOLTHOER 1993). Undecorated versions seem to have a somewhat earlier distribution than decorated ones, as at Fadrus, where the former appear mainly in Phases Ia-IIa, while the latter are most common in Phases IIa–c (HOLTHOER, SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH and TROY 1991: 39). Apart from that Holthoer notes that vessels with vertical and criss-cross decoration seem to be earlier than those with horizontal bands only (1977: 134; on pls. 30–32 examples of the former belong to Fadrus Ia–IIb, of the latter mostly to Fadrus IIb–IIIa). Summarizing the evidence, it may be attested that with its tall, straight and broad neck and traces of a vertical decoration the carinated jar from Tel Dan fits best in the period of Hatschepsut-Thutmosis III. In the southern Levant imported Egyptian carinated jars appear at Tell el-cAjjul, Yoqnecam, Megiddo, and Beth Shean. At Tell el-cAjjul two examples of the earlier, shortnecked type come from the renewed excavations under the direction
24
25
Fig. 6 Egyptian carinated jar (Fig. 4:4, Scale 1:2)
Other vertical decoration patterns on the shoulder include wavy lines (e.g., HOLTHOER 1977: pl. 30 Type IP/6D/c–d) and ladders (e.g., GUY and ENGBERG 1938: pl. 41:17).
Phase IIa was dated in the reigns of Hatschepsut-Thutmosis III and IIb in the reign of Thutmosis III only.
Egyptian and Egyptian-Style Pottery at Tel Dan 199
of P. Fischer and M. Sadeq (FISCHER and SADEQ 2002: 122–123 fig. 14:1–2). Both vessels were identified as imports from Upper Egypt. They are redslipped and burnished. The vessels were retrieved from contexts, which can be dated to the first half of the Eighteenth Dynasty (LB IA–IA/B; FISCHER and SADEQ 2002: 139). From the Petrie excavations come both, the shortnecked (undecorated) and tallnecked26 (decorated) variants (PETRIE 1932: pl. XXX: 32A4–32A16; 1933: pl. XXXIII: 32A7–32A11). An example of the earlier, shortnecked type was found in Stratum XXa at Yoqnecam (BEN-TOR, BEN-AMI and LIVNEH 2005: fig. IV.21:8), the destruction of which was tentatively correlated with Thutmosis’ III campaign in Year 22 of his reign (BEN-TOR, BEN-AMI and LIVNEH 2005: 242–243) – 1457 BCE according to Kitchen’s chronology (2000: 49). From Megiddo comes a broadnecked example from Tomb 38B in the eastern cemetery (GUY and ENGBERG 1938: pl. 41: 17). The vessel is burnished and decorated, bearing a horizontal line at the base of the neck and vertical lines and a ladder pattern on the shoulder. A fragmentary, broadnecked example comes from Level F-10a in Area F of the renewed excavations of the Megiddo Expedition (GADOT, YASUR-LANDAU and ILAN 2006: fig. 12.4:5).27 It is white-slipped and decorated with black horizontal lines on neck and upper body. Level F-10a was correlated with Level IX of the Chicago Expedition (GADOT, YASUR-LANDAU and ILAN 2006: 188). The decoration of the jar with only horizontal lines favours a date in the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty (Thutmosis III) or later.28 Another two carinated jars, finally, come from Beth Shean. A broadnecked example was retrieved from Level IX of the University Museum Excavations of the University of Pennsylvania (MULLINS 2002: 263–264 and pl. 57:13). It is decorated with vertical lines on the upper body and horizontal lines at the base of the neck. A very squat specimen with a tall but rather narrow, slightly everted neck comes from Stratum R-3 in Area R of the Hebrew University Excavations, which was attributed to the late MB II (MAZAR
26
27
28
Both, broadnecked (Holthoer’s CV1) and narrownecked (Holthoer’s CV2) variants appear. Undertaken under the auspices of Tel Aviv University with Pennsylvania State University as senior American partner. The LB IA affiliation of Level F-10a suggested by
2003: 328 fig. 5). With its narrow neck the vessel probably fits best into Holthoer’s group CV2 – his narrownecked carinated vessels (1977: pl. 32 CV2, especially Type IIR/0/e–f). The vessel is made of Marl A2, red-slipped and burnished. According to M. Bietak this Upper Egyptian jar was not likely to reach the southern Levant before the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty, thus providing an important correlation between the end of the Middle Bronze Age in the southern Levant and the beginning of the New Kingdom in Egypt (MAZAR 2003: 328 footnote 5). NECKLESS STORAGE JARS WITH ROLLED RIM Fig. 4:5–7 shows rim fragments with incurving profile and rolled rim,29 clearly belonging to Egyptian-style neckless storage jars with ovoid to elongated bag- or sausage-shaped body and round base (for a complete profile of this type see MARTIN 2004: fig. 3:16). All fragments derive from Stratum VIIA2. In Egypt these handleless jars are typically made of Nile silt and popular from the beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasty onwards (ASTON and PUSCH 1999: 42). The rims measure 10–14cm in diameter, which is in well accordance to their Egyptian and Egyptian-style counterparts in Egypt and in the southern Levant. All pieces can be attributed to Fabric group 1 (see above). As mentioned above they belong to the ‘red-slipped group’. On two examples the external slip is unusually pale – light red 2.5 YR 6/6 (Fig. 4:5) and weak red 10R 5/2 (Fig. 4:7). Fig. 4:6 bears a red 2.5 YR 4/6 slip. A red slip is a very common surface treatment on this type of jars both in Egypt and in the southern Levant (MARTIN 2006: 148–149). In Egypt well dated Nineteenth Dynasty examples come from Qantir (ASTON 1998: 310–311, nos. 999–1008), Saqqara (ASTON 1991: 51, pl. 48, no. 45), and Qau el-Kebir (BRUNTON 1930: pl. XXVII:71). These jars are very popular during the Twentieth Dynasty, with examples known from Qantir, dated between the reigns of Seti II/Twosret and Ramesses III (ASTON and PUSCH 1999: 42,
29
GADOT, YASUR-LANDAU and ILAN (2006: 188) is too early in any case. On basis of the carinated jar a LB IB (or theoretically even early LB IIA) attribution should be envisaged. Fig. 4:5 combines two fragments, which although not joining, clearly belong to the same vessel.
200 Mario A.S. Martin and Rachel Ben-Dov nos. 10, 41), from two foundation deposits of Ramesses IV dug into the temenos of the mortuary temple of (Tutankhamun)-Ay-Horemheb at Medinet Habu (ANTHES 1939: 116–117, pls. 56, 58), from the tomb of Ramesses VII in the Valley of the Kings (ASTON, ASTON, and BROCK 1998: 162, 209, pl. 43, no. 373), and from Elephantine (ASTON 1999: 44, no. 198), where such a jar was found inscribed with the titulary of Ramesses IX. At southern Levantine sites the most impressive collection of complete and fragmentary examples of these neckless jars comes from thirteenth and twelfth century strata at Beth Shean (MARTIN 2006: 148–149; MARTIN forthcoming a). Additional examples can be cited from Tell esSacidiyeh (PRITCHARD 1980: fig. 15:5 Type 63; Tomb 110), Tel Mor (MARTIN and BARAKO forthcoming, Strata VIII–VI), and Tel Serac (MARTIN forthcoming b, Stratum IX). FUNNEL-NECKED JARS Stratum VIIA2 produced a body of an ovoid jar with the beginning of a neck (Fig. 4:9), which recalls Egyptian funnel-necked jars in shape (for a complete profile of this type see, e.g., MARTIN 2004: fig. 3:15). An Egyptian affiliation is also corroborated by the fabric of the vessel, which is either Egyptian or, at least, related to other Egyptian-type vessels at Tel Dan (see above, discussion of Fabric group 2). Funnel-necked jars are medium-sized slender jars with ovoid body, rounded to slightly flattened base and tall, diverging neck, the neck itself resembling a funnel (ASTON 1998: 188). The neck can be straight or convex. In Egypt these jars are typical Nile clay vessels. They are popular from the mid-late Eighteenth Dynasty to the end of the New Kingdom. Egyptian occurrences were collected in MARTIN 2005: Type JR12. As to southern Levantine sites a nice collection of these jars comes from Level VI at Beth Shean (MARTIN forthcoming a: especially Stratum S-4). They are also attested at Tel Serac (OREN 1984: fig. 7:2, Stratum IX) and Tell el-Farcah (S) (STARKEY and HARDING 1932: pl. XLIX:924; Tomb 924, Type 75 O).
30
31
Alternatively, the rim may be ascribed to a large Egyptian-type two-handled storage jar, referred to as ‘amphora’ (for Egyptian amphorae see HOPE 1989: 87–110). There is also a dearth of Egyptian or Egyptian-style small finds. Among the few pieces an Egyptian statuette from Area T (BIRAN 1994: 161 and fig. 120) and a Ram-
Apart from the fragmentary jar described above a rim fragment from Stratum VIIA2 bears mentioning (Fig. 4:8). It is characterized by a rolled rim and slightly bulging neck. Judging from its morphological properties and size (19 cm) this rim might belong to a large variant of funnel-necked jars, with examples coming from Qantir (ASTON 1998: 307, no. 972; Nineteenth Dynasty) and Tanis (BRISSAUD 1987: 99 no. 273; Twentieth Dynasty).30 Although of the same fabric (Fabric group 2), the size difference excludes that this rim and the body fragment described above belong to the same vessel. CONCLUSIONS In an attempt to reconstruct a possible Egyptian involvement at Tel Dan in the Late Bronze Age (namely in Stratum VIIA2), it might be easily inferred from a comparison with typical Egyptian garrison sites, such as, for instance, Beth Shean and Deir el-Bala5 that the situation is entirely different from those sites. The small size of the Egyptian assemblage at Tel Dan and the marked scarcity of types clearly argue against an assumption of physical Egyptian presence, as it was postulated for above-mentioned garrisons (MARTIN 2004: 279–280; 2005: 342–348; KILLEBREW 2005: 81–83).31 The Egyptian ceramic forms discussed here arrived at Tel Dan by trade. Of special interest is the link to the Lebanese coast, from which most of the material under review originates. This link does not only provide us with information about Dan’s trade connections in the LB II but also gives us some hunch of the Egyptian influence in above-referred region, the nature of which is not yet well-known on the basis of material culture evidence. Recent excavations like the one of the British Museum at Sidon are shedding more light on this aspect (e.g., MARÉE 2006). Chronology The first vessel of Egyptian type, the carinated jar from Stratum VIII, can be dated to the second half of the fifteenth century BCE and thus corroborates the date given to this stratum by the
ses II scarab from Area Y (BIRAN 1994: fig. 85) bear mentioning. The statuette was retrieved from an Iron Age context but may well originate from one of the Late Bronze Age levels. The scarab comes from an unstratified context.
Egyptian and Egyptian-Style Pottery at Tel Dan 201
excavators. Apart from two large bowls Egyptian forms are absent from Tomb 387 and any sealed loci of Stratum VIIB. Most of the Egyptian-type pottery at Tel Dan belongs to Stratum VIIA2. This is in well accordance to the marked increase of Egyptian-type ceramics in the southern Levant in the course of the thirteenth century (MARTIN 2004), a result of a more direct Egyptian involve-
ment in the Ramesside period (WEINSTEIN 1981: 17–22). The red-slipped simple bowls are the most prominent feature in the VIIA2 assemblage. Their appearance at Tel Dan fits well to their distribution at Beth Shean, where they are most common in the contemporaneous Level VII but rare to absent in the previous Level VIII and the following Level VI.32
Bibliography ANTHES, R.
BALENSI, J.
1939
1980
Foundation Deposits of Ramesses IV, 116–117, in: U. HÖLSCHER, Excavations at Medinet Habu II – The Temples of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Chicago.
Les Fouilles de W. Hamilton a Tell Abu Hawam. Niveau IV et V, 3 vols. (Texte, Planches, Catalogue), Strasbourg.
ARNOLD, DO.
BEIT-ARIEH, I.
1993
1985
Techniques and Traditions of Manufacture in the Pottery of Ancient Egypt, 1–141, in: DO. ARNOLD and J.D. BOURRIAU (eds.), An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery, Mainz.
ASTON, D.A. 1991
1998
1999
The Pottery, 47–54, in: M.J. RAVEN, The Tomb of Jurudef, a Memphite Official in the Reign of Ramesses II (Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir 57), London. 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 Band I, Mainz. Pottery from the Late New Kingdom to the Early Ptolemaic Period, Elephantine XIX (AV 95), Mainz.
BEN-DOV, R. 2002
Pottery from the Valley of the Kings – Tombs of Merenptah, Ramesses III, Ramesses IV, Ramesses VI and Ramesses VII, E&L 8, 137–214.
32
The Pottery from the Royal Horse Stud and its Stratigraphy. The Pelizaeus Museum Excavation at Qantir/Per-Ramesses, Sector Q IV, E&L 9, 39–75.
James and McGovern note the general absence of Egyptian-style simple bowls in Level VIII (1993: 79). A similar conclusion was drawn from the Hebrew University Excavations (MARTIN 2006: 150–151). In Level VI
Dan III, Jerusalem.
BEN-TOR, A., BEN-AMI, D., LIVNEH, A. 2005
Yoqne‘am III. The Middle and Late Bronze Ages, Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977–1988), Qedem Reports 7, Jerusalem.
BIRAN, A. 1994
Biblical Dan, Jerusalem.
BIRAN, A. and BEN-DOV, R. 2002
Dan II. A Chronicle of the Excavations and the Late Bronze Age “Mycenaean” Tomb, Jerusalem.
BOURRIAU, J.D. 1981
ASTON, D.A. and PUSCH, E. 1999
The Late Bronze Age “Mycenaean” Tomb, 35-208, in BIRAN and BEN-DOV 2002.
forthcoming
ASTON, D.A., ASTON, B. and BROCK, E. 1998
Further Burials from the Deir el-Balah Cemetery, TA 12, 43–53.
Nubians in Egypt During the Second Intermediate Period: An Interpretation Based on the Egyptian Ceramic Evidence, 25-41, in: Do. Arnold (ed.), Studien zur altägyptischen Keramik, Mainz.
BOURRIAU, J.D., SMITH, L.M.V. and NICHOLSON, P.T. 2000
New Kingdom Pottery Fabrics. Nile clay and mixed Nile/Marl clay fabrics from Memphis and Amarna,
and correlating strata in the Hebrew University Excavations the red-rim decoration has largely replaced the decoration with a red slip (MARTIN 2006: 150; MARTIN forthcoming a).
202 Mario A.S. Martin and Rachel Ben-Dov Egypt Exploration Society Occasional Publications 14, London.
KITCHEN, K.A. 2000
BRISSAUD, P. (ed.) 1987
Cahier de Tanis I, Paris.
BRUNTON, G. 1930
Qau and Badari III, Publications of the Egyptian Research Account and British School of Archaeology in Egypt 50, London.
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 Synchronization of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Proceedings of an International Symposium at Schloß Haindorf and at the Austrian Academy, CChEM 1, Vienna.
FINKELSTEIN, I. and ZIMHONI, O.
LOUD, G.
2000
1948
The Pottery from the Late Bronze Gate, 223–243, in: I. FINKELSTEIN, D. USSISHKIN and B. HALPERN, Megiddo III. The 1992–1996 Seasons, Tel Aviv.
FISCHER, P. and SADEQ, M. 2002
Tell el-cAjjul 2000. Second Season Preliminary Report, E&L 12, 109–143.
MARÉE, M. 2006
City of Akhenaten II, Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir 40, London.
2004
Egyptian and Egyptianized Pottery in Late Bronze Age Canaan, Egypt and the Levant XIV, 265–284.
2005
The Egyptian and Egyptian-style Pottery. Aspects of the Egyptian Involvement in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Canaan. A Case Study, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Vienna.
2006
The Egyptianized Pottery Assemblage from Area Q, 140–157 in: A. Mazar, Excavations at Tel Beth Shean 1989-1996. Volume I, From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period, Jerusalem.
GADOT, Y., YASUR-LANDAU, A. and ILAN, D. 2006
The Middle Bronze III and Late Bronze I Pottery from Areas F and N, 171–190, in: I. FINKELSTEIN, D. USSISHKIN and B. HALPERN, Megiddo IV. The 1998–2002 Seasons, Tel Aviv.
GUY, P.L.O. and ENGBERG, R.M. 1938
Megiddo Tombs, Chicago.
HEIN, I. 1994
Erste Beobachtungen zur Keramik aus cEzbet Helmi, in: M. BIETAK, J. DORNER, I. HEIN, and P. JÁNOSI, Neue Grabungsergebnisse aus Tell elDabca und cEzbet Helmi im östlichen Nildelta (1989–1991), E&L 4, 39–43.
HOLTHOER, R. 1977
1993
New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites: The Pottery, The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia 5:1, Lund. The Pottery, 37–85, in: A. EL KHOULI, R. HOLTHOER, C. HOPE, O. KAPER, Stone Vessels, Pottery and Sealings from the Tomb of Tut‘ankhamun, Oxford.
HOLTHOER, R., SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH, T. and TROY, L. 1991
Wheelmade Pharaonic Pottery, 17–49, in: T. SÄVESÖDERBERGH and L. TROY 1991.
forthc. a The Egyptian-Style Pottery (Area S, N North and N South) in: A. MAZAR, Excavations at Tel Beth Shean 1989–1996, Volume III, Jerusalem. forthc. b The Egyptian Assemblage at Tel Serac, in: E.D. OREN, Excavations at Tel Serac. MARTIN, M.A.S. and BARAKO, T.J. forthc. The Egyptian and Egyptianized Pottery from Tel Mor, in: T.J. Barako and M. Dothan, Tel Mor: A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Outpost in Southern Coastal Canaan, Jerusalem: ‘Atiqot. MARTIN, M.A.S., GADOT, Y., and GOREN, Y. forthc. Typological and Technological Study of Imported Egyptian and Local Egyptian-Style Pottery from LB and Iron Age Strata, in: M. KOCHAVI, Y. GADOT and E. YADIN (eds.), Aphek-Antipatris II: Bronze and Iron Age Remains from the Acropolis of Aphek, Tel Aviv. MAZAR, A. 1997
Area P, 353–386, in: BEN-TOR, A., BONFIL, R., GARFINKEL, Y., GREENBERG, R., MAEIR, A., MAZAR, A., Hazor V. An Account of the Fifth Season of Excavations 1968, Jerusalem.
2003
Beth Shean in the Second Millennium B.C.E: From Canaanite Town to Egyptian Stronghold, 323–339, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 Euro Conference - Haindorf , 2nd May – 7th of May 2001, CChEM 4, Vienna.
HOPE, C.A. 1989
Pottery of Ancient Egypt. Three Studies, Burwood (Australia).
JAMES, F.W. and MCGOVERN, P.E. (eds.) 1993
The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VII and VIII. Text. Volume I. Figures and Plates. Volume II, University Museum Monograph 85, Philadelphia.
KILLEBREW, A. 2005
Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity. An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300–1100 B.C.E, Atlanta.
A Jar from Sidon with the Name of Pharaoh Tawosret, AHL 24, 121–128.
MARTIN, M.A.S.
FRANKFORT, H. and PENDLEBURY, J. 1933
Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935–1939, Chicago.
METZGER, M. 1993
Kamid el-Loz – 8. Die spätbronzezeitlichen Tempelanlagen. Die Kleinfunde. Text und Tafeln (2 volumes),
Egyptian and Egyptian-Style Pottery at Tel Dan 203
Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 40, Bonn.
SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH, T. and TROY, L. 1991
MONCHAMBERT, J. 2004
La Céramique d’Ougarit. Campagnes de fouilles 1975 et 1976, Ras Shamra-Ougarit 15, Paris.
MULLINS, R.A. 2002
New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites. The Finds and the Sites, The Scandinavian Joint Excavation to Sudanese Nubia Volume 5:2, Uppsala.
STARKEY, J. and HARDING, L. 1932
Beth Shean during the Eighteenth Dynasty: From Canaanite Settlement to Egyptian Garrison, Ph. D. Thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
in: E. MACDONALD, J. STARKEY and L. HARDING, Beth-Pelet II. Prehistoric Fara (MACDONALD) and Beth-Pelet Cemetery (STARKEY, HARDING), London.
NORDSTRÖM, H. and BOURRIAU, J.D.
TUFNELL, O., INGE C. and HARDING, L.
1993
1940
Ceramic Technology: Clay and Fabrics, 144–190, in: DO. ARNOLD and J.D. BOURRIAU (eds.), Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery, Mainz.
OREN, E.D. 1984
‘Governors’ Residencies’ in Canaan under the New Kingdom: A Case Study of Egyptian Administration, JSSEA 14 37–56.
1981
The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment, BASOR 241, 1–28.
WILLIAMS, B.B. 1992
PEET, E. and WOOLLEY, C. 1923
Lachish II (Tell el-Duweir). The Fosse Temple, London.
WEINSTEIN, J.
The City of Akhenaten I, Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir 38, London.
Excavations between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier, Part 6: New Kingdom Remains from Cemeteries R, V, S, and W at Qustul and Cemetery K at Adindan, The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition Volume 6, Chicago.
PETRIE, W.M.F.
YADIN, Y.
1932
1993
Ancient Gaza II (Tell el Ajjul), Publications of the Egyptian Research Account and British School of Archaeology in Egypt 54, London.
PRITCHARD, J. 1980
The Cemetery at Tell es-Sacidiyeh, Jordan, University Museum Monograph 41, Philadelphia.
Hazor, 594–603, in E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Volumes 2, New York - Jerusalem.
YADIN, Y. and GEVA, S. 1986
Investigations at Beth Shean. The Early Iron Age Strata, Qedem 23, Jerusalem.
EINE INNERE CHRONOLOGIE DER BADARIKULTUR? MÖGLICHKEITEN UND ASPEKTE Von Nicola Ch. Math
EINLEITUNG Die Badarikultur steht am Anfang des Chalkolitikums in Ägypten – ob sie nun als chalkolithische Kultur bezeichnet werden kann, oder nur den Übergang dazu darstellt, sei hier dahingestellt. In den 1920er Jahren von Guy Brunton unter Mithilfe von Gertrude Caton-Thompson im Bereich von Badari erstmals entdeckt,1 wurde sie lange Zeit auch nur in diesem Bereich Mittelägyptens für existent gehalten.2 Neuere Forschungen brachten eine Siedlung bei Mahgar Dendera3 zu tage und Einzelfunde belegen, daß ihre Ausbreitung zumindest bis el-Kab im Süden und wie es scheint auch bis in Bereiche der Westund Ostwüste4 reichte (Abb. 1). Allgemein wird sie anhand von C14-Daten5 und TL-Daten6 ins 5.–4.Jt. v. Chr. datiert (Abb. 2). Da ihr eine relativ lange Dauer zugeschrieben wird, scheint es interessant, ob sich Formen und Typen einer sichtbaren Entwicklung unterziehen, wie es in der zeitlich etwas späteren Naqadakultur der Fall ist, und somit eine innere zeitliche Strukturierung möglich ist.7 Daraus resultiert automatisch die Fragestellung, inwieweit sich diese Kul-
1
2
3 4
5
BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928; BRUNTON 1937; BRUNTON 1948. Primär wurden bei den Grabungen im Bereich von Qau im Süden und Matmar im Norden Friedhöfe erkundet; nur eine Siedlung bei Hemmamieh wurde von Caton-Thompson stratigraphisch ergraben. HENDRICKX/MIDANT-REYNES/VAN NEER 2001. z.B. Nag el-Gaziriya: KAISER 1961; Armant: MOND/MYERS 1937; Hierakonpolis: FAIRSERVICE 1971, ADAMS 1995; elKab: VERMEERSCH 1978; Ostwüste: DEBONO 1951, WRIGHT/HERBERT 1993, MURRAY/DERRY 1923, RESCH 1964, FRIEDMAN/HOBBS 2002; Westwüste: DARNELL 2002, HOPE 2002, CATON-THOMPSON 1952. Von den wenigen vorhandenen C14-Daten (18 sind bekannt) stammen 4 Proben aus der Grabung von Brunton und Caton-Thompson, 3 aus Khattara, 2 aus Hierakonpolis Loc. 11; 9 Proben sind neueren Datums und stammen aus der Nachgrabung von Holmes und Friedman im Bereich der Siedlung bei Hemmamieh und aus Mahgar Dendera 2 (vgl. HOFFMAN 1979, 142; HASSAN 1984, 3; PAZUR/MICHCZYNSKA 1993, Tab. 2; HOLMES/FRIEDMAN 1994, Tab. 6; HENDRICKX/MIDANT-REYNES/VAN NEER 2001, 89).
tur an und für sich im Laufe der Zeit entwickelt und ob dies an ihrem Fundbestand erkennbar ist. EINE INNERE CHRONOLOGIE? – THEORETISCHE MÖGLICHKEITEN Einen ersten Versuch einer inneren chronologischen Ordnung einer vorgeschichtlichen Kultursequenz unternahm Petrie bereits 1899,8 indem er für die von ihm entdeckte und erkannte Naqadakultur die feingliedrige Ordnung der Sequence Dates (SD)9 einführte. Er wählte als Grundlage Gräber mit mindestens 5 verschiedenen Gefäßtypen, kleinere Gräber und Gräber mit gleichartigen Gefäßen wurden bewußt vernachlässigt,10 um die zeitliche Beziehung der Keramiktypen zueinander besser herstellen zu können;11 dies führte zu einer Verzerrung des Kulturablaufs der Naqadakultur.12 Er teilte der Naqadakultur primär in 3 Abschnitte ein – das Amratian, Gerzean und Semainean – und teilte ihnen SD 30-7513 zu, hielt aber SD 1-29 für zeitlich frühere Kultursequenzen frei, um in weiterer Folge die ganze Prädynastik in dieses System eingliedern zu können.14 Die Problematik dieser zeitlichen Einteilung besteht primär darin, daß die
6
7
8 9 10
11 12 13
14
Bei den TL-Daten handelt es sich um Proben von 8 stratifizierten Badarischerben aus der Siedlung von Hemmamieh (vgl. CATON-THOMPSON/WHITTLE 1975, tab. 1; HAYS 1984, 213). Es muß hier kurz angemerkt werden, daß sich dieser Versuch nur auf die publizierten Grabungen von Brunton (BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928; BRUNTON 1937; BRUNTON 1948.) stützen kann, da seine Originalnotizen als verschollen gelten. PETRIE1899, 295–301. PETRIE 1901, 4. Petrie erstellte dieses System nach seinen Grabungen in Naqada, Ballas und Diospolis Parva und zog von etwa 4000 freigelegten Gräbern nur 900 heran (vgl. KAISER 1956, 91). KAISER 1956, 91–92. KAISER 1956, 91–92. SD 30–37 für das Amratian, SD 38–60 für das Gerzean, SD 61–75 für das Semainean. Die einzige jemals zugeordnete Kultur war die Badarikultur, der die SD 21–29 zugeteilt wurden (von Petrie in: BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pl. XIXA).
206 Nicola Ch. Math
Abb. 1 Fundorte der Badarikultur
einzelnen Sequenzen in keinem absoluten Zeitverhältnis zueinander stehen; d.h. sie können eine unterschiedlich lange Zeitspanne wiedergeben. Trotz weitverbreiteter Kritik wurde dieses System lange Zeit verwendet, bis etwa 50 Jahre später Kaiser eine Neustrukturierung der Naqadakultur vorstellte. Er versuchte anhand des Friedhofes Armant 14/1500 mit 170 Gräbern, der von Mond und Myers Anfang der 1930er Jahre freigelegt worden war,15 eine zeitliche Abfolge der einzelnen Keramiktypen zu erstellen. Er wählte diesen Friedhof trotz seiner geringen Anzahl an Bestattungen, da er zu dieser Zeit einen der am vollständigsten
publizierten Friedhöfe der Naqadakultur darstellte, der zusätzlich mit einer erkennbaren Abfolge belegt worden ist, d.h. durch eine Kombination von typologischer und stratigraphischer Betrachtung des Materials besteht gleichzeitig eine Kontrolle und eine Minimierung von Fehlerquellen.16 Kaiser übernahm die primäre Dreiteilung der Naqadakultur, nannte sie aber Naqada I, II und III; zur Verfeinerung des Systems wurden die Stufen noch weiter unterteilt. Der aus dieser Studie entstandenen zeitlichen Abfolge von Formen wurden in der Folge weitere Friedhöfe und Gräber zugeordnet. Eines der Hauptprobleme der Stufenchro-
15
16
MOND/MYERS 1937.
KAISER 1957, 69–77.
Eine innere Chronologie der Badarikultur? Möglichkeiten und Aspekte 207
v. Chr
Abb. 2 Chronologietabelle (nach KUPER 1995)
Es scheint also ganz einfach: man nehme einen Friedhof mit ausreichend Gräbern, der in sich geschlossen ist und kaum Beraubung zeigt, und eine Fundgattung, die in den meisten Gräbern mit mehreren Exemplaren repräsentiert wird. So scheinbar einfach die Theorie klingt, so schier unlösbar erscheint die Aufgabe, betrachtet man die Friedhöfe der Badarikultur näher. Alle Friedhöfe befinden sich im Gebiet zwischen
Qau im Süden und Matmar im Norden (Abb. 3). Meist sind sie recht summarisch beschrieben und nur die Tomblists19 geben nähere Details zu den einzelnen Gräbern preis. Auf der Suche nach einem geeigneten relativ großen, gleichzeitig ungestörten und unberaubten Friedhof bietet sich folgendes Bild: über Qau/Friedhof 400/50020 befand sich schon zu Bruntons Zeiten eine Müllhalde; in Friedhof 400 fand man ein Grab und in Friedhof 500 fand man zwei Gräber der Badarikultur. Qau/Friedhof 110021 beinhaltete bis auf einen stone celt22 keine weiteren Badariobjekte. Qau/Friedhof 140023 zeigte eine Wiederbenutzung in römischer Zeit. Der gesamte Bereich wurde stark geplündert. Man stellte 4 Badarigräber fest. In Hemmamieh/Friedhof 1900/200024 fanden sich einige Badariobjekte im Schutt; zwei Gräber, die dort gefunden wurden, können ebenfalls dem Badari zugeschrieben werden. In Badari/Friedhof 480025 wurden 3 Badarigräber festgestellt. Im Zentrum von Badari/Friedhof 510026 befindet sich ein moderner koptischer Friedhof, der höchstwahrschein-
17
22
nologie von Kaiser bestand darin, daß die frühesten Phasen des Naqada in diesem Friedhof nicht vertreten sind.17 Hendrickx verfeinerte etwa weitere 40 Jahre später durch die Hinzufügung neuerer Forschungsergebnisse das System von Kaiser weiter.18 Durch diese Studien scheint die primäre Methodik vorgegeben zu sein: anhand von vertikal- und horizontalstratigraphischen Gegebenheiten eines Friedhofes eine Seriation von Funden zu erstellen und das erhaltene Ergebnis anhand von weiteren Friedhöfen zu verifizieren. EINE INNERE CHRONOLOGIE? –DIE PRAXIS
18 19
20 21
Vgl. HENDRICKX 1996, 36–69. Vgl. HENDRICKX 1996, 36–69. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pls. V–VIII, BRUNTON 1937, pls. VII–X, BRUNTON 1948, pl. III. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, 3. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, 3.
23 24 25 26
BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pl. LVI/3. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, 3. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, 4. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, 4. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, 6.
208 Nicola Ch. Math
Abb. 3 Lage der Friedhöfe im Bereich von Qau und Matmar (nach HOLMES 1992, fig. 1)
lich Badarigräber überlagert. Der ergrabene Teil dieses Friedhofes besteht aus 61 badarizeitlichen Gräbern. Badari/ Friedhof 520027 wird durch
eine starke Wiederverwendung im Laufe der Zeit geprägt. 11 Gräbern der Badarikultur überdauerten die Zeit. Im Badari/Friedhof 5300/540028
27
28
BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, 9.
BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, 10.
Eine innere Chronologie der Badarikultur? Möglichkeiten und Aspekte 209
wurden die meisten Badarigräber gefunden; in Friedhof 5300 54 und in Friedhof 5400 56 Gräber. Leider sind an die 50% aller Gräber geplündert. Heute liegt der Friedhof unter einer modernen Müllhalde.29 Die Gräber in Badari/ Friedhof 560030 waren größtenteils ausgeraubt. Brunton gibt leider keine näheren Details über diese Gräber an. Badari/Friedhof 5700/580031 befindet sich westlich des Friedhofes 5100, führt diesen aber nicht fort. Die Gegend wird von einem modernen koptischen Friedhof okkupiert. Es wurde daher nur nördlich (5800) und südlich (5700) des modernen Friedhofes gegraben. Heute befindet sich hier ein christlicher Friedhof.32 Der Friedhof 5700 besteht aus 70 und der Friedhof 5800 aus 17 Gräbern. Badari/Friedhof 600033 besteht aus 9 Badarigräbern;34 In jüngerer Zeit gab es Zerstörungen durch Bergbauaktivitäten.35 Im Bereich von Mostagedda/Deir Tasa gibt es keine reinen Badarifriedhöfe. Gräber der Badarikultur fanden sich in den Friedhöfen 100 (1 Grab), 200 (11 Gräber), 300 (9 Gräber), 400 (37 Gräber), 500 (14 Gräber), 800 (2 Gräber), 1000 (1 Grab), 1200 (37 Gräber), 1600 (5 Gräber), 1900 (1 Grab), 2000 (16 Gräber), 2200 (28 Gräber), 2600 (1 Grab), 2700 (13 Gräber), 2800 (5 Gräber), 3100 (4 Gräber), 3200 (13 Gräber), 3300 (2 Gräber), 3500 (35 Gräber), 3600 (1 Grab), 3700 (1 Grab), 3800 (1 Grab), 5200 (1 Grab), 10000 (4 Gräber) und 11700 (2 Gräber). Eine genauere Beschreibung der einzelnen Friedhöfe gibt es leider nicht.36 Auch im Bereich von Matmar konnten keine reinen Badarifriedhöfe festgestellt werden. Gräber der Badarikultur fanden sich in den Friedhöfen 200 (2 Gräber), 2000 (20 Gräber), 2200 (1 Grab), 2500 (27 Gräber), 3000 (4 Gräber), 3100 (6 Gräber), 5300 (2 Gräber) und 6000 (2 Gräber). Leider existiert auch hier keine detaillierte Beschreibung der Friedhöfe.37
Von allen genannten Friedhöfen erscheinen Badari/Friedhof 5300/5400 mit 110 Gräbern und Badari/Friedhof 5700/5800 mit insgesamt 91 Gräbern als erfolgversprechendste Untersuchungsplätze, da von ihnen auch Pläne existieren.38 Badari/Friedhof 5300/5400 kann jedoch gleich wieder ad acta gelegt werden, da im Plan von Brunton nicht alle Gräber verzeichnet sind;39 außerdem zeigt dieser Friedhof – wie schon erwähnt – eine Beraubungsrate von etwa 50%. Also bleibt schlußendlich nur 5700/5800, wobei hier vorerst nur Friedhof 5700 betrachtet wird, da diese 70 Gräber zusammenhängen. Beginnt man nun damit, einfach nur die Keramiktypen den Gräbern zuzuordnen, hofft man – selbst bei Kombination von Typen bzw. Klassen – vergeblich auf irgendeine sich ergebende Ordnung bzw. Struktur (Abb. 4a). Der Grund dafür erscheint klarer, wenn man einfach nur die Anzahl der keramischen Grabbeigaben den einzelnen Gräbern zuordnet. 23 Gräber zeigen keinerlei keramische Beigaben, 29 Gräber je eine, 7 je zwei, 2 je drei und ein Grab hat vier Keramikobjekte; wobei bei 7 Gräbern nicht typologisierbare Scherben gefunden wurden und ein Grab ein Gefäß und Scherben aufwies (Abb. 4b). Es zeigt sich auch in diesem Fall keine erkennbare Ordnung.40 Auch im nördlichen Bereich – dem Friedhof 5800 – zeigt sich kein anderes Bild: von 17 Gräbern sind 10 ohne keramische Beigaben, in 5 Gräber wurden je ein Gefäß, in einem Grab zwei Gefäße41 und in einem Grab ein Gefäß mit weiteren Scherben gefunden. Selbst wenn man nun – aufgrund der unbefriedigenden Situation im Bereich der keramischen Funde – das Grabinventar als Ganzes betrachtet, wird die Situation nicht wesentlich besser (Abb. 5). In Friedhof 5700 beinhalten nur 10 Gräber lithisches Gerät, 7 Gräber Paletten, 19 Gräber Perlen, 20 Gräber Muscheln
29
39
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
HOLMES 1992, 75. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, 13. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, 13. HOLMES 1992, 75. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, 17. Brunton bezeichnet sie als: „apparently later Type“. HOLMES 1992, 75. BRUNTON 1937, 33–43. BRUNTON 1937, 7–9. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pl. IV.
40
41
Vgl. Tomblist mit Plan; die Auswahl der verzeichneten bzw. nicht verzeichneten Gräber ist nicht nachvollziehbar. Die Gräber in diesem Friedhof scheinen in einem relativ kurzen Zeitraum angelegt worden zu sein; möglich ist, daß sie um ein relativ bedeutendes Grab herum angeordnet wurden (möglicherweise Grab 5716; vor allem wegen seiner Größe und recht zentralen Lage), dies jedoch in einer Zeitspanne, die es nicht ermöglicht, irgendeine Entwicklung zu erkennen. RB-Ware ohne Typenangabe.
210 Nicola Ch. Math
Abb. 4a Verteilung der einzelnen Keramiktypen in Friedhof 5700 (nach BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pls. IV, VII, VIII)
Abb. 4b Anzahl der keramischen Beigaben in Friedhof 5700 (nach BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pls. IV, VII, VIII)
Eine innere Chronologie der Badarikultur? Möglichkeiten und Aspekte 211
Abb. 5 Fundverteilung im Friedhof 5700/5800 (nach BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pls.VII–VIII)
(wobei 13 Gräber sowohl Perlen als auch Muscheln aufweisen) und 20 Gräber zeigen noch andere Objekte wie Blumen, Bein-, Elfenbein- oder Steinobjekte.42 Im Bereich von 5800
sind es lediglich je 1 Grab mit lithischem Gerät, 1 Grab mit Perlen, 2 Gräber mit Muscheln (1 Grab mit Perlen und Muscheln) und 3 Gräber mit anderen Objekten.43
42
43
Vgl. Tomblist (BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pls. VII–VIII).
Vgl. Tomblist (BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pl. VIII).
212 Nicola Ch. Math Eine innere chronologische Struktur der Badarisequenz kann also nur über Objektgruppen ohne einen direkten Fundzusammenhang versucht werden. Da das wenige vorhandene Siedlungsmaterial zu fragmentiert ist, bietet sich das Grabinventar fast als einzige, definitiv aber als beste Möglichkeit an, da die Gräber als kompakte Einheiten angesehen werden können, die nach ihrer Belegung nicht mehr mit jüngerem archäologischen Material der gleichen Zeitstufe versetzt worden sind44. Jedoch kann man die Gräber selbst nicht chronologisch gliedern, da alle von der heutigen Oberfläche aus einschneiden und somit eine Stratifizierung nicht möglich ist. Vom Grabinventar selbst bieten sich eigentlich nur keramische Objekte für dieses Vorhaben an, da lithische Artefakte im funarären Bereich eine bedeutend kleinere Fundgruppe darstellt. Nur im Bereich von Siedlungen kann die Lithik als eine etwa gleichgroße, wenn nicht sogar die größere Fundgattung angesprochen werden,45 die bis auf wenige Stücke immer lokal gefertigt wurden46 und im Laufe der Zeit eigentlich kaum eine Entwicklung zeigen; die typischen Werkzeuge des Badari wie Endkratzer, Pfrieme und abge-
drückte Klingen werden in dieser Region bis in die späte Prädynastik hergestellt.47 Petrie selbst versuchte schon in den 1920ger Jahren, anhand des in den ersten beiden Grabungskampagnen in der Region von Badari zu Tage gekommenen keramischen Materials eine zeitliche Strukturierung vorzunehmen. Jedoch fand er sein eigenes System48 eher schwierig anzuwenden, da eine Veränderung bzw. Entwicklung einzelner Keramiktypen kaum erkennbar schien. Er gruppierte die Keramik in einzelne Gruppen – die gröbere Keramik,49 polierte Keramik50 und die gerippelte Keramik.51 Er definierte die früheren Typen und Formen aufgrund ihres Vorkommens in der früheren Schicht der Siedlung von Hemmamieh und die späteren aufgrund ihrer typologischen Ähnlichkeiten zum frühen Naqadamaterial; die sich ergebenen Gruppen teilte er in die SD-Daten 21–29 ein52 (Abb. 6). Petrie selbst war vom Ergebnis seiner Arbeit nicht sonderlich überzeugt,53 da sich keine sichtbare Entwicklung ergab.54 Dies ist nicht verwunderlich, betrachtet man das keramische Inventar der Badarikultur im Bereich von Qau bis Matmar näher. Das Typen-
44
51
45
46 47 48 49
50
Zeitlich aufeinanderfolgende Mehrfachbelegungen sind für das Badari untypisch. Zumindest in Mahgar Dendera 2 stellt die Lithik die eindeutig größere Fundgattung dar. Vgl. HOLMES 1987, HOLMES 1988, HOLMES 1989. HOLMES 1988, 83. Nach Vorbild seiner Seriation der Naqadakeramik. “The coarser varieties do not form good material.” (BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, 26). “Groups containing the polished wares are sixteen in number only, If these are examined, we find that BB alone are found in 5, BB and BR together in 7, BB and PR in 1, BR alone in 1, BR and PR in 2. Groups where more than two polished pots occur are all BB. If we turn to the forms found in these groups and consider the angled dishes and bowls (BB3-37, BR3-10), we see that all the five purely BB groups contain these; only three of BB ware occur in combination with BR forms (out of seven groups) ; and the only angled BR occurs with a BB. No “carinated” bowl (PR9, SB9) is to be found in a group with BB, but there is an example of it in BB ware (~9p). Looking at the forms in the polished classes as a whole, it may be noted : (i) that the dishes and bowls with a sharp angle between the sides and base are very much more common in the BB class ; (ii) that the bag-shaped forms are all BR, with the exception of one angled BB ; (iii) that the flat shallow bowls are all BR; and (iv) that the decorated bowls are all BR with the exception of one BB, which is deep.” (BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, 26).
52 53
54
“The rippling occurs in varying degrees in all classes ; but the finest is found with the BB angled forms only. The very thinnest pottery is not rippled, but is also all BB. These various facts are not sufficient to form the basis of any definite conclusions; but they certainly give an impression, if we take the connexion with the „carinated „ bowls of the Early Predynastic Period into account, that the BB ware is the earliest, and the PR the latest; that the sharp-angled, finely rippled, or very thin pottery is early; and that both flat bowls and bag-shaped forms are later, while deep bowls run right through the whole period.” (BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, 26). BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, 26. “Although we cannot hope to form a complete sequence on such an amount of material, yet it is desirable to make a beginning of a system, in order to have a basis for putting fresh facts in place, either to correct or to supplement what we already know.” (BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, 26); dieses Anliegen von Petrie wurde vom Ausgräber nicht erfüllt, ging Brunton doch im Laufe der weiteren Erforschung dazu über, statt einzelne Gräber, ganze Friedhöfe miteinander zu vergleichen (BRUNTON 1937, 50; BRUNTON 1948, 11; vgl. KAISER 1956, 95). Wenn man diese chronologische Einteilung verschiedener Typen nun auf Gräber des vorher betrachteten Friedhofes 5700 anwendet – wie es auch Petrie getan hat (vgl. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pl. XIXA) – erkennt man nichts anderes als ein scheinbar wirres zeitliches Belegungsmuster ohne jeglichen Sinn.
Eine innere Chronologie der Badarikultur? Möglichkeiten und Aspekte 213
Abb. 6 Seriation nach Petrie (nach BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pl. XIXA)
214 Nicola Ch. Math bild ist folgendermaßen zu beschreiben: insgesamt wurden 684 keramische Gefäße55 gefunden, die in 453 verschiedene Typen gegliedert wurden. Davon sind 117 Typen mehrfach vorhanden; von 63 Typen existieren je 2,56 von 25 je 3,57 von 14 je 4,58 von 8 je 5,59 von 2 je 6,60 von 3 je 761 und von 2 je 962 Exemplare; die restlichen 336 Typen kommen je nur einmal vor; d.h. bei etwa der Hälfte aller Badarigefäße handelt es sich um Einzelstükke aus Friedhofszusammenhängen.63 Selbst durch die Siedlungsgrabung Mahgar Dendera 2 und ihre Funde kann dieses Bild nicht entscheidend revidiert werden, zeigt sich doch gerade hier, daß man zwar eine beträchtliche Anzahl keramischer Funde hat (etwa 4000 großteils stark fragmentierte und erodierte Wandscherben, davon 3650 Grabungsfunde, der Rest Oberflächenfunde),64 doch recht wenig Zusammenhang mit den Grabbeigaben des Gebietes zwischen Qau und Matmar herstellen kann.65 Dies mag wohl auch an der unterschiedlichen, Dokumentationsmethodik liegen, die sich im Laufe der Jahre verändert hat, doch im wesentlichen auch an der Natur der Badarikultur selbst.
55
56
57
58
59
60 61 62 63
64
Es handelt sich um ganze Gefäße. Diese bilden den Corpus der Badarikultur; Brunton gibt sowohl Gräber als auch Gruppen innerhalb der Friedhöfe an; vgl. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pls. XII–XVIII, BRUNTON 1937, pls. XV–XXI, BRUNTON 1948, pl. IV. BB5f, BB8h, BB10m, BB14e, BB19c, BB31b, BB31h, BB31m, BB31p, BB31t, BB37h, BB52e, BB52h, BB64c, BB69h, BB69p, BB71d, BB74f, BB77p; BR3d, BR9k, BR9m, BR11m, BR21h, BR21m, BR21p, BR24e, BR24p, BR31e, BR38h, BR38j, BR43f; PR6e, PR9h; SB3e, SB3k, SB5e, SB5m, SB9k, SB18m, SB24m, SB33m, SB38t, SB44m, SB46p; RB7e, RB9h, RB9m, RB11d, RB11t, RB14e, RB16e, RB16h, RB17f, RB19k, RB23f, RB25t, RB31m, RB31p, RB33h, RB37h, RB39k; MS3. BB14h, BB14m, BB41d, BB47h, BB57e; BR21j, BR34e, BR34q, BR41e; AB1; SB3k, SB25t, SB31m, SB33h; RB9c, RB11k, RB14m, RB16p, RB19q, RB27e, RB27h, RB27m, RB27r, RB28h; MS5. BB12d, BB64h; BR16p, BR21e, BR21t, BR24k, BR34m, BR34p; SB3h; RB14h, RB19f, RB36e, RB39h, RB41f. BB5h, BB14p; BR24m; SB31h; RB9t, RB27t, RB31h, RB36f. BB61k, BB71h. BR24h; RB27k, RB31r. SB5h; RB11h. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit auch nur ein Grab mit 5 verschiedenen Typen, wie Petrie es für seine Sequenzdatierung des Naqada verwendete, im Badari zu finden, ist dennoch verschwindend gering. Von dieser Masse an Material wurden nur etwa 560 Stück für die typologische Interpretation ausgesucht
Wie schon erwähnt, verwendete Petrie zur Erstellung seiner Sequenzdatierung der Naqadakultur Gräber mit mindestens 5 Gefäßtypen – um eine besseren Zusammenhang zwischen den einzelnen Keramiktypen zu entwickeln und somit einfacher eine zeitliche Sequenz erstellen zu können, wurden kleinere Gräber, die zumeist eine frühere Zeitstufe zeigen, und Gräber mit gleichartigen Gefäßen bewußt vernachlässigt.66 Die größte Ansammlung mit verschiedenen Keramiktypen der Badarikultur ist Gruppe 5556 aus dem Bereich von Badari und beinhaltet 7 verschiedene Typen67 – von den Ausgräbern wird diese Gruppe als Town Group definiert. In zwei weiteren Badarigräbern wurden je 5 verschiedene Typen gefunden,68 weitere 5 Gräber zeigen 4 verschiedene Typen.69 10 Gräber und 2 Ansammlungen, die als Town Group definiert werden, weisen je 3 verschiedene Keramiktypen70 auf. Die restlichen Gräber und Gruppen beinhalten zwei bis keine Keramikstücke oder es werden nur Scherben angegeben, die keine Zuordnung erhielten.71 Auf eine Gesamtzahl von etwa 600 Gräbern und Gruppen hochgerechnet
65 66 67 68
69
70
71
und herangezogen; davon waren 394 Mündungen (Durchmesser nur bei 92 meßbar), 46 Böden, 1 Knopf, 9 dekorierte Scherben und 3 komplette Gefäß (HENDRICKX/MIDANT-REYNES/VAN NEER 2001, 59). HENDRICKX/MIDANT-REYNES/VAN NEER 2001, 74–76. KAISER 1956, 91–92. RB19p, RB27e, RB27h, RB27t, RB31h, MS2. Grab 5431 (BR36p, SB5h, SB18m, RB9e, RB9f) und Grab? 5459 (BB12f, BB14m, BB37e, BB52m, BB69p) aus dem Bereich von Badari. Grab 569 (BB3d, RB37h, MS7, MS24), Grab 5112 (BB31m, BB35k, SB41k, RB25k), Grab 5436 (BB10h, B25b (Naq.), RB5j, RB46f) und Grab 5769 (SB24h, SB24p, SB46p, RB19t) aus dem Bereich von Badari und Grab 575 (BB14g, SB18m, SB31h, RB27m) aus dem Bereich von Mostagedda/Deir Tasa. Grab 1992 (BR24h, RB11k, RB27r), Grab 5290 (BB14h, BB14m, BB69m), Grab 5403 (BR24h, SB3k, SB9k), Grab 5453 (BB8h, BB14h, SB5h), Gruppe 5520 (AB9, SB37e, RB36e) – wird als Town Group definiert, Gruppe 5555 (RB27t, RB31p, RB33h, ) – wird als Town Group definiert, Grab 5709 (BR34e, RB14e, RB25h) und Grab 5736 (BB7h, BR24k, RB11h) aus dem Bereich von Badari; Grab 572 (BR16d, BR57q, SB5m), Grab 1243 (BR31d, SB31h, RB27e) und Grab 10017 (BB69s, BR38w, SB7n) aus dem Bereich Mostagedda/Deir Tasa; Grab 2101 (BB41d, BB52h, BB71h) aus dem Bereich von Matmar. Vgl. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pls. V–VIII, BRUNTON 1937, pls. VII–X, BRUNTON 1948, pl. III.
Eine innere Chronologie der Badarikultur? Möglichkeiten und Aspekte 215
beinhalten 20 Kontexte drei oder mehr Keramiktypen, das sind etwa 3% aller Kontexte, was ein verschwindend kleiner Teil ist. Insgesamt zeigt das Grabinventar kaum eine kompakte Einheit, wie sie in der späteren Phase des Naqada I, mit Sicherheit aber ab dem Naqada II erkennbar wird; Grabbeigaben werden standardisiert und somit wird eine systematische zeitliche Gliederung möglich. Die eher wenigen Beigaben in der Badarikultur, zeigen meiner Ansicht nach nicht die Armut der Kultur, sondern vielmehr ihre Entwicklungsstufe, denn Gräber bzw. Friedhöfe und Kulturen mit nicht standardisiertem Grabinventar finden sich in dieser Zeit häufig, denkt man an das benachbarte Tasa oder Naqada I. Da auch keine stratigraphische Zuordnung der Gräber möglich ist – alle scheinen direkt von der heutigen Oberfläche aus einzuschneiden – und auch keine Entwicklung innerhalb der Friedhöfe72 sichtbar ist, scheint es unmöglich, eine innere Struktur der Badarikultur zu erstellen. EINE INNERE CHRONOLOGIE ? – DAS ERNÜCHTERNDE ERGEBNIS Das Ergebnis ist kurz umrissen: weder gibt es einen Friedhof mit ausreichend Gräbern, der in
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
Wie sie Kaiser für seine innere Chronologie der Naqadakultur anhand des Friedhofs 14/1500 von Armant nutzte (KAISER 1957). In Grab 5431 zweimal, in den Gräbern 5378, 5351 und 5453 je einmal (vgl. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pls. VI–VII). In den Gräbern 5727, 5730, 5736 und 5738 (vgl. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pls. VII–VIII). In Grab 5372 (vgl. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pl. VII). In Badari/Friedhof 5300/5400: in den Gräbern 5403 und 5405; in Badari/Friedhof 5700/5800: in den Gräbern 5754, 5801und 5805 (vgl. BRUNTON/CATONTHOMPSON 1928, pls. VI–VIII). In Badari/Friedhof 5700/5800: in den Gräbern 5713 und 5750 (vgl. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pls. VII–VIII). In Badari/Friedhof 5700/5800: in den Gräbern 5741 und 5763 (vgl. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pls. VII–VIII). 7fach belegte Formen: Typ RB27k: in Grab 5405; Typ RB31r: in den Gräbern 5349 und 5455. 6fach belegte Formen: Typ BB61k: in Grab 5390; Typ BB71h: in Grab 5444/in Grab 5736. 5fach belegte Formen: Typ BB5h: in Grab 5349/in Grab 5753; Typ BB14p:Im Bereich von Friedhof 5800; Typ RB27t: in Grab 5406; Typ RB 31h: im Bereich des
sich geschlossen ist und nur minimal gestört ist; noch sind sichtbare chronologische Belegungsmuster feststellbar. Gräber mit mehreren verschiedenen Gefäßen sucht man genauso vergeblich wie ausreichend wiederkehrende Keramiktypen. Doch muß angemerkt werden, daß man bei Durchforstung der beiden Friedhöfe 5300/5400 und 5700/5800 auf mehrfach vorkommende Gefäßtypen ein erstaunliches Ergebnis erhält. Der insgesamt 9 mal wiederkehrende Typ SB5h ist für den Bereich Badari 5 mal belegt und zwar nur im Bereich des Friedhofs 5300/5400.73 Ungefähr ähnlich verhält es sich beim gleich oft belegten Typ RB11h. Dieser kommt 4 mal im Bereich des Friedhofs 5700/5800 vor,74 im Friedhof 5300/5400 1 mal.75 Ähnliches gilt für die Typen BR24h (insgesamt 7 mal belegt);76 BR24m77 und SB31h78 (insgesamt 5 mal belegt); und bei weiteren Formen.79 Insgesamt betrachtet, findet man etwa 52% aller Gefäße, die mehrfach im Bereich von Badari vorkommen, in diesen beiden Friedhöfen, was beachtlich erscheint. Beide Friedhöfe gemeinsam repräsentieren etwa ein Drittel aller Badarigräber zwischen Qau und Matmar, was das oben angeführte Ergebnis wiederum etwas relativiert. Betrachtet man nun kurz das Verhältnis der
Friedhofs 5400; Typ RB36 f: in Grab 5355/in Grab 5758. 4fach belegte Formen: Typ BB12d: in den Gräbern 5397 und 5447; Typ BB64h: in Grab 5350/in Grab 5768; Typ BR16p: in den Gräbern 5411 und 5431; TypBR21e: in den Gräbern 5373 und 5397/in Grab 5729; Typ BR21t: in Grab 5342/in Grab 5774; Typ BR24k: in Grab 5364/in Grab 5736;Typ BR34m: in Grab 5383. Typ BR34p: in Grab 5374/in Grab 5709; Typ RB14h: in Grab 5367; Typ RB19f: in Grab 5431; Typ RB36e: in Grab 5768; Typ RB39h: in Grab 5414; Typ RB41f: in Grab 5454 zweimal. 3fach belegte Formen: Typ BB14h: in Grab 5453/in Grab 5810; Typ BB14m: in Grab 5459/in Grab 5714; Typ BB47h: in Grab 5348; Typ BB34e: in den Gräbern 5354 und 5429/in Grab 5705; Typ BR41e: im Bereich von Friedhof 5700; Typ AB1: in den Gräbern 5365 und 5426/in Grab 5761; Typ SB3k: in Grab 5403; Typ SB25t: in Grab 5749; Typ SB33h: in Grab 5766; Typ RB14m: in Grab 5429; Typ RB27h: im Bereich von Friedhof 5700. 2fach belegte Formen: Typ BB5f: in Grab 5399; Typ BB8h in den Gräbern 5426 und 5453; Typ BB10m: in Grab 5388; Typ BB19c: in den Gräbern 5379 und 5389; Typ BB31h: in Grab 5413; Typ BB37h: in den Gräbern 5714 und 5757; Typ BB31h: in Grab 5750; Typ BB64c:
216 Nicola Ch. Math Friedhöfe zueinander, stellt man fest, daß sie sich zwar geographisch relativ nahe stehen, aber dennoch separate Friedhöfe darstellen. Zwischen ihnen liegen die Friedhöfe 5200 (11 Gräber) und 5600 (ohne Angabe von Details) und die Siedlung 5500;80 benachbart an Friedhof 5700 findet sich noch Friedhof 5100 mit 61 Gräbern (Abb. 7). Betrachtet man nun diesen gesamten Komplex gemeinsam, so stellt man fest, daß fast 90% aller mehrfach vorkommenden Gefäße aus dem Bereich von Badari hier gefunden wurden. Überhaupt scheint es Formen zu geben, die selbst wenn sie mehrfach belegt sind, nur aus
einem Grab bzw. einem Friedhof stammen. Dies zeigt sehr klar, daß es in dieser Kultur keine ausgeprägte Form von Industrien gab, sondern, daß Dinge, die benötigt wurden, mehr oder minder zur Deckung des Eigenbedarfs hergestellt wurden. Der Ansatz zu einer Entwicklung von standardisierten Gebrauchsgegenständen scheint vorhanden, jedoch noch sehr schwach ausgebildet. Daher scheint es kaum möglich, eine innere Chronologie anhand dieser zu entwickeln und jeder Versuch endet ernüchternd in der Erkenntnis, daß einerseits zu wenig Gleiches und andererseits zu vieles Verschiedenes vorhanden ist.81 EINE INNERE CHRONOLOGIE? – EINE MÖGLICHKEIT
Abb. 7 Lage der Friedhöfe 5300/5400 und 5700/5800 (nach BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pl. II)
in Grab 5364; Typ BB69p: in Grab 5459; Typ BB74f: 5710; Typ BR9m: in Grab 5751; Typ BR21m: in Grab 5774; Typ BR21p: in Grab 5353; Typ BR24e: in Grab 5402; Typ BR24p: in den Gräbern 5701 und 5707; Typ BR43f: in den Gräbern 5711 und 5732; Typ PR6e: in Grab 5398; Typ PR9h: in Grab 5723; Typ SB3e: in Grab 5384/in Grab 5760; Typ SB3k: in Grab 5403; Typ SB9k: in den Gräbern 5403 und 5406; Typ SB18m: in Grab 5431; Typ SB24m: in Grab 5723; Typ SB33m: in Grab 5726; Typ SB44m: in den Gräbern 5362 und 5419; Typ SB46p: in Grab 5769; Typ RB9h: in Grab 5712; Typ RB11t: in Grab 5718; Typ RB14t: in den Gräbern 5709 und 5737; Typ RB16e: in Grab 5363/in Grab 5713; Typ RB16h: in Grab 5369; Typ RB19k: in Grab 5368.; Typ
Ein ganz anderer aber durchaus nicht uninteressanter Ansatzpunkt, um die Badarikultur doch noch einer zeitlichen Gliederung zu unterziehen, scheint nach den Ursprüngen der Badarikultur zu forschen. In diesem Zusammenhang sei auf die These von Hendrickx82 verwiesen, der den Vorschlag unterbreitet hat, daß die Badarikultur in ihrer frühen Phase die dem Niltal umliegenden Wüstenbereiche besiedelte und erst in ihrer späteren Phase im Niltal selbst ansässig wurde. Damit würde ein früher Beginn der Badarisequenz in Frage kommen, der konform geht mit den Daten von Bashendi B und Nabta-Kiseiba/E-75-8,83 und damit verbunden auch eine lange Laufzeit von tausend oder mehr Jahren, denn man kann es ohne weiteres als Tatsache bezeichnen, daß eine Laufzeit von dieser Länge vom Fundbestand im Bereich des Niltals auf keinen Fall unterstützt wird. Neuere Untersuchungen zeigen eine Verbindung der Keramikindustrie des Badari in die Westwüste; im Besonde-
80 81
82 83
RB31p: in Grab 5419 (vgl. BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, pls. VI–VIII). BRUNTON/CATON-THOMPSON 1928, 4–5. Denn selbst wenn es gelingen sollte, für einen beliebigen Badarifriedhof eine Belegungssequenz zu erstellen bzw. Gräber in einen logischen zeitlichen Zusammenhang zueinander zu ordnen, bleibt dennoch das Problem, daß es immer sehr willkürlich erscheinen wird, vor allem wenn man versucht, die restlichen Badarifriedhöfe bzw. Funde anzureihen. HENDRICKX 1999, 19; HENDRICKX 2006, 59. Vlg. NELSON 2002, 34–35; WENDORF/SCHILD 2002; SCHILD/WENDORF 2002; HENDRICKX 2006, 58–59.
Eine innere Chronologie der Badarikultur? Möglichkeiten und Aspekte 217
ren zur Bashendi B Sequenz84 der Dakhla Oase85 und dem Late/Final Neolithic86 des Nabta-Kiseiba Gebietes.87 Diese Theorie ist zwar mit dem derzeitigen Wissensstand nicht zu verifizieren, jedoch beinhaltet sie einige interessante Aspekte, vor allem wenn man an die zwar vereinzelten, aber dennoch vorhandenen Funde aus den Wüstengebieten denkt88 (vgl. Abb. 1). Um 6500 v.Chr. setzte eine klimatische Veränderung ein,89 die eine Austrocknung der das Niltal umgebenen Gebiete und damit die Bildung der heutigen landschaftlichen Gegebenheiten zur Folge hatte.90 Die in der West- und Ostwüste beheimateten Kulturen scheinen mit fortschreitender Trockenheit ins fruchtbare Niltal einzuwandern91 (Kulturen aus der Siwa und Bahariya Oase siedelten sich im Fayum und Delta und jene der Farafra, Kharga und Dakhla Oase in Mittel- und Oberägypten an; jene von Napta Playa kehrten nach Nubien zurück).92 Spätestens um 4500 v.Chr. scheinen die vormals besiedelbaren Gebiete trocken zu sein, da auch die einzelnen Kultursequenzen endgültig verschwinden und das Niltal “dicht“ besiedelt erscheint.93 Dies würde mit den eigentlich spär-
84
85 86
87
88
89
Die Bashendi B Kultur kann zwischen 5650/5400 v.Chr. und 3950 v.Chr. datiert werden (MCDONALD 2001; MCDONALD 2002). HOPE 2002. Das Late/Final Neolithic der Fundstelle E-75-8 des NabtaKiseiba Gebietes wird zwischen 5500 v.Chr. und 4700 v.Chr. datiert (HENDRICKX 2006, 58–59). Vor allem site E-75-8. vlg. NELSON 2002, 34–35; WENDORF/SCHILD 2002; SCHILD/WENDORF 2002. Vgl. z.B. für den Bereich der Ostwüste: DEBONO 1951, WRIGHT/HERBERT 1993, MURRAY/DERRY 1923, RESCH 1964, FRIEDMAN/HOBBS 2002; für den Bereich der Westwüste: CATON-THOMPSON 1952, DARNELL 2002, HOPE 2002. Um genauer zu sein, setzte schon um 10000 v. Chr. (nach der letzten Eiszeit) eine klimatische Veränderung ein: eine Feuchtphase, die die heutige Sahara “grüner“ werden ließ und eine Besiedlung erst möglich machte; davor breitete sich das heutige Wüstengebiet über ein weit größeres Gebiet aus als heute. In dieser Feuchtperiode findet auch eine der wichtigsten Entwicklungen der Menschheitsgeschichte statt, die von Childe als “first revolution“ (CHILDE 1957) oder allgemein als die neolithische Revolution bezeichnet wird: die Gesellschaften ändern ihre Lebensweise von Jägern und Sammlern in Bauern und Viehzüchter; damit verbunden ist natürlich eine Seßhaftwerdung – kleinere
lichen Überresten des Badari im Bereich des Niltals korrespondieren. Übrig bleibt hier nun nur noch, ausgehend von der Theorie, daß die Träger der Badarikultur erst in ihrer späteren Phase im Niltal gesiedelt haben, zu versuchen anhand der Funde im Bereich der weiter entfernten Gebiete der Westund Ostwüste eine frühere und eine spätere Phase zu erkennen. Diese Idee scheint zwar auf den ersten Blick gut, doch betrachtet man die Fundlage näher, besteht mit dem heutigen Wissensstand auch hier keine Möglichkeit, eine Gliederung zu erreichen. Zwar gibt es immer mehr Funde, die der Badarikultur zugeschrieben werden können,94 doch sind es bis jetzt nur vereinzelte Objekte bzw. Objektgruppen, die entweder zu fragmentiert sind, um sie einem Typ zuzuordnen, oder nur summarisch erwähnt werden.95 Es bleibt also eine weitere Erforschung dieser Gebiete abzuwarten. Schlußendlich muß festgestellt werden, daß es nach heutigem Forschungsstand nicht möglich ist, die Badarikultur mit einer inneren Chronologie zu versehen, und ob dies jemals möglich sein wird, bleibt fraglich. Zeigt das bekannte Bild des
90 91
92 93
94 95
Siedlungen entstehen – und die Ausbildung von Industrien, im Besonderen der Produktion von Keramik. Die Entstehung des Neolithikums – festgemacht am Auftauchen keramischer Objekte – kann im Bereich der Sahara sogar früher angesetzt werden als im Bereich des klassischen “fruchtbaren Halbmondes“ in Vorderasien (KUPER 2002). HASSAN 1987. Die Idee, daß neolithische Gruppen aus der Westwüste an der Neolithisierung des Niltales beteiligt bzw. entscheidende Imulse zu dieser Entwicklung beigetragen haben ist nicht neu; vgl. MOND/MYERS 1937, 269; CHILDE 1952, 48; NORDSTRÖM 1972, 24; HOFFMAN 1979, 102; HASSAN 1984; HOLMES 1989, 367–394; WENDORF/SCHILD 2002. MIDANT-REYNES 2000, 138. Die Neolithisierung des Niltals erfolgt relativ spät; sowohl in der Sahara als auch in der Levante setzt sie deutlich früher ein. Vgl. Anm. 88. Caton-Thompson erwähnt zwar Badarischerben für das Pleasant Neolithic im Bereich der Kharga Oase, jedoch ohne nähere Angaben und Typologie (CATON-THOMPSON 1952, 39). Hope identifiziert zumindest die Form BB57e (HOPE 2002, fig. 5i; vgl. Abb. 117.2) für den Bereich der Dakhla Oase.
218 Nicola Ch. Math Badari aus dem Bereich des Niltals wirklich eine späte Phase dieser Kultur, muß dies ernsthaft bezweifelt werden, denn die Singularität der Formen und Typen ist dann ein, wenn nicht das Hauptcharakteristikum dieser Kultursequenz und zeigt die Entwicklungsstufe einer frühen Kultur, die “Industrien“ nur im Ansatz erkennen läßt und die einzelnen Objekte mehr oder minder zur Deckung des Eigenbedarfs fertigt.96 *** Was bleibt, ist die prinzipielle Frage nach der Deutung des Fundbestands dieser Kultur – ist das Hauptfundgebiet zwischen Qau und Matmar
auch mit dem Hauptsiedlungsgebiet gleichzusetzten, wie es lange Zeit postuliert wurde und teilweise noch wird oder gewährt uns dieses Gebiet nur einen marginalen Einblick in etwas, das in einem anderen Gebiet viel ausgeprägter war und daher leichter zu interpretieren wäre? Möglicherweise kann hier nur eine ausklingende Kultur beobachtet werden, die in ihrer Glanzzeit ganz anders zu beschreiben wäre. Es bleibt schwierig, die Bedeutung der Funde aus diesem Gebiet in ihrer Position innerhalb der Kultur – sowohl chronologisch, als auch in ihrer Bedeutung – festzumachen.
Bibliographie ADAMS B.
FRIEDMAN R./HOBBS J.J.
1995
2002
Ancient Nekhen: Garstang in the City of Hierakonpolis, New Malden.
BRUNTON G.
A „Tasian“ Tomb in Egypt´s Eastern Desert, in: FRIEDMAN (ED.), Egypt and Nubia, Gifts of the Desert, London, 178–191.
1937
Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture, London.
HÄGG T. (ed.)
1948
Matmar, London.
1987
BRUNTON G./CATON-THOMPSON G. 1928
The Badarian Civilisation and the Predynastic Remains near Badari, London.
CATON-THOMPSON G 1952
Kharga Oasis in Prehistory, London.
CATON-THOMPSON G./WHITTLE E. 1975
Thermoluminescence Dating of the Badarian, Antiquity 49, 89–97.
CHILDE V.G. 1952
New Light on Most Ancient Egypt, London.
1957
The Dawn of Civilisation, London.
Nubian Culture Past and Present – Main Papers presented at the 6th International Conference for Nubian Studies in Uppsala, 11–16 August 1986, Stockholm.
HASSAN F.A. 1984
A Radiocarbon Date from Hemmamieh, Upper Egypt, Nyame Akuma 24/25 3.
1987
Desert Enviromentand Origins of Agriculture in Egypt, 17–32, in: HÄGG (ed.), 1997.
HAYS T. 1984
Predynastic Developement in Upper Egypt, 211–219, in: KRZYZANIAK/KOBUSIEWICZ (eds.), Origin and Early Developement of Food-Producing Cultures in North-Eastern Africa, Poznan.
DARNELL D.
HENDRICKX S.
2002
1996
The relative Chronology of the Naqada Culture – Problems and Possibilities, 36–69, in: SPENCER (ed.), Aspects of Early Egypt, London.
1999
La chronologie de la préhistoire tardive et des débuts de I’histoire de I’Egypte, Archéo-Nil 9, 13–81.
Gravel of the Desert and Broken Pots in the Road: Ceramic Evidence from the Routes between the Nile Valley and Kharga Oasis, 156–179, in: FRIEDMAN (ed.) 2002.
DEBONO F. 1951
Expedition Acheologique Royale au Desert Oriental (Keft-Kosseir): Rapport Preliminaire sur la Campagne 1949, ASAE 51, 59–110.
2006
Predynastic – Early Dynastic Period, in: HOR(EDS.), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, 55–93.
NUNG/KRAUS/WARBURTON
FAIRSERVICE W.A.
HENDRICKX S./MIDANT-REYNES B./VAN NEER W.
1971
2001
Preliminary Reporton the First Two Seasons at Hierakonpolis, JARCE 9, 7–27, 67–99.
Mahgar Dendera 2 (Haute Egyte) – un site d´occupation Badarien, Leuven.
FRIEDMAN R. (ed.)
HOFFMAN M.A.
2002
1979
96
Egypt and Nubia, Gifts of the Desert, London.
Egypt before the Pharaos, New York.
Dies kann man nicht nur an den keramischen Objekten erkennen, sondern z.B. auch an den lithischen Funden von Mahgar Dendera 2.
Eine innere Chronologie der Badarikultur? Möglichkeiten und Aspekte 219
HOLMES D.
Dakhleh Oasis within the wider Enviromental and Cultural Setting of the Egyptian Western desert, 26–42, in: MARLOW/MILLS (eds.), 2001.
1987
The Predynastic Lithic Industries of Badari, Naqada and Hierakonpolis, Upper Egypt, Ph.D. Dissertation University Collage London, London.
2002
1988
The Predynastic Lithic Industries of Badari, Middle Egypt: New Perspectives and Interregional Relations, World Archaeology 20, London, 70–86.
MIDANT-REYNES B.
1989
The Predynastic Lithic Industries of Egypt. A comparative Study of the Lirhic Traditions of Badari, Nagada and Hierakonpolis, 2 vol., Cambridge Monographs in African Archeology 33, BAR IS 469, Oxford.
1992
Archaeological Cultural Resources and Modern Land-use Activities: Some Observations Made during a Recent Survey in the Badari Region, Egypt, JARCE 19, 67–80.
HOLMES D./FRIEDMAN R. 1994
Survey and Test Excavations in the Badari Region, Egypt, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60, 105–42.
HOPE C. 2002
Early and Mid-Holocene Ceramics from the Dakhleh Oasis: Traditions and Influences, 39–61, in: FRIEDMAN (ed.), 2002.
2000
Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Handbook of Oriental Studies 83, Leiden-Boston.
1937
Stand und Probleme der ägyptischen Vorgeschichtsforschung, ZÄS 81, 87–109.
Cemeteries of Armant I, London.
MURRAY G.W./DERRY D.E. 1923
A Predynastic Burial on the Red Sea Coast of Egypt, MAN 23, 129–131.
NELSON K. 2002
Ceramic Assemblages of the Nabta-Kiseiba Area, 21–50, in: NELSON (ed.), 2002.
NELSON K. (ED.) 2002
Holocene Settlement of the Egyptian Sahara, Vol. 2: The Pottery of Nabta Playa, New York-Boston-Dordrecht.
NORDSTRÖM H.A. 1972
Neolithic and A-Group Sites, The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia 3, Stockholm
PAZUR M.F./MICHCZYNSKA D.J. 1993
KAISER W. 1956
The Prehistory of Egypt. From the First Egyptians to the First Pharaos, Oxford.
MOND R./MYERS O.
HORNUNG E./KRAUS R ./WARBURTON D.A. (eds.), 2006
Dakhleh Oasis in Predynastic and Early Dynastic Times: Bashendi B and Sheikh Muftah Cultural Units, Archeo-Nil 12, 109–120.
Probabilistic calibration of Radiocarbon Dates with Specific Examples from Northeastern Africa, 474–483, in: KRZYZANIAK/ KOBUSIEWICZ (eds.), 1993.
PETRIE W.M.F.
1957
Zur inneren Chronologie der Naqadakultur, Acta Geographica 6, 69–77.
1899
Sequences in Prehistoric Remains, The Journal of the Anthropological Institute 29, 295–301.
1961
Bericht über eine archäologisch-geologische Felduntersuchung in Ober- und Mittelägypten, MDAIK 17, 1–53.
1901
Diospolis Parva, London.
KRYZANIAK L./KOBUSIEWICZ M. (eds.) 1984 1993
Origin and Early Developement of Food-Producing Cultures in North-Eastern Africa, Poznan. Enviromental Change and Human Culture in the Nile Basin and Northern Africa until the 2nd Millenium B.C., Poznan.
KUPER R. 1995
2002
Prehistoric Research in the Southern Libyan Desert. A brief account and some conclusions of the B.O.S. project, 123–140, in: Actes de la VIIIe Conférence Internationale des Études Nubiennes (Lille 11.–17.9.1994). Cripel 17, Lille. Routes and Roots in Egypt’s Western Desert: The Early Holocene Resettlement of the Eastern Sahara, 1–12, in: FRIEDMAN (ed.), 2002.
MARLOW C.A./MILLS A.J. (eds.) 2001
The Oasis Papers 1: The Proceedings of the First Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project, Oxford.
MCDONALD M.M.A. 2001
The Late Prehistoric Radiocarbon Chronology for
RESCH W.F.E. 1964
Eine vorgeschichtliche Grabstätte auf dem Ras Samadai, MAG 93/94, 119–121.
SCHILD R./WENDORF F. 2002
Paleo-ecologic and Paleo-climatic Background to Socio-economic Changes in the South Western Desert of Egypt, 21–27, in: FRIEDMAN (ed.), 2002.
VERMEERSCH P.M. 1978
Elkab II – L’Elkabien. Epipaleolithique de la vallee du Nil egyptien, Bruxelles-Leuven.
WENDORF F./SCHILD R. 2002
Implications of Incipient Social Complexity in the Late Neolithic in the Egyptian Sahara, 13–20, in: FRIEDMAN (ED.), 2002.
WRIGHT H.T./HERBERT S. 1993
Archeological Survey in the Eastern Desert of Egypt. Report of the University of Michigan/University of Asiut Project to the Egyptian Antiquities Organisation.
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE ROYAL PALACE OF QATNA REVISITED A Reply to a Paper by Mirko Novák, Egypt and the Levant 14, 2004 Daniele Morandi Bonacossi 1
Abstract Qatna’s Royal Palace has been jointly investigated by Syrian, Italian and German teams between 1999 and 2006. Its layout has been nearly fully explored and – considering the poor preservation state of the building – its functional organisation reconstructed as far as possible. However, what remains uncertain is the chronology of the building, which is still a matter of debate, especially as far as its foundation is concerned. Several proposals for dating the construction of the Royal Palace – among which M. Novák’s article in Egypt and the Levant 14, 2004 (“The Chronology of the Royal Palace of Qatna”, 299–318) is the most recent and comprehensive – have been put forth, but none of these is based upon firm stratigraphic data and archaeological materials found in situ. The broad stratigraphic and material evidence excavated in eight years of archaeological exploration by the Italian expedition is critically reviewed and compared with the evidence presented by Novák with the goal of achieving a more precise and reliable chronology for the foundation of Qatna’s Royal Palace. 1. THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF MISHRIFEH FROM THE MID-THIRD TO THE MID-SECOND MILLENNIUM BC: A PRELIMINARY ATTEMPT AT RECONSTRUCTION After the first urbanization of the site of Mishrifeh during the EBA IV, when a town – possibly rough-
1 2 3
4
University of Udine AL-MAQDISSI 2003a, 1513–1514; MORANDI BONACOSSI 2007. SCHNEIDER 2002. On this title, which, if the interpretation set forth by Schneider of this controversial passage of the ‘Sinuhe-tale’ is correct, was not distinctive only of the king of Ebla, but was used also at least by the king of Qatna, see also BONECHI 1997; TONIETTI 1997; KÜHNE 1998. The construction of Qatna’s ramparts cannot yet be precisely dated on firm archaeological grounds due to the fact that specific investigations regarding the city’s fortification system could not be carried out until now. The only available C14 determination concerns the western rampart and might refer to maintenance work
ly circular in plan and with an extension of about 25 ha – had developed from a previous EBA III settlement,2 its urban layout was dramatically modified, during the transition from the third to the second millennium BC, and a vigorous process of urban growth initiated in the city, now called Qatna. If a recently proposed identification is correct, the first mention of Qatna in the written sources falls exactly in this period, at the beginning of the MBA. In the so-called ‘Sinuhe-tale’, dating to the reign of Pharaoh Sesostris I at the beginning of the XII Dynasty, the city of Qatna may have been mentioned as an urban centre and a kingdom of already elevated political importance, ruled by a king bearing the Old Syrian title of mekim/mekum.3 Possibly at some point during this period, the site was fortified with the construction of a monumental earthen rampart with a preserved height of 18 m and a width at its base of 60 to 80/90 m, provided with four main city gates, which enclosed a large square city of 110 ha (Fig. 1).4 It is widely acknowledged that these imposing earthen embankments, which are typical of the archaeological landscape of the Levant during the second millennium BC, were, besides their obvious defensive function, also imbued with a symbolic and propagandistic significance, which expressed an ideological claim to power within the context of a wider regional socio-political milieu characterised by peer-polity interaction.5
on the fortifications, which apparently took place during the interval between the late MBA II and the early LBA I. However, on the basis of comparisons with Tell Mardikh, where the ramparts were built during the early MBA I (MATTHIAE 1997, 3–4), a similar date is at present hypothesized for the construction of Qatna’s ramparts, even though it must be admitted that the dating of an architectural feature only by means of typological comparisons is not entirely compelling. For this reason, the possibility that Qatna’s rampart system was constructed during the late MBA II or the MB–LB transition, as might be suggested by the above-mentioned radiocarbon date, cannot be ruled out. In this regard,
222 Daniele Morandi Bonacossi
Fig. 1 Topographic map of Mishrifeh
In the case of Qatna, this is also emphasized by the fact that the construction of this massive fortification system drastically changed the city’s natural landscape, since the western and northern ramparts were built inside the area occupied by a lake (probably created artificially during the EBA IV and fed by karst springs), which was thus divided in two parts: a smaller portion was trapped inside the perimeter of the town, whilst the largest part of the lake constituted a sort of reservoir upstream of the city.6 At the very beginning of the second millenni-
um BC, a major change can be also observed in the organisation and function of Qatna’s acropolis. The large EBA IV granaries, silos, storage pits and the facilities for crop processing and transformation which were concentrated on the summit of the acropolis were abandoned.7 The vast EBA IV residential quarter located in the northern part of the acropolis plateau was also deserted and the area immediately to the south of it went out of use as an elite burial site, as during the EBA IVA, when a multiple shaft burial – Tomb IV – had been inserted in this part of the site.8
it should be noted that du Mesnil du Buisson did not adopt a definite position regarding the precise chronology of the ramparts, but – even though on the basis of rather vague reflections – assigned the eighteenth century BC as terminus post quem for their construction (1935, 40–46). GREGORI, in her seminal survey of the “three-entrance” city-gates of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria and Palestine, suggests a late date within the MBA for Qatna’s western gate (1986, 92 and note 65), whilst an even later date to the late fifteenth-fourteenth century BC is indicated by HULT (1994,
193–195). Finally, recent field research has tentatively assigned the construction of the ramparts of Tell esSefinet Nebi Noah, located 3 km north-east of Tell Nebi Mend, to the LBA (and not to the MBA) on the basis of the collected surface material (PHILIP 2007). Cf. BUNIMOVITZ 1992; FINKELSTEIN 1992; ILAN 1998. CREMASCHI, MORANDI BONACOSSI AND VALSECCHI in press; CREMASCHI 2007; AL-MAQDISSI and MORANDI BONACOSSI 2005, 13–15. MORANDI BONACOSSI 2007. DU MESNIL DU BUISSON 1935, 144–164.
5 6
7 8
– –
Fig. 2 Schematic plan of the Royal Palace with location of the underlying MBA I–early MBA II cemetery with pit and shaft graves and estimated reconstruction of its area, Operations G, H, R
The Chronology of the Royal Palace of Qatna Revisited 223
224 Daniele Morandi Bonacossi
Fig. 3 Palympsestic plan of the northeastern part of the MBA I–early MBA II cemetery underlying the Royal Palace with pit graves and shaft grave Tomb V, Operation H
The Chronology of the Royal Palace of Qatna Revisited 225
On the top of the central acropolis mound, a monumental building of unknown function was erected and, immediately to the E, a large and well-organised pottery workshop was established. This ceramic production area was probably controlled by the institution residing in the large public building next to it.9 During this second major phase of urbanization of the site, about which we still have little information, a large funerary area appeared in Operations G and H above the previous EBA residential quarter (Figs. 2–3).10 This extensive burial ground was later largely destroyed by the foundation system of the Royal Palace. A number of skulls and some limb bones together with complete (though not in situ) ceramic vessels of this period were found in the fills of several foundation trenches of the later Royal Palace.11
14C
To date, 15 simple pit graves of adults and newborns buried in jars or pits with few funerary goods – usually a very small number of pottery vessels (Fig. 4) and in some cases few bronze objects, e.g. pins and personal ornaments such as beads and a belt element decorated with sea shells (Fig. 5) –, have been discovered.12 The grave goods recovered and three AMS radiocarbon determinations obtained from human bones from Graves 17, 21 and 26 (Table 1)13 allow us to date the use of the cemetery from the very beginning of the MBA I to the MBA IIA. Along the escarpment overlooking the northern lower city, three contemporary rock-cut shaft graves (Tombs I –III) had already been spotted by du Mesnil du Buisson (Fig. 2)14 and a fourth large – though unfortunately robbed or never used – one was identified by the Italian team during the
Calibrated determination Calibrated determination (68.2 %) (95.4 %)
Sample
CEDAD code
MSH03 H G 21
LTL2047A
3455 ± 50 BP
1785 ± 95 cal BC
1765 ± 135 cal BC
MSH03 H G 17
LTL2048A
3479 ± 45 BP
1810 ± 70 cal BC
1800 ± 120 cal BC
MSH03 H G 26
LTL2049A
3676 ± 35 BP
2060 ± 80 cal BC
2075 ± 125 cal BC
Determination
Table 1 AMS radiocarbon determinations of Graves 17, 21 and 26
9 10 11
MORANDI BONACOSSI in press a and b. See also MORANDI BONACOSSI in press b. The graves excavated by the Italian and German teams have been uncovered underneath Room CC of the Royal Palace (Figs. 2–3), where Graves 19 and 26 on the one hand and 25 on the other were later cut and disturbed by the foundation trenches of the room’s western and eastern walls and their draining shafts respectively, in the area of Rooms DA, CB, B, O, N and F, Hall C and in the region of Throne Room A, the western foundation wall of which cut and destroyed at least two adult burials. For the tombs excavated in Operation G by the German Mission (under Rooms B, N and O), cf. NOVÁK-PFÄLZNER 2002, 212–213. For the newborns and children jar burials discovered by the French excavators under Hall C and Room F and erroneously interpreted as remains of human sacrifices buried as foundation deposits during the construction of the Royal Palace, cf. DU MESNIL DU BUISSON 1928a, 8; Id. 1930, 149–152, figs. 1–2, pl. XXX:2; ID. 1935, 73 and pl. XVI (where jar burials have been indicated as dépôts de fondation and marked with an L). According to the
12
13
14
pottery drawings and descriptions published by du Mesnil, however, at least one of these burials can be dated to the EBA IV (DU MESNIL DU BUISSON 1930, 150–151, figs. 1–2, pls. XXX:2 and XXXII:3, second column from left) and tentatively interpreted as a jar grave interred under the floor of a house belonging to the third millennium residential quarter located in this area. Similar newborn baby or child burials have been recently discovered also by the Syrian team under the floors of EBA IV houses excavated under the southern part of the palace throne room (Operation R, prof. AlMaqdissi, personal communication). To these tombs the few jar burials excavated by du Mesnil du Buisson have to be added. Their exact number remains uncertain (only two can be traced with certainty in the Count’s publications; see DU MESNIL DU BUISSON 1930, 151–152). The datings were performed at the AMS Radiocarbon Dating and Ion Beam Analysis Facility of the University of Lecce. DU MESNIL DU BUISSON 1927, 13–22; DU MESNIL DU BUISSON 1928b, 81–82; DUSSAUD 1928, 132–138.
226 Daniele Morandi Bonacossi
Fig. 4 Vessels from grave G 16, male adult individual, Operation H (photo R. Ercolino)
Z
Fig. 5 Grave G 26, female mature adult individual buried with a bronze/copper ornamental belt element decorated with sea shells placed next to the ankle, Operation H (photo M. Merlino). The western part of the grave (top) has been cut by the foundation trench of Room CC's western wall
The Chronology of the Royal Palace of Qatna Revisited 227
Fig. 6 One of the MBA II walls of Operation H cut by the foundations of the Royal Palace (photo M.A. Giovinazzo)
2006 excavation campaign (shaft grave Tomb V; Figs. 2–3). The burial typology with central chamber and two or more lateral chambers and the variety of funerary gifts recovered, mainly pottery vessels and bronze weapons, show that we are dealing with graves belonging to the Qatnite elite. This evidence indicates that in the northern part of the acropolis, before the construction of the Royal Palace there was a large cemetery containing graves of members of the urban elite of Qatna, as well as individuals of lower social rank. As the AMS radiocarbon determinations indicate, this MB I–early MB II burial ground, which was later covered by the central and northern parts of the palace, seems to have been used for a long time and intensively, as is shown by the fact that – at least in some parts of the necropolis, such as in the case of the graves uncovered underneath Room CC of the palace – the burials were layered in several successive levels. During the late MBA II, the pottery factory on the summit of the acropolis was enlarged to the west and the monumental public building erect-
15
For a detailed discussion of this issue, see below.
ed at the very beginning of the second millennium lost its function due to the construction of new pottery kilns, which were dug into its walls. As far as we can say at present, the building was extensively demolished, possibly in order to rob its mud-bricks and reuse them somewhere else, as is shown by the presence of a large and imposing cut in the northern wall of the building that reaches down to its foundation. This massive wall, which was nearly 4 m thick and had foundations more than 6 m deep, was completely dismantled. Probably at the same time or slightly later, on top of the abandoned cemetery, the Royal Palace discovered by du Mesnil du Buisson was built.15 Its mud-bricks are identical with respect to size, colour and composition to the surviving mudbricks of the robbed monumental building on the summit of the acropolis, so it is possible that when the building went out of use due to the enlargement of the pottery factory, it was demolished and used as a mud-brick quarry for the construction of the new Royal Palace. Besides the graves of the necropolis, the palace
228 Daniele Morandi Bonacossi
Fig. 7 Schematic plan of the 'Lower City Palace', Operation K (drawing A. Savioli)
foundation system also cut a series of walls with a different orientation, parts of which survived in the northern part of Operation H and the northeastern part of Operation G (Fig. 6). These walls,
16
Immediately to the south of the Royal Palace a large silo pertaining to the same occupation horizon was excavated. The silo was later covered by a street running along
possibly belonging to one and the same building, were dated to the MBA II on the basis of the associated pottery and thus chronologically follow the MBA I–early MBA II cemetery.16
the southern palace façade and afterwards by the southern annexe to the Royal Palace (see below).
The Chronology of the Royal Palace of Qatna Revisited 229
system were concentrated, is here replaced by a decentralised pattern, in which the different functions of power were distributed in several official buildings located in the vast acropolis region around the Royal Palace, which, however, remained the focus of the royal dynasty’s authority. 2. THE ROYAL PALACE OF QATNA AND THE PROBLEM OF THE DATING OF ITS FOUNDATION
The seven campaigns carried out by the joint Syrian-Italian-German project have greatly increased our understanding of the general layout of the monumental royal palace (Fig. 2), which covered an area of about 1.5 ha and was composed of the following parts:
Fig. 8 Schematic plan of the monumental Residence, Operation C (from AL-MAQDISSI & MORANDI BONACOSSI 2005, fig. p. 20)
During the MB/LB transition, roughly in the same period in which the Royal Palace was erected, the ‘Lower City Palace’ of Operation K (Figs. 1 and 7),17 the monumental residence of Operation C (Fig. 8),18 and a large public building identified during the 2006 excavation campaign immediately to the east of the Operation H Royal Palace were also built. These radical modifications of the urban and functional layout of the Qatna acropolis – with the emergence, as, for example, in Ugarit, of a hub of official buildings of palatial character sited on the acropolis – indicate that during the MB/LB transition the city’s central core shifted from the acropolis summit, where the MBA I and II public building and its pottery manufactory were located, to an area to the north and west of these, which was previously peripheral in character and occupied only by a large cemetery. The “nuclear” model of Mesopotamian tradition based on a single large palace in which the residential and political functions and those of control and economic interface of the redistributive
17 18
19
LUCIANI 2003, 146–157. AL-MAQDISSI 2003a, 1500–1505; AL-MAQDISSI 2003b, 235– 239; AL-MAQDISSI and MORANDI BONACOSSI 2005, 20–21. The possibility cannot be excluded, however, that Hall C was a porticoed courtyard rather than an entirely roofed colonnaded hall.
– a vast and imposing ceremonial sector, characterised by a reception suite with a plan reminiscent of Old Babylonian palace architectural schemes, consisting of the originally roofed square Audience Hall C,19 which covered the remarkable area of 1300 m2, and two reception halls: a smaller room (Hall B) and the larger Hall A, measuring 41 × 20 m, which was probably the actual throne room of the palace.20 – Two service wings, one to the north of the ceremonial sector and the other to the east of it. The eastern wing was distinguished by a triple row of rooms numbering at least 35 in total, many of which must have been large storage rooms as suggested by their elongated rectangular plan. – A possible upper storey in the northeastern part of the palace, where the royal living quarters may have been located. The existence of an upper storey may be inferred from the massive thickness of the foundation walls in this region of the architectural complex and the presence of what seems to have been a stairwell next to the north-eastern corner of the throne room (Room AF). This stairwell with a central mudbrick core, which probably supported flights of stairs, would have allowed the king direct access from the quarters located on the first storey of the palace to the throne room. The location of the staircase also allows us to hypothesize that
20
NOVÁK and PFÄLZNER 2003; BARRO 2002, 112, 116–117; BARRO 2003, 83–85; MIGLUS 2004, 257; see also, more recently, MARCHETTI 2006, 282–283.
230 Daniele Morandi Bonacossi the royal throne may have been situated against the throne room’s northern wall, where a large buttress projects from the wall face. – A karst well in the north-western part of the complex, which was located ca. 20 m below the level of the floors and guaranteed the palace water supply.21 The well, which is currently under investigation by the German Mission, was reached by means of monumental flights of basalt stairs; – The royal hypogeum, which may have been directly linked by an underground passageway to the throne room.22 – Finally, in a later stage, during the LBA I, important renovation work was carried out in the Royal Palace, with the modification of the building’s plan through the addition of an annexe beyond the southern palace wall. This annexe, which consisted of at least ten new rooms, abutted the original southern façade of the Royal Palace, thereby cutting a sequence of four outdoor surfaces, most probably streets, which had been laid against the southern façade of the building (Fig. 9). Although the overall layout of the palace, the function of the different sectors of the palace and its destruction date around the mid-fourteenth century BC are by now clear,23 the foundation date of this impressive architectural complex is still a matter of debate. During recent campaigns the Italian Mission has focused its investigations in the palace area on the chronol-
ogy issue, carrying out to this end an ample programme of localised excavations in the southern annexe and several foundation trenches of the Royal Palace walls. The first excavator, Count du Mesnil du Buisson, suggested that the Royal Palace was constructed during the late third/early second millennium BC,24 whilst recently a date during the MB I/MB II transition – that is during the Mari period – has been proposed by Dardaillon,25 Novák and Pfälzner,26 and in particular by Novák in a comprehensive article that appeared in the 2004 issue of Egypt and the Levant.27 Marchetti, in a recent comparative study of the Middle Bronze Age public architecture of Tilmen Höyük, favours a MBA II date for the construction of Qatna’s Royal Palace, whilst avoiding an extensive discussion of the chronology problem.28 Novák’s arguments for an earlier date for the construction of the palace during the Mari period are essentially three and rely upon architectural, ceramic and glyptic considerations. 1. The architectural evidence.29 As stated above, the central ceremonial wing – consisting of a large roofed hall or courtyard with a portico together with a reception suite and the actual throne room – shows striking similarities with Courtyard 106 and Rooms 64 and 65 of the Mari palace and other Old Babylonian residential buildings.30 2. The ceramic evidence.31 MBA I pottery and MBA I/MBA II transitional ceramic diagnostics
Archaeological features in Operations G and H
Stratigraphy
Relative Chronology
Domestic settlement levels
Phase 16
EBA IV A–B
Necropolis
Phase 15
MBA I–MBA IIA
Various architectural structures (silo, building)
Phase 14
MBA IIB
Royal Palace
Phase 13
Late MBA II or MB–LB transition
Table 2 Summary of the Operations G and H stratigraphic sequence for the mid-third–mid-second millennium BC
21 22
23
24 25
NOVÁK and PFÄLZNER 2003, 138. AL-MAQDISSI, DOHMANN-PFÄLZNER, PFÄLZNER, SULEIMAN 2003; NOVÁK and PFÄLZNER 2003, 139–140. On the destruction of the palace, see NOVÁK and PFÄLZNER 2003, 134–135; NOVÁK 2004, 313–315. DU MESNIL DU BUISSON 1935, 39. DARDAILLON 2000, 70.
26 27 28 29 30
31
NOVÁK and PFÄLZNER 2002, 244 and 2003, 133–134. NOVÁK 2004, 311. MARCHETTI 2006, 282. NOVÁK 2004, 301–306. Such as, for example, the Larsa palace and the Ibal-piEl palace at Tell Asmar. NOVÁK 2004, 306–309.
The Chronology of the Royal Palace of Qatna Revisited 231
Fig. 9 Detail of one of the sequence of streets abutting the original southern façade of the Royal Palace and cut by the later (LBA I) palace annexe, Operation H (photo G. Garna)
Fig. 10 The MB/LB transitional silo sealed by a street abutting the palace S façade. The silo cuts an underlying EBA IVB mud-brick granary. Operation H (photo G. Garna)
232 Daniele Morandi Bonacossi were found in the fills of the palace foundation trenches. 3. The glyptic evidence.32 Clay sealings with impressions of Classical Old Syrian seals were recovered from palace foundation trench fills and the debris of collapsed rooms.
cut and partially destroyed the walls of this building proves that it predated the palace, which subsequently covered it. Secondly, the diagnostic sherds found on the surface of four successive streets running along the original southern palace façade, which abutted it and were later cut by the southern palace annexe together with the pottery recovered from the deposits covering the street surfaces, can be dated to the late MBA II and the LBA I. These streets sealed a circular silo containing late MBA II and some MB/LB transitional pottery diagnostics. The silo was dug in an EBA IVB building, probably a granary (Fig. 10). At least in this part of the northern acropolis plateau, therefore, a break in the stratigraphic sequence can be observed between the EBA IVB and the late MBA II. This seems to fit very well with the presence immediately to the north of this area of the large MBA I–early MBA II necropolis already mentioned. Thus, the only chronological window left open by the stratigraphic evidence for the construction of the Royal Palace (which overlay and to a significant extent destroyed these earlier features) is situated between the late MBA II and the MBA/LBA transition. From a strictly archaeological perspective, no possibility exists to move up the foundation phase of the palace complex back to the MBA I/MBA II transition or, as the AMS radiocarbon determinations of the last two graves of the cemetery indicate, to the early MBA II. But let us now review more thoroughly the three main arguments put forward by Novák in his article to support the earlier date during the MBA I/MBA II transition, during the Mari period, for the construction of the palace.
According to Novák, an analysis of the typological characteristics of the palace plan together with the ceramic and glyptic materials found make it possible to date the construction of the building to the MBA I/MBA II transition. However, the evaluation of these and other lines of evidence from a stratigraphic perspective within the framework of our excavation project, which was designed to clarify the chronology of this monumental complex, leads to a different conclusion. To begin with, let us see what the stratigraphy of Operations G and H – which is summarised in Table 2 – actually tells. Firstly, the MBA I–MBA IIA cemetery described above provides us with an extremely important terminus post quem for the construction of the Royal Palace, which covered and to a large extent destroyed it. The palace can only have been built after the abandonment of this burial area, and probably not before a certain span of time had elapsed, since one can hardly imagine that a palace would have been built directly above a funerary area immediately after its abandonment, when its presence would still have been alive in the population’s social and religious awareness. In this perspective it may be useful to call to mind that the latest grave of the cemetery was radiocarbon dated to 1765 ± 135 cal BC (95.4 % or 1785 ± 95 cal BC, 68.2 %). Furthermore, as stated above, the Royal Palace also cut the walls of a substantial MBA II building of unknown layout and function (Fig. 6), which was located in the northern parts of Operations G and H. Unfortunately no direct stratigraphic relationship between the tombs of the necropolis and this building’s walls could be detected. However, the pottery assemblage found in the foundation trenches of these walls and on a fragmentary floor related to the building made it possible to date its construction to the MBA II, after the abandonment of the cemetery. Moreover, the fact that the Royal Palace foundations
1. The typological similarities linking the ceremonial wing of the Qatna palace with those of the Mari palace and other official buildings of the Old Babylonian period are striking indeed. However, the same architectural scheme, with a courtyard or hall and two reception rooms continued, to be used in Northern Mesopotamia and Syria during the following LBA, as is clearly shown by the Nuzi palace33 and the palace of Adad-nirari I in Assur,34 dating to the 15th–14th centuries and to the 13th century BC respectively, not to mention
32
34
33
NOVÁK 2004, 310–311. STARR 1937, pl. 13.
PREUSSER 1955, pl. 4.
The Chronology of the Royal Palace of Qatna Revisited 233
the later destination of this architectural formula in the Niqmepa palace of Alalakh IV35 and the small Area A hilani-palace of Emar,36 which already anticipate the classic Neo Syrian hilani. The typological principle seems therefore not to be relevant to the dating of the construction of the Royal Palace, at least not as a fine chronological marker.
1
2
2. As stressed by Novák, EBA IV, MBA I and II ceramic diagnostics are present in the fills of the palace foundation trenches. However, in the fills of 9 undisturbed foundation trenches of the eastern part of the Royal Palace (from 17 such excavated by the Italian Mission), besides EBA and MBA I and II types, late MBA II sherds and MBA II–LBA I transitional shapes were found as well (Fig. 11). Many of the transitional MB–LB pottery types remained in use also during the following LBA I (Fig. 12). Among the MBA II types, some diagnostics are typical of the late MBA II.37 For example, the large and shallow bowl with hammer-like rim and high carination finds good parallels at MBA II B Hadidi (Fig. 11:1).38 Several types can be attributed to a late MBA II– LBA I transitional horizon, which, thanks to recent studies, can now be considered relatively well defined.39 To this group belong the bowls with inturned rim folded downwards and slightly concave walls (Fig. 11:2), which are paralleled by examples from Qitar,40 and the bowls with straight walls (Fig. 11:3) attested also at late MBA II–LBA I Hadidi.41 The jars with upright out-turned rounded (Fig. 11:4) or squared rim with incised lines above the shoulder (Fig. 11:5) correspond to Type B(i) of Nebi Mend, which is widely attested in Trench I, Area 200,42 whilst the jars with down-turned square rim (Fig. 11:6) parallel the Nebi Mend Type D jars and specimens from Qitar and Umm al-Marra.43 From the fills of the palace foundation trenches also diagnostics which are distinctive of the late MBA II–LBA I transitional horizon and the LBA I period as well were recovered. Small bowls with
inturned simple rim and concave walls (Fig. 12:1) and shallow bowls with upright pointed rim (Fig. 12:2–3) are very frequent also in the LBA I levels of Hadidi44 and Qitar, Munbaqah, Emar, Hadidi
35
39
36 37
38
WOOLLEY 1955. MARGUERON 1979. I am indebted to M. Da Ros and M. Iamoni who kindly discussed with me the ceramic material recovered from the palace foundations and provided typological comparisons. DORNEMANN 1992, fig. 3:6 (BI.48.113).
3
4
5
6
Fig. 11 Late MBA II and MBA II–LBA I transitional ceramic diagnostics from the foundation trenches of the Royal Palace
40 41 42 43
44
See BOURKE 1993; IAMONI 2007. MCCLELLAN 1986, 95, fig. 7:9. DORNEMANN 1981, 43, fig. 13:6. BOURKE 1993, 168, fig. 10:5. BOURKE 1993, 173, fig. 16:6–7; CULICAN and MCCLELLAN 1984, fig. 7:a; TEFNIN 1983, 151, fig. 4:17. DORNEMANN 1981, 43, fig. 13:24.
234 Daniele Morandi Bonacossi
Fig. 12 Late MBA II and MBA II–LBA I transitional ceramic diagnostics from the foundation trenches of the Royal Palace
(‘Tablet Building’), Alalakh IV, and Beirut (Glacis I) respectively.45 Documented are also bowls with straight walls and rounded rim (Fig. 12:4),46 shallow or deep carinated bowls with beaded rim (Figs. 12:5–6),47 large bowls with hammer-like rim (Fig. 12:7),48 and deep bowls with straight walls decorated
with incised lines under the beaded rim (Fig. 12:8).49 Among the jars very characteristic are the ridged and narrow necked jars with down-turned triangular rim (Fig. 12:9), which are very common in LBA I levels at Nebi Mend, Qitar and Umm alMarra,50 the narrow necked jars with upright trian-
45
47
46
MCCLELLAN 1984–1985, 47, fig. 5:13; FEYTER 1989, pl. 6:8, 11; FINKBEINER et alii 2001, fig. 9:f; DORNEMANN 1981, fig. 10:5; WOOLLEY 1955, pl. 109:3a; BADRE 1997, fig. 23:11. The bowls with pointed rim remained in use until the end of the LBA II, as is indicated by finds made at Afis (Area E1, level 9c; VENTURI 1998, fig. 5:8). Parallels are known from Hadidi; see DORNEMANN 1981, 43, fig. 13:23.
48
49
50
Comparable bowls were found at Hadidi; see DORNEMANN 1981, 43, fig. 13:29. This type is attested also at Qitar; see MCCLELLAN 1984–1985, 50, 53, fig. 6:4. A similar specimen was found at Hama G (Carré I 10); see FUGMANN 1958, fig. 143 (O 487). BOURKE 1993, 185, fig. 22:3, 5; MCCLELLAN 1986, 98, fig. 9:2; TEFNIN 1983, 151, fig. 4:4.
The Chronology of the Royal Palace of Qatna Revisited 235
gular rim (Fig. 12:10), well documented in contemporary contexts at Nebi Mend and Umm alMarra,51 and the necked jars with expanded rim (Fig. 12:11) that during the LBA I are preferred to the double rim jars of MBA tradition,52 which, however, continue to be produced in this period also at Hadidi and Afis (Fig. 12:12).53 Ceramic diagnostics of the type described above were also discovered in the foundation trench of the northern throne room wall, within a context sealed by the room’s thick mortar floor – i.e. in the ceremonial wing which was the actual core of the Royal Palace and cannot have been added to the complex in a later stage. Moreover, these pottery types are attested in over 50% of the excavated foundation trenches and some of them were incorporated in the levelling layers of small-sized stones, which were identified during the 2006 excavation campaign in the brickwork of the northern section of the eastern palace wall foundation. The above-discussed diagnostics, which have been recovered also by the Syrian team from the foundation trenches of the southern part of the throne room,54 provide us with a clear terminus ante quem non for the construction of the Royal Palace.
3. Finally, the clay sealings with impressions of cylinder seals carved in a fine Classical Old Syrian style discussed by Novák were not recovered from strictly in situ contexts, but mainly from foundation trench fills, or from elsewhere in the palace foundation system or the debris of collapsed rooms.55 During the 2005 excavation campaign, an important find was made in the fill of the southern foundation trench of Room T, in the eastern wing of the Royal Palace: 74 fragments of clay sealings – mainly door sealings – were recovered.56 All sealings bore fine Classical Old Syrian cylinder seal impressions with figurative decorations. Among them one group is particularly interesting. It is a collection of nine fragments of clay door sealings – to which a further incomplete sealing recovered in 2002 from a different context in Operation H may be added – bearing the impression of the same royal cylinder seal with a guilloche pattern and cuneiform legend (Fig. 13a–b). The inscription indicates that our sealing fragments were rolled with a seal belonging to Ishhi-Addu, the first known king of Qatna. The sealings represent, therefore, the first royal inscription found at Qatna and the first epi-
a)
b)
Fig. 13 Photograph (a) and drawing (b; scale 1:1) of one of the clay sealings with impression of Ishhi-Addu’s royal seal (photo R. Ercolino, drawing S. Tinazzo)
51 52 53
54
BOURKE 1993, 185, fig. 22:11; TEFNIN 1983, 151, fig. 4:11. See Afis, Area E1, level 14; MAZZONI 1998, 37, fig. 26:17. DORNEMANN 1981, 45, fig. 15:14; MAZZONI 1998, 37, fig. 26:19–20. AL-MAQDISSI 2003a, 1510–1513, figs. 19–21.
55
56
This issue is extensively discussed by MORANDI BONACOSSI and EIDEM 2006 on the basis of the published evidence from Operations G and H. MORANDI BONACOSSI and EIDEM 2006.
236 Daniele Morandi Bonacossi graphic document mentioning Ishhi-Addu found outside Mari – specifically at Qatna itself. Apart from the obvious relevance that these and other sealings excavated by the Italian and German teams in the foundations of Qatna’s Royal Palace have in relation to the definition of the Classical Old Syrian glyptics from Qatna,57 after the first attempt on the part of Adelheid Otto to define a Qatna ‘Hofstil’,58 the crucial importance of this well-dated group of sealings lies in its significance as a chronological indicator for the dating of the construction of Qatna’s Royal Palace. All these sealing fragments, together with others recovered from different parts of Operation H and other material, such as a late XIII Dynasty faience or frit scarab,59 the stone vessel fragment with the name of the XII Dynasty Pharaoh Sesostris I60 and a Mari period tablet,61 were found in secondary contexts, that is in the fills of trenches or in the mud-brick work belonging to the palace foundation system, and were therefore bureaucratic and administrative items which had already been discarded at the time when the palace was built. In other words, they represent secondary refuse disposal, that is exhausted material which had been deliberately redeposited in another location.62 They are, like the cemetery discussed above, another clear terminus post quem for the foundation of the Royal Palace. All these lines of evidence – stratigraphy, pottery, and glyptics – point to the conclusion that Qatna’s Royal Palace can only have been built after the Mari period, roughly during the termi-
nal MBAII or the MB/LB transition, and therefore cannot have been the residence of IshhiAddu and Amud-pî-El, kings of Qatna. A final point which may be significant for our chronological issue regards the two royal statues flanking the entrance to the Royal Hypogeum excavated by the German team under the palace.63 They show remarkable stylistic and ichonographic similarities to the so-called head of ‘Yarim-Lim’ of Aleppo from the palace of Alalakh VII, which actually probably represents one of the kings of Alalakh in person.64 On the basis of the analysis of the pottery assemblage it is widely agreed that Alalakh VII represents a terminal phase of the MBA II, which can be compared with Hadidi IIC, Ougarit Moyen II–3 and Mardikh III B2.65 Alalakh VII and Mardikh III B2 were destroyed by the Old Hittite kings Hattushili I and Murshili I respectively.66 From historical data, it is clear that Hattushili’s campaigns date to slightly before Murshili’s conquest of Babylon.67 Using the Middle Chronology, this would place the destruction of Alalakh VII around 1600 or slightly earlier and according to the Low Chronology around 1575 BC.68 According to the Middle Chronology, therefore, YarimLim’s head can be dated to the 17th century BC – probably in the second part of the century – together with the statues from the Royal Hypogeum at Qatna. As Novák correctly remarks in his article, “these statues mark the foundation of the royal tomb and also of the palace”.69 The royal statues
57
62
58 59 60 61
For a preliminary presentation of the seals and clay sealings found by the German team in Operation G and other Classical Old Syrian clay sealing fragments from Operation H, see NOVÁK and PFÄLZNER 2001, 185–190; ELSEN-NOVÁK 2002; BARRO 2003, 87, 92, fig. 15; NOVÁK 2004, 310–311. OTTO 2000, 145–148. MORANDI BONACOSSI and EIDEM 2006, note 10. ROCCATI 2002. BARRO 2003, 86–87; EIDEM 2003, 164–165. Barro, however, erroneously refers to the tablet as having been found at the junction between two walls, one of which was added in a later phase (cf. BARRO 2003, 87, note 48). A verification of this excavation context carried out in 2005 has proven beyond any doubt that the tablet fragments were incorporated in the mud mortar binding two different mud-brick courses of one and the same wall and not in the junction between an earlier and a later wall as originally supposed.
63 64 65
66
67
68 69
CAMERON and TOMKA 1996. NOVÁK and PFÄLZNER 2003, 156–162. ORTHMANN 1985, fig. 400. GATES 1987 and 2000; HEINZ 1992, 188; NIGRO 2002, 111; PINNOCK 2005, 131, 135. MATTHIAE 1995, 94. According to the Epos der Freilassung, a Hittite-Hurrian bilingual epic text recently discovered at Boghazköy, a Hurrian prince of Ninive allied with Murshili I, Pizzikarra, was materially responsible for the fall of Ebla ordered by the god Teshub (NEU 1996, 20; PINNOCK 2005, 136). KEMPINSKI 1997, 328; BECKMAN 2000; MICHEL and ROCHER 1997–2000; WILHELM 2004; PRUZINSKY 2005 and 2006; MAEIR 2006. GATES 1987; HEINZ 1992; MAEIR 2006. NOVÁK 2004, 311.
The Chronology of the Royal Palace of Qatna Revisited 237
represent another piece of evidence which further supports a foundation of the palace at the earliest during the terminal MBA II or, as the overall archaeological evidence indicates, during the MB/LB transition, long after the Mari period. This new date for the erection of Qatna’s Royal Palace poses, of course, a new question:
Where was the royal palace from which IshhiAddu and Amud-pî-El sent their letters to Shamshi-Adad, Yasmah-Addu and later ZimriLim? Certainly not under the subsequent Royal Palace, since no significant earlier monumental architecture was found under its foundations. This is an exciting new question which will be addressed by future research in the field.
Bibliography AL-MAQDISSI, M.
BUNIMOVITZ, S.
2003a Recherches archéologiques syriennes à MishirfehQatna au nord-est de Homs (Émèse), CRAI, 1487–1515.
1992
2003b Ergebnisse der siebten und achten syrischen Grabungskampagne 2001 und 2002 in MishrifeQatna, MDOG 135, 219–245.
1996
AL-MAQDISSI, M., DOHMANN-PFÄLZNER, H., PFÄLZNER, P., SULEIMAN, A.
2007
2003
CAMERON, C.M., TOMKA, S.A. (eds.)
Das königliche Hypogäum von Qatna, MDOG 135, 189–218. The Metropolis of the Orontes. Art and Archaeology from the Ancient Kingdom of Qatna. Seven Years of SyrianItalian Collaboration at Mishrifeh/Qatna, Damascus.
BADRE, L. 1997
Bey 003 Preliminary Report. Excavations of the American University of Beirut Museum 1993–1996, BAAL 2, 6–94.
BARRO, A. 2002
2003
Operation H, in: M. AL-MAQDISSI et al. (eds.), Excavating Qatna I. Preliminary Report on the 1999 and 2000 Campaigns of the Joint Syrian-Italian-German Archaeological Research Project at Tell Mishrifeh, EQ 1, Damascus, 111–122. Rediscovering “Le Palais”: New Data from the Royal Palace of Qatna (Operation H) , 78–96, in: D. MORANDI BONACOSSI et al., Tell Mishrifeh/ Qatna 1999–2002. A Preliminary Report of the Italian Component of the Joint Syrian-Italian-German Project, Akkadica 124/1.
BECKMAN, G. 2000 1997
CREMASCHI, M., MORANDI BONACOSSI, D., VALSECCHI, V.
CULICAN, W., MCCLELLAN, TH.L. 1984
2000 DE
Quelques remarques sur le complexe palatial de Qatna, Syria 77, 69–94.
FEYTER, T.
1989
The Aussenstadt settlement of Munbaqa, Syria, in: O. HAEX (ed.), To the Euphrates and Beyond, FS M.N. van Loon, Rotterdam, 237–256.
DORNEMANN, R.H. 1981
The Late Bronze Age Pottery Tradition at Tell Hadidi, Syria, BASOR 241, 29–47.
1992
Early Second Millennium Ceramic Parallels between Tell Hadidi-Azu and Mari, 77–112, in: G.D. YOUNG (ed.), Mari in Retrospect. Fifty Years of Mari and Mari Studies, Winona Lake.
II Millennium Ebla Kings, RA 91, 33–38. The Transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age in Syria: The evidence from Tell Nebi Mend, Levant 25, 155–195.
El-Qitar: First Season of Excavation, Abr-Nahrain 22, 29–63.
DARDAILLON, E.
BOURKE, S. J. 1993
The Lake of Qatna: A Geoarchaeological Study of the Bronze Age Capital, in: D. MORANDI BONACOSSI (ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference “Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital. Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in Central-Western Syria”, Udine, 9–11 December 2004, Udine.
in press Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/ Qatna and Its Region. A Preliminary Reconstruction, in: R. EICHMANN, H. KÜHNE, B. SALJE (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Berlin.
Hittite Chronology, Akkadica 119–120, 19–32.
BONECHI, M.
Abandonment of Settlements and Regions. Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches, Cambridge.
CREMASCHI, M.
AL-MAQDISSI, M., MORANDI BONACOSSI, D. 2005
The Middle Bronze Age Fortifications in Palestine as a Social Phenomenon, Tel Aviv 19, 221–234.
DU
MESNIL DU BUISSON, R.
1927
Les ruines d’el-Mishrifé au Nord-Est de Homs (Émèse), Syria 8, 13–33.
238 Daniele Morandi Bonacossi 1928a L’ancienne Qatna ou les ruines d’el-Mishrifé au N.-E. de Homs (Émèse). Deuxième campagne de fouilles (1927), 2e article, Syria 9, 6–24. 1928b L’ancienne Qatna ou les ruines d’el-Mishrifé au N.-E. de Homs (Émèse). Deuxième campagne de fouilles (1927), 3e article, Syria 9, 81–89.
New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, Philadelphia. KÜHNE, C. 1998
Meki, Megum und Mekum/Mekim, 311–322, in: S. ISREcEL et al. (eds.), Past Links. Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake.
1930
Compte rendu de la quatrième campagne de fouilles a Mishrifé-Qatna, Syria 11, 146–163.
LUCIANI, M.
1935
Le site archéologique de Mishrifé-Qatna, Paris.
2003
DUSSAUD, R. 1928
Observations sur la céramique du IIe millénaire avant notre ère, Syria 9, 131–150.
EIDEM, J. 2003
The Cuneiform Tablets, Akkadica 124, 164–167.
ELSEN-NOVÁK, G. 2002
2001
MAEIR, A.M. 2006
Die altsyrische Glyptik aus Qatna. Eine erste Einordnung, MDOG 134, 257–274.
FINKBEINER, U. et alii Emar 1999. Bericht über die 3. Kampagne der syrisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen, BaM 32, 41–144. The Middle Bronze Age ‘Fortifications’: A Reflection of Social Organization and Political Formation, Tel Aviv 19, 201–220.
FUGMANN, E. 1958
Hama. Fouilles et recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg 1931–1938, II. L’architecture des périodes pré-hellénistiques, Copenhague.
GATES, M.H. 1987
2000
Alalakh and Chronology Again, 60–86, in: P. ÅSTRÖM (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenborg 20th–22nd August 1987, Gothenburg. Kinet Höyük (Hatay, Turkey) and MB Levantine Chronology, Akkadica 119–120, 77–101.
2006
Tell Atchana/Alalakh. Die Schichten VII–XVII, AOAT 41, Neukirchen-Vluyn.
IAMONI, M. 2007
Transition or Shift? The LBA in Central Western Syria and its Possible Genesis in the MBA from the Perspective of Qatna, unpublished PhD dissertation, Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Cambridge.
1979
1998
The Dawn of Internationalism. The Middle Bronze Age, 297–319, in: TH.E. LEVY (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, London and Washington.
KEMPINSKI, A. 1997
The Hyksos: A View from Northern Canaan and Syria, 327–334, in: E.D. OREN (ed.), The Hyksos:
Un “khilani” à Emar?, AASOR 44, 153–176.
MATTHIAE, P. 1995
Fasi storiche e cronologia archeologica, 86–95, in: P. MATTHIAE, F. PINNOCK, G. SCANDONE MATTHIAE (eds.), Ebla. Alle origini della civiltà urbana, Milano.
1997
Tell Mardikh, 1977–1996: Vingt ans de fouilles et de découvertes. La renaissance d’Ebla amorrheenne, Akkadica 101, 1–29.
MCCLELLAN, TH.L. 1984–85 El-Qitar: Second Season of 1983–1984, Abr-Nahrain 23, 39–72. 1986
Excavations,
El-Qitar: Third Season of Excavations, 1984–1985, Abr-Nahrain 24, 83–106.
MICHEL, C., ROCHER, P. 1997–2000 La chronologie du début du IIe millénaire revue à l’ombre d’une éclipse de soleil, JEOL 35–36, 1997–2000, 111–126. MIGLUS, P. 2004
Palast. B. Archäologisch, RlA 10/3–4, 233–276.
MORANDI BONACOSSI, D. 2007
ILAN, D.
Middle Bronze Age Public Architecture at Tilmen Höyük and the Architectural Tradition of Old Syrian Palaces, 275–308, in: F. BAFFI et al. (eds.), Ina Kibrat Erbetti. Studi di Archeologia orientale dedicati a Paolo Matthiae, Roma.
MARGUERON, J.-C.
HEINZ, M. 1992
Is the Middle Chronology Dead? (Or are they all?), Lecture given at the Middle Bronze Age Study Group Meeting, www.biu.ac.il/JS/le/mb/ ABSTRACTS.htm
MARCHETTI, N.
FINKELSTEIN, I. 1992
The Lower City of Qatna in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: Operation K, 144–163, in: D. MORANDI BONACOSSI et al., Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna 1999–2002. A Preliminary Report of the Italian Component of the Joint Syrian-Italian-German Project, Akkadica 124/2.
Tell Mishrifeh and its Region During The EBA IV and the EBA–MBA Transition. A First Assessment, in: P. PARR (ed.), The Levant in Transition – the Intermediate Early Bronze Age, London.
in press a Large-scale Pottery Production at Middle Bronze Age Qatna, in: J.-C. MARGUERON, P. de MIROSCHEDJI, J.-P. THALMANN (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Paris.
The Chronology of the Royal Palace of Qatna Revisited 239
in press b The Acropolis of Tell Mishrifeh During the Second and First Millennia BC. Preliminary Results of the Work of the Italian Component of the Syrian-Italian-German Project at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna, in: R. EICHMANN, H. KÜHNE, B. SALJE, (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Berlin. MORANDI BONACOSSI, D., EIDEM, J. 2006
La ceramica del Palazzo Settentrionale del Bronzo Medio II, Materiali e Studi Archeologici di Ebla VI, Roma.
PREUSSER, C. 1955
Die Paläste in Assur, WVDOG 66, Berlin.
PRUZINSKY, R. 2005
Ein bibliographischer Wegweiser zur absoluten mesopotamischen Chronologie des 2. Jts. v. Chr., Ä&L 15, 181–202.
2006
Šamši-Adads I. „neue“ Regierungsdaten und assyrische Distanzangaben, 73–79, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN, A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, OLA 149.3, Leuven.
A Royal Seal of Ishhi Addu, King of Qatna, Akkadica 127/1, 2006, 1–17.
NEU, V.E. 1996
PINNOCK, F. 2005
Das hurritische Epos der Freilassung, I. Untersuchungen zu einem hurritisch-hethitischen Textensemble aus Hattusha, Wiesbaden.
NIGRO, L.
ROCCATI, A.
2002
2002
The Middle Bronze Age Pottery Horizon of Northern Inner Syria on the Basis of the Stratified Assemblages of Tell Mardikh and Hama, 97–128, in: M. AL-MAQDISSI, V. MATOÏAN, and CH. NICOLLE (eds.), Céramique de l’Âge du Bronze en Syrie, I, Beyrouth.
NOVÁK, M. 2004
The Chronology of the Royal Palace of Qatna, Ä&L 14, 299–317.
SCHNEIDER, TH. 2002
NOVÁK, M., PFÄLZNER, P., 2001
2002
2003
Ausgrabungen in Tall Mišrife / Qatna 2000. Vorbericht der deutschen Komponente des internationalen Projektes, MDOG 133, 157–198. Ausgrabungen in Tall Mišrife / Qatna 2001. Vorbericht der deutschen Komponente des internationalen Projektes, MDOG 134, 207–246. Ausgrabungen im bronzezeitlichen Palast von Tall Mišrife / Qatna 2002. Vorbericht der deutschen Komponente des internationalen Kooperationsprojektes, MDOG 135, 131–145. Der alte Orient, Berlin.
OTTO, A. 2000
1937
2007
Natural and Cultural Aspects of the Development of the Marl Landscape East of Lake Qatina During the Bronze and Iron Ages, in: D. MORANDI BONACOSSI (ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference “Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital. Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in Central-Western Syria”, Udine, 9–11 December 2004, Udine.
Nuzi. Report on the Excavations at Yorgan Tepe Near Kirkuk, Iraq, 1927–1931, Cambridge Mass.
TEFNIN, R. 1983
Aperçu sur neuf campagnes de fouilles belges aux Tell Abu Danne et Oumm el-Marra (1975–1983), AAAS 33/2, 141–152.
TONIETTI, M.V. 1997
Le cas de Mekum: continuité ou innovation dans la tradition éblaite entre IIIè et IIè millénaires?, M.A.R.I. 8, 225–242.
VENTURI, F. 1998
Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der KlassischSyrischen Glyptik, Berlin-New York.
PHILIP, G.
Sinuhes Notiz über die Könige. Syrisch-anatolische Herrschertitel in ägyptischer Überlieferung, Ä&L 12, 257–272.
STARR, R.F.S.
ORTHMANN, W. 1985
A Stone Fragment Inscribed with Names of Sesotris I Discovered at Qatna, 173–174, in: M. ALMAQDISSI, M. LUCIANI, D. MORANDI BONACOSSI, M. NOVÁK, P. PFÄLZNER (eds.), Excavating Qatna, I. Preliminary Report on the 1999 and 2000 Campaigns of the Joint Syrian-Italian-German Archaeological Research Project at Tell Mishrifeh, Damascus.
The Late Bronze II and Early Iron I Levels, in: S.M. Cecchini, S. Mazzoni (eds.), Tell Afis (Siria). Scavi sull’acropoli 1988–1992, Pisa, 123–162.
WILHELM, G. 2004
Generation Count in Hittite Chronology, 71–79, in: H. HUNGER and R. PRUZSINSZKY (eds.), Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited. Proceedings of an International Conference of SCIEM 2000, Vienna 8th–9tth November 2002, Wien.
WOOLLEY, C.L. 1955
Alalakh. An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–1949, London.
DIE SYNCHRONISIERUNG DER NÖRDLICHEN LEVANTE UND KILIKIENS MIT DER ÄGÄISCHEN SPÄTBRONZEZEIT Von Tobias Mühlenbruch
Im Rahmen des Spezialforschungsbereiches „Die Synchronisierung der Hochkulturen im östlichen Mittelmeerraum im 2. Jahrtausend vor Christus” (kurz: SCIEM 2000) der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (ÖAW) beim Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung (FWF) soll die ägäische Spätbronzezeit1 Südgriechenlands, die mykenische Kultur, über die Importkeramik an der nördlichen Levante – Syrien und Libanon sowie Kilikien – relativ- und absolutchronologisch mit dem Vorderen Orient verbunden werden. Der Antrag für dieses Vorhaben wurde von Reinhard Jung gestellt, dem mein Dank für die Überlassung des Projektes gilt.2 Auf seinem Exposé3 beruhen auch Teile der folgenden Projektbeschreibung. Zahlreiche Ausgrabungen in Syrien und im Libanon sowie im türkischen Kilikien erbrachten mykenische Importfunde, primär Keramik4 und Figurinen. Das vorzustellende Projekt macht sich die chronologische Relevanz der mykenischen Keramik zunutze, um zu einer Synchronisierung der nördlichen Levante und Kilikiens mit dem Gebiet der mykenischen Kultur in der zweiten Hälfte des 2. Jahrtausends vor Christus zu gelangen. Dabei sollen die stratifizierten Importe und ihre lokalen Nachahmungen aus geschlossenen Fundkontexten im Untersuchungsgebiet mit der Keramiktypologie Südgriechenlands in Verbindung gebracht werden, die dort hauptsächlich durch stratifizierte Siedlungsschichten abgesichert ist. Über die historischen Schriftzeugnisse des Vorderen Orients und Ägyptens ist anschließend die
*
1
2
Institut für Altertumswissenschaften, Seminar für Urund Frühgeschichte, Heidelberg Der Begriff „Spätbronzezeit” wird von mir in Anlehnung an die für Südgriechenland übliche Terminologie verwendet. Manfred Bietak, dem Ersten Sprecher des SCIEM 2000Projektes, gilt mein großer Dank für die Annahme und Förderung meines Teilprojektes. Reinhard Jung, Joseph Maran und Philipp Stockhammer danke ich sehr herzlich für zahlreiche Diskussionen zum Thema und die Überlassung unpublizierter Manuskripte. Der
absolute Chronologie der mykenischen Kultur zu klären. Sie kann als Basis für die Rekonstruktion der politischen und ökonomischen Verhältnisse zwischen der nördlichen Levante und Kilikien sowie der mykenischen Kultur dienen. Allerdings kann mein Projekt nur Ausgangspunkt für weitergehende Studien sein, wenn neue Erkenntnisse zur Geschichte des Untersuchungsgebietes, auch durch neue Schriftfunde, vorliegen, so daß mehr Siedlungs- und Zerstörungsschichten in diesem Gebiet präzise datiert werden können. FORSCHUNGSGESCHICHTE Die Forschungsgeschichte zur mykenischen Keramik in der Levante wurde erst kürzlich in der Studie von Gert van Wijngaarden5 behandelt. Einen Meilenstein stellen selbstverständlich die Ausgrabungen Claude F.A. Schaeffers zwischen den Weltkriegen und nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg in Ras Shamra (Ugarit) da, wo erstmals eine große Menge mykenischer Keramik in der nördlichen Levante gefunden wurde. Dies warf die bis heute interessant gebliebene Frage nach der Art der Beziehungen zwischen beiden Kulturräumen auf.6 In der Folgezeit erschienen etwa von Frank Stubbings und Vronwy Hankey Katalogwerke zur mykenischen Keramik der Levante und ihrer Verbreitung sowie zu unterschiedlichen interpretatorischen Schwerpunkten.7 Der jüngste Katalog stammt aus der Feder von Albert Leonard Jr.,8 doch wird zur Zeit an mehreren Stätten gegraben, die bereits mykenische Keramik erbrachten und weitere erwarten lassen.9
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
vorliegende Artikel basiert auf einem Vortrag, den ich vor dem Ägyptologischen Institut der Universität Wien am 29. November 2006 gehalten habe. JUNG 2004. Gemeint sei bemalte Drehscheibenkeramik. VAN WIJNGAARDEN 2002, 31–33. Etwa SCHAEFFER 1939. STUBBINGS 1951; HANKEY 1967. LEONARD 1994; dazu RUTTER 1997. Etwa Tell Kazel (Sumur) oder Tell Afis: CECCHINI und MAZZONI 1998; JUNG 2007.
242 Tobias Mühlenbruch
Abb. 1 Levante, Fundorte mit mykenischen Funden (nach VAN WIJNGAARDEN 2002, Karte 6)
Ebenfalls noch recht aktuell ist die Zusammenstellung von Stätten mit mykenischer Keramik in Kilikien, die im Rahmen der Ausgrabungen von Kilise Tepe erstellt wurde.10 Für diese Landschaft listete erstmals Einar Gjerstad 1934 nach einer Studienreise 14 mykenische Scherben und Gefäße aus Kazanl¶ auf.11 Tarsus, Mersin und
Soli Höyük sind als wichtigste, ebenfalls teilweise aktuell untersuchte, Fundorte zu nennen.12
10
11
Symington in: BAKER, COLLON, HAWKINS, POLLARD, POSTGATE, SYMINGTON und THOMAS 1995, 176; BUCHHOLZ 1974, 368; FRENCH 1993; SHERRATT und CROUWEL 1987.
QUELLENLAGE Die archäologische Quellenlage in der Levante und in Kilikien zur mykenischen Keramik ist höchst unterschiedlich. van Wijngaarden hat
12
GJERSTAD 1934, 176/177. FRENCH 1975; GARSTANG 1953; MOUNTJOY 2005; YAGCI 2003.
Die Synchronisierung der nördlichen Levante und Kilikiens mit der agäischen Spätbronzezeit 243
Abb. 2 Anatolien, Fundorte mit mykenischen Funden (nach VAN WIJNGAARDEN 2002, Karte 12)
2002 für die nördliche Levante lediglich 13 Stätten mit zehn oder mehr mykenischen Importstücken aufgelistet,13 die aufgrund der „Quantität” der Importe eine besondere Bedeutung für meine Arbeit besitzen. Dabei handelt es sich um Siedlungs- und Grabkontexte aus Tell Atchana (Alalach), Ras Shamra (Ugarit), Minet el-Beida, Ras Ibn Hani, Tell Sukas (Shuksi), Tell Kazel (Sumur), Tell Nebi Mend (Qadesh), Byblos (Gubla), Beirut (Biruta)-Stadtkern, Sidon (Siduna), Sarafand (Sarepta), Tyros (Surri) und Kamid el-Loz (Kumidi) (Abb. 114). Für Kilikien führte van Wijngaarden die Fundorte Mersin, Kazanl¶ und Tarsus (Tarsa) auf (Abb. 215).16
13
14
WIJNGAARDEN 2002, die Liste S. 325/326 weist Widersprüche zu Karte 7 auf; auf Karte 6/7 Tell Dan statt als Nr. 170 als Nr. 158 bezeichnet, S. 323: fallen Fundorte mit 10 Importen in die Kategorie 1 oder 2, solche mit 50 in die Kategorie 2 oder 3 etc.? Vergleiche LEONARD 1994, 201–211. Nr. 137 = Tell Atchana (Alalach), 141 = Ras Shamra (Ugarit), 142 = Minet el-Beida, 143 = Ras Ibn Hani, 145 = Tell Sukas (Shuksi), 148 = Tell Kazel (Sumur), 155 = Tell Nebi Mend (Qadesh), 156 = Byblos (Gubla), 158 =
Die Fundmenge17 ist jedoch wenigstens teilweise auf die Forschungsgeschichte und damit verbunden auf die Ausgrabungs- und Dokumentationsmethode zurückzuführen, bei denen es auch im Untersuchungsgebiet markante Unterschiede gibt. Die Stadtkerngrabungen in Beirut (Biruta) etwa wurden erst in den letzten Jahren durchgeführt,18 wohingegen die meisten mykenischen Funde aus Ras Shamra (Ugarit) unter Schaeffer zwischen den Weltkriegen sowie nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg ergraben wurden.19 Der Zeitpunkt der Ausgrabung bedingt wiederum zum Teil die Größe und damit die Repräsentativität des ausgegrabenen Areals, vergleiche erneut
VAN
15 16 17
18 19
Beirut (Biruta)-Stadtkern, 160 = Sidon (Siduna), 162 = Sarafand (Sarepta), 163 = Tyros (Surri), 168 = Kamid el-Loz (Kumidi) Nr. 33 = Mersin, 34 = Kazanl¶, 35 = Tarsus (Tarsa). VAN WIJNGAARDEN 2002, Karte 12. Zur absoluten Aussagekraft der Fundmenge siehe BELL 2005. BADRE 1997; BADRE 1998. COURTOIS 1978; SCHAEFFER und CHENET 1949; YON 1997, 18.
244 Tobias Mühlenbruch die Stadtkerngrabungen von Beirut mit Schaeffers Grabungen in Ras Shamra (Ugarit), da mit den immer präziser und zeitaufwendiger werdenden Methoden die rasche Erforschung ganzer Siedlungsteile oder Nekropolen nicht mehr möglich ist. Auch der Publikationsstand der Keramik an der nördlichen Levante selbst ist uneinheitlich. Für eine Neubewertung der mykenischen Importe ist eine Abbildung der Stücke unbedingte Voraussetzung. Von den alten Grabungen in Tell Atchana (Alalach) liegen leider fast nur Photographien vor.20 Betrachtet man die Quellenlage in Südgriechenland, so sind dort mehrere Siedlungen mit längeren Schichtsequenzen bekannt, die geschlossene Kontexte besitzen. Von besonderer Bedeutung ist insbesondere die Burg von Tiryns, die stratifizierte Keramik von der frühmykenischen Zeit bis zur frühen Palastzeit auf der Oberburg und der Palast- und Nachpalastzeit (Späthelladikum [kurz: SH] III A Spät [das Ende von SH III A2?]–SH III C Spät) in der Unterburg erbrachte.21 Die Lage des Ortes in der Argolis ist hervorzuheben, da Neutronenaktivierungsanalysen an exportierter mykenischer Keramik den Nachweis erbracht haben, daß diese Ware oftmals aus der Argolis selbst stammt,22 womit zumindest ein Teil der levantinischen Funde unmittelbar mit der gut erforschten Keramikabfolge der Argolis verbunden werden kann. METHODE Die Synchronisierung zweier Gebiete setzt die Existenz von Importen oder lokalen Nachahmungen in jeweils geschlossenen Kontexten23 voraus. Als Basis für die Recherche nach Funden aus entsprechenden Zusammenhängen kann auf die Arbeiten von Leonard sowie für Ras Shamra (Ugarit) von van Wijngaarden zurückgegriffen werden.24 Im Idealfall sollten mehrere importierte oder lokal imitierte Gefäße in einem geschlossenen
20 21
22
WOOLLEY 1955. MARAN 2001, 23 mit Verweis auf STÜLPNAGEL 1999; PODZUWEIT 1992 (für die Erlaubnis, zuletztgenannte, noch unpublizierte Arbeit nutzen zu dürfen, danke ich Joseph Maran); SCHÖNFELD 1988; ZAVADIL unpubl.. Etwa MOMMSEN und MARAN 2000/2001; Mommsen in: MOUNTJOY und MOMMSEN 2001, 124–138. Zuletzt
Kontext, etwa einer ungestörten Einzelbestattung oder in einem Zerstörungshorizont, gefunden worden sein. Eine Siedlung kann für die Synchronisierung besonders wertvoll sein, wenn sich mehrere Schichten mit Funden aus geschlossenen Kontexten ablösen, so daß eine größere stratigraphische Sequenz für die Synchronisierung genutzt werden kann. Das Ensemble sollte dann ohne Berücksichtigung der Importe datiert werden können, etwa durch die Identifizierung der Zerstörung mit einer in den historischen Quellen bekannten, durch die Vergesellschaftung mit chronologisch sensiblen lokalen Beifunden oder durch naturwissenschaftliche Verfahren. Andernfalls würde unter Umständen ein Fund an der Levanteküste durch ein ägäisches Objekt datiert, dessen Datierung wiederum an levantinischen Funden in der Ägäis oder an ägäischen Funden in der Levante festgemacht wurde, so daß im besten Fall nur der Unsicherheitsfaktor der Datierung zunähme, im schlimmsten Fall jedoch ein Zirkelschluß vorläge. Auch vermeintlich sichere Datierungen über historische Quellen und naturwissenschaftliche Analysen sowie über lokale Typologien müssen kritisch nach möglichen Fehlerquellen hinterfragt werden. Realiter wurden jedoch meistens nur einzelne Importe oder Nachahmungen gefunden, die mehr oder weniger gut stratifiziert waren, also oftmals nur einer Siedlungsschicht zugewiesen werden konnten. Rolf Hachmanns Kategorisierung der Funde und Fundlage bei der Ausgrabung von Kamid el-Loz (Kumidi) in Funde „erster”, „zweiter” und „dritter Ordnung” sowie primärer, sekundärer und tertiärer Fundlage ist dabei wichtig. Von den Funden interessieren hier nur solche erster Ordnung, die sich durch ihre Intaktheit, Restaurierbar- oder sichere Rekonstruierbarkeit, und/oder ihre besondere Fundlage auszeichnen.25 Die primäre Fundlage entspricht einem geschlossenen Fund; in sekundärer Fundlage befinden sich Artefakte, wenn sie, etwa wegen Schäden, weggeworfen wurden. Sie liegen jedoch
23 24 25
wiesen die Proben von FRENCH und TOMLINSON 2004 aus der Levante, die bekannten Produktionsgebieten zugewiesen werden konnten, ebenfalls teilweise auf die Argolis hin. Zur Definition: EGGERS 1959, 91–93. LEONARD 1994; VAN WIJNGAARDEN 2002. HACHMANN 1969, 65/66.
Die Synchronisierung der nördlichen Levante und Kilikiens mit der agäischen Spätbronzezeit 245
noch in der Siedlungsschicht, in der sie benutzt wurden. Im Unterschied dazu werden Funde primärer und sekundärer Fundlage zu Artefakten tertiärer Fundlage, wenn sie aus der zugehörigen Schicht hinaus verlagert wurden.26 Dementsprechend muß Funden aus größeren Ensembles in geschlossenen Kontexten wie Einzelbestattungen und einwandfreien Zerstörungsschichten für die Synchronisierung eine größere Bedeutung zugemessen werden als lediglich stratifizierten Einzelobjekten und nur teilweise erhaltenen Gefäßen. Nach der Darstellung der stratifizierten und geschlossenen Kontexte folgt die tabellarische Auflistung und Bestimmung der Keramik, bei der die jeweilige Fundnummer und/oder die Referenznummern von Leonard und van Wijngaarden, der Gefäßtyp inklusive Furumark Shape, die Fundstelle, der Dekor, das Muster inklusive Furumark Motive, der Erhaltungszustand, die Größe und die Datierung angegeben werden. Jung betonte, daß die mykenische Keramik in der Levante zumeist nur sehr grob und teilweise noch nach der Terminologie von Arne Furumark datiert wurde.27 Mit der vorzustellenden Studie wird eine Datierung nach dem aktuellen Forschungsstand vorgelegt, der vor allem auf den Forschungen von Elizabeth French,28 Kenneth A. Wardle29 und Christian Podzuweit30 in Mykenai und Tiryns sowie Penelope Mountjoy31 beruht. Abschließend folgt zu jedem Fundort eine historische Auswertung. Dabei gilt die Regel, daß das jüngste Objekt eines Befundes oder einer Schicht einen terminus post quem für deren Entstehung und Stratifizierung liefert. Bedauerlicherweise sind viele Gefäße nur allgemein in eine vermutlich längere Keramikphase wie SH III zu datieren,32 doch erscheint es in den meisten Fällen unwahrscheinlich, jedoch nicht unmöglich, daß sie in SH III C in Südgriechenland hergestellt und in die Levante exportiert wurden,33 so daß
Als Fallbeispiel dient ein Hauskomplex aus Ras Shamra (Ugarit). Die Siedlung ist zu einem verhältnismäßig großen Teil erforscht, so daß einzelne „Quartiere” funktional unterschieden werden konnten.34 Zudem geben uns die erhaltenen Schriftquellen zahlreiche und vielseitige Einblicke in das Leben der Bewohner und in die Geschichte von Ras Shamra (Ugarit).35 Unter Marguerite Yon wurde im sogenannten „Centre Ville” eine Gebäudegruppe freigelegt, von denen an dieser Stelle die mykenische und mykenisierte Keramik der Häuser A, B und E vorgestellt werden soll.36 Das Centre Ville fiel der Zerstörung Ras Shamras (Ugarit) zum Opfer.37 Leider wurde für diese Häuser jeweils nur eine, wenn auch als repräsentativ angegebene, Auswahl der Funde vorgestellt,38 ohne die genaue Lage der Objekte zueinander zu beschreiben. Aus Haus A stammen drei mykenische Importe; von den Importen aus Grube 1269 in Raum 1039 ist nur ein Stück abgebildet (vW 529). Die Grube wird vermutlich sukzessive verfüllt worden
26
33
27 28
29 30
31
32
HACHMANN 1982, 188/189. JUNG 2004. FRENCH 1963; FRENCH 1964; FRENCH 1965; FRENCH 1966; FRENCH 1967; FRENCH 1969. WARDLE 1969; WARDLE 1973. PODZUWEIT 1978; PODZUWEIT 1979; PODZUWEIT 1981; PODZUWEIT 1983; PODZUWEIT 1988; PODZUWEIT 1992. Besonders MOUNTJOY 1986, MOUNTJOY 1993, MOUNTJOY 1999. Vergleiche MOUNTJOY 1986, Tabelle III.
ihr Wert für eine Synchronisierung gemindert ist. Schwieriger noch ist die Frage nach der Wertung eines Fundes zu beantworten: Eine einzelne, kleine, jüngere Scherbe kann durch Verlagerungsvorgänge an ihren Fundort gelangt sein. Für größere Objekte scheidet diese Möglichkeit tendentiell aus, doch muß mit nicht beobachteten Gruben, in denen der Fund in eine ältere Schicht gelangt sein könnte, gerechnet werden. Inwieweit eine Stätte mehr oder weniger durch menschliche Aktivitäten jüngerer Perioden, Tiergänge oder Erosion gestört ist, wird leider aus vielen Publikationen nicht deutlich. Dies gilt auch für die Gefahr, die durch übersehene Grubenbefunde, bedingt durch das jeweilige Sediment, besteht. Im Zweifelsfall sind dementsprechend chronologische „Ausreisser“ einzeln zu diskutieren. FALLBEISPIEL
34 35 36
37 38
Vergleiche MOUNTJOY 1993, 174/175. Zu Israel: D`AGATA, GOREN, MOMMSEN, SCHWEDT und YASUR-LANDAU 2005. YON 1997. SINGER 1999. CALVET und GEYER 1987; YON, LOMBARD und RENISIO 1987; mit Abweichungen von meiner Darstellung: VAN WIJNGAARDEN 2002, 57–60. YON, LOMBARD und RENISIO 1987, 116–119. YON, LOMBARD und RENISIO 1987.
246 Tobias Mühlenbruch sein, was gegen einen geschlossenen Kontext spricht. Wichtig für die Synchronisierung sind daher nur eine Scherbe (vW 451) und eine besser erhaltene Bügelkanne (vW 450) aus Raum 1041 sowie ein Kraterfragment aus Hof 1043 (vW 452). Haus B erbrachte eine mykenische Schale (vW 45339) und ein Kraterfragment (vW 513) aus Raum 1045. Auch die Grube 127040 wies mykenische Importgefäße wie ein Tassen- oder Skyphosfragment (vW 533) sowie weitere Scherben (vW 532 und L 1139 = 84/1134 ohne Nummer bei vW) und einen Bügelkannenausguß (vW 531) auf. Von Hof 1265 stammt ein weiteres Kraterfragment (vW 454), und ein Fragment einer Bügelkanne wurde in Raum 1282 gefunden (vW 455). Während Raum 1050 aus Haus E eine Tasse (vW 458), eine besser erhaltene und eventuell lokal hergestellte Bügelkanne (vW 459) und Fragmente einer weiteren Bügelkanne (vW 530) erbrachte, stammt von Hof 1206 ein mykenisches Randfragment (vW 456), eine importierte Hydria (vW 457) und eine lokal gefertigte Amphore (vW 2025). Die mykenischen Fragmente vW 446 und 528 fanden sich auf Hof 1051 im Bereich von Haus A, B, C und E. Die mykenische Keramik aus dem vorgestellten Gebäudekomplex kann in die Unterphasen SH II B (vW 446) bis „ab SH III B” ( etwa vW 457) datiert werden, wobei zwingend SH III C-zeitliche Gefäße fehlen.41 Ein Ansatz für die Zerstörung der Siedlung in die „Übergangsphase SH III B–SH III C” oder in SH III C Früh wurde zuletzt von Yon und Mountjoy vertreten.42 Dementsprechend muß bereits die Produktion von Keramik aus SH III C Früh in Südgriechenland eingesetzt haben, als Ras Shamra (Ugarit) zerstört wurde. Dieses Ereignis wird im allgemeinen mit dem Einfall der „Seevölker” in Verbindung gebracht. Auf
der Basis der erhaltenen historischen Quellen ist es etwa zwischen 1194 – 1186 und 1179 oder 1176 vor Christus anzusetzen.43 Die zuerst genannte Zeitspanne bezieht sich auf den Zeitpunkt, in dem der Ägypter Beya einen Brief an Ammurapi von Ugarit verfaßte – wohl unter der Regierung von Siptah (1194–1188 vor Christus) oder von Tausert (1188–1186 vor Christus). Dieses Dokument dürfte das letzte uns bekannte sein, welches Ugarit erreichte und gibt einen terminus post quem für die Zerstörung.44 Einen terminus ante quem für sie liefert dagegen das achte oder fünfte Regierungsjahr von Ramses III mit seinem Sieg über die Seevölker, das in das Jahr 1179 beziehungsweise 1176 vor Christus fallen dürfte.45 Noch unklar ist jedoch die Ausdehnung einer Nachbesiedlung, die in Ras Shamra (Ugarit) festgestellt wurde und das Ergebnis verzerren kann.46
39
44
40
41
42 43
Schreibfehler in VAN WIJNGAARDEN 2002, 338: 79/499 statt 84/499. Schreibfehler in VAN WIJNGAARDEN 2002, 58 (dort Grube 1269 statt 1279 genannt) im Vergleich mit CALVET und GEYER 1987, Abb. 1. MOUNTJOY 1986, 38 und MOUNTJOY 1986, Abb. 124 zu SH III B, Abb. 178 zu SH III C Früh, Abb. 212 zu SH III C Mitte, Abb. 243 zu SH III C Spät. MOUNTJOY 2004, 189; YON 2000, 18. Daten nach KITCHEN 2000, 49.
AUSGEWÄHLTE KONTEXTUELLE BETRACHTUNGEN ZUR KERAMIK IN DER LEVANTE Das vorgestellte Fallbeispiel überrascht mit einer Vergesellschaftung mykenischer Keramik, die teilweise bei ihrer Stratifizierung schon ein hohes Alter aufwies. Eine interessante Deutung für einen Teil der mykenischen Importkeramik an der Levanteküste wurde zuletzt von van Wijngaarden vertreten. Er ging auf prämonetäre Gesellschaften ein, in denen Objekte in Austauschnetzwerken eingebunden waren. Die Artefakte konnten dabei aufgrund ihres Alters, ihrer Geschichte und der Stati ihrer Vorbesitzer ebenso wie die beteiligten Personen aufgrund ihrer Teilnahme am Austausch an Prestige gewinnen.47 Van Wijngaarden kam zu dem Schluß, daß ein ähnlicher, auf der Zirkulation von Importgegenständen beruhender Umgang in der Levante mit der mykenischen Keramik geherrscht haben könnte, die in deutlich jüngeren Kontexten gefunden wurde, als
45
46 47
SINGER 1999, 713–715, 729; siehe auch JUNG 2007, 565–567, KLENGEL 1992, 147–151 und MOUNTJOY 2004, 189, 198. SINGER 1999, 725–731; siehe auch JUNG 2007, 565–567 und KLENGEL 1992, 147–151. YON 1992, 118/119. VAN WIJNGAARDEN 2002, 117; VAN WIJNGAARDEN 2005. Vergleiche den kula-Austausch: RENFREW und BAHN 1996, 337, 339.
Die Synchronisierung der nördlichen Levante und Kilikiens mit der agäischen Spätbronzezeit 247
Abb. 3 Ras Shamra (Ugarit) (nach YON 2000, Abb. 2)
ihre stilistische Einordnung hätte erwarten lassen, und argumentierte gegen die Möglichkeit eines Imports von Altstücken oder der Aufbewahrung von importierten Neuwaren an nur einem Ort.48 Auch gegenüber einer Aufbewahrung als „Antiken“ oder „Erbstücke“ – ohne Austausch – sprach er sich skeptisch aus, relativierte diese Ansicht für die Stücke aus Ras Shamra (Ugarit) jedoch, die er zuletzt doch als Erbstücke ansprach.49 Da es meiner Ansicht nach allerdings keinen schlüssigen Hinweis auf die stete Weitergabe speziell mykenischer Keramikgefäße in der Levante gibt50 – in der Archäologie auch nur schwerlich
geben kann –, die zudem weniger prestigeträchtig als mykenische Metallgefäße gewesen sein dürften, deren Nachweis in der Levante wiederum aus quellenkritischen Gründen schwierig ist,51 halte ich van Wijngaardens Theorie für nicht überzeugend. Meines Erachtens war vielmehr der Wert,52 die die mykenische Keramik in der Levante besaß, entscheidend. Um diesen Aspekt zu untersuchen, ist ein Detailstudium der Keramikkontexte notwendig. Das oben verwendete Fallbeispiel kann auch in diesem Kontext genutzt werden. Die Häuser A, B und E aus Ras Shamra (Ugarit) liegen im „Centre Ville“ (Abb. 3/4). Zu jedem
48
51
49
50
WIJNGAARDEN 2002, 116–118. VAN WIJNGAARDEN 2002, 116–118; VAN WIJNGAARDEN 2005, 412. LIVERANI 1990 zur Zirkulation von Prestigegütern in der Levante. VAN
52
JUNG 2005b, 51, Abb. 3 zu SCHAEFFER 1966, 131/132, Abb. 9: ägäisches Elektronrhyton aus Ras Shamra (Ugarit). Zu diesem Aspekt zuletzt STOCKHAMMER unpubl.
248 Tobias Mühlenbruch
Abb. 4 Ras Shamra (Ugarit), Centre Ville (nach VAN WIJNGAARDEN 2002, Abb. 5.6)
Raum wurde nur eine „repräsentative“ Auswahl an Funden vorgestellt,53 was die genaue Angabe der Fundmenge erschwert. Von mir wurde diese Auswahl wiederum subjektiv zusammengefaßt. Zusätzlich ist bei der Rekonstruktion von Rauminventaren, bei der ich mich im folgenden auf Haus A konzentriere, deren Genese zu beachten.54 Haus A bestand aus den vier Räumen 1040.1041.1046.1047 und Hof 1043.55 Nur aus Raum 1046 liegt keine mykenische Keramik vor. Das reiche Fundensemble von Raum 1040 setzt sich hauptsächlich aus Scherben lokal hergestellter Keramik, besonders Krügen und Schalen, zusammen, die die zwei zyprischen Exemplare
einer Schale und eines Kruges sowie die zwei mykenischen Fragmente (vW 447.448), eines davon von einer Bügelkanne, dominieren. Mehrere Basaltdreifußfragmente sind nachgewiesen, Spinnwirtel und Silex- sowie Bronzegeräte. Im Nordostteil des Raumes (Kammer 1039) gab es eine Treppe (Befund 1056), unter der die Latrine Grube 1269 lag. Aus Grube 1269, Phase 1, stammen etwa Silexgeräte und Keramik, darunter zwei lokal produzierte Fragmente und eine mykenische Scherbe (ohne Nummer). Phase 2 erbrachte ebenfalls Keramik und Steingeräte; die Importe stammten aus Zypern und Südgriechenland (vW 529, 84/1178, 84/1203), darunter eine Bügelkanne.
53
54
YON, LOMBARD und RENISIO 1987. Es sei davon ausgegangen, daß Funde, die als „repräsentativ“ angesprochen wurden, auch in mehreren Exemplaren angetroffen wurden, selbst wenn in der publizierten Aufstellung der Objekte nur eins genannt wird.
55
SOMMER 1991. YON, LOMBARD und RENISIO 1987, 27–60 mit Abb. 1.
Die Synchronisierung der nördlichen Levante und Kilikiens mit der agäischen Spätbronzezeit 249
An lokal hergestellten Formen sind Knickwandschalen, Krüge und Kannen vertreten. Bearbeitete Muschelobjekte und ein Tierhorn treten hinzu. Aus Phase 3 wurde nur wenig zyprische Keramik gefunden. Silexfragmente, eine Basaltmühle und lokal gefertigte Keramik wie ein Krug sind zu nennen. Phase 4 erbrachte viel zyprische Keramik, etwa Schalen, aber keine mykenische. Auch lokal hergestellte Keramik wurde zahlreich gefunden, zudem sind Silexgeräte und Tierknochen nachgewiesen. Pithosscherben und Fragmente von Krügen und Kannen stammen aus Raum 1046, aber auch Silexklingen. Daraus ergibt sich seine Deutung als Vorratsraum, der allerdings auch als Durchgang diente. Einzelne Objekte, die aus dem Fundspektrum herausragen – eine Pinzette, Perlen etc. – könnten aus dem Obergeschoß herabgefallen sein. Ein mutmaßlicher Getreidespeicher (Befund 1069) wurde in Raum 1047 gefunden. Zum Mobiliar des Raumes gehörten etwa Bronzepfeilspitzen, lokal gefertigte geschlossene Gefäße wie Krüge und eine mykenische Kraterscherbe (vW 449). Raum 1041 wurde als mögliche Küche angesprochen. Darauf deuteten ein kleiner Abfluß auf die benachbarte Straße, aber auch das Inventar – lokale und zyprische Krüge, einheimische Flaschen sowie Pithoi – hin. Auffällig ist der Fund einer Perle, eines Skarabäus und einer mykenischen Stierfigurine (vW 1043). Zwei Bügelkannenscherben (vW 450.451) sind desweiteren zu nennen. Lokal gefertigte Fragmente etwa von Krügen und Krateren sowie mykenische Gefäßscherben, etwa eines Kraters (vW 452), stammen auch von Hof 1043. Insgesamt stellt sich Haus A damit als Wohnhaus mit sanitärer Anlage, Vorratsräumen und mutmaßlicher Küche dar, das auch ein Obergeschoß besessen haben dürfte. Von den Ausgräbern wurde auf das Fehlen eines „Vestibüls“ hingewiesen, wie es für Haus B, das damit als „herrschaftlicher” erscheint, nachgewiesen ist.56 van Wijngaarden interpretierte die Präsenz mykenischer Funde aus fast allen Räumen als Hinweis
auf die Integration der Ware in den Alltag der Bewohner, was meines Erachtens stärker für die zyprische Keramik zu gelten hat. Die Kombination eines Skarabäus und einer mykenischen Figurine in der mutmaßlichen Küche brachte er mit weitergehenden Aktivitäten in diesem Raum in Verbindung.57 Dies erscheint auf den ersten Blick als plausibel; bedenkt man jedoch die Größe einiger mykenischer Funde und die Möglichkeit der horizontalen und vertikalen Verlagerung von Funden sowie die Relation zur einheimischen Keramik, dann treten Zweifel auf, denn nur zu größeren Teilen erhaltene Stücke können mit einiger Sicherheit einem Raum und seiner Nutzungszeit zugewiesen werden. Dementsprechend dürfte die mykenische Keramik in Haus A, etwa Bügelkannen und ein Krater, in wenigen Stücken wegen ihrer Funktion als möglicherweise exklusive Vorrats- und Gelagegefäße vertreten gewesen sein. Die Übernahme importierter Figurinen in den lokalen Kult erscheint möglich, ist aber nicht zwingend vorauszusetzen. Betrachten wir anschließend einen Grabkontext aus Ras Shamra (Ugarit). Aus Grab XIII, einem ungestört angetroffenen Grab, stammen sechs mykenische Importe.58 Zwei Kinderskelette vor dem Eingang zur Grabkammer hatten zyprische Gefäße als Beigaben. In der Grabkammer selbst lagen 44 Skelette weiterer Kinder sowie Erwachsener; 13 Erwachsene und ein Kind waren aufgrund der sukzessiven Bestattungen mit ihren Beigaben in eine Seitenkammer umgelagert worden. Die Funde wurden leider nur unvollständig vorgelegt. An nicht-keramischen Objekten sind ein syrisches Serpentingefäß, ein opakes Gefäß, ein Elfenbeinkamm, eine bronzene Nadel und ein Speerkopf sowie ein Dolch aus Bronze aus einer Nische des Grabes zu nennen. Zudem wurden über 100 vollständige Gefäße gefunden – lokale Amphoren, verschiedene Schalen, Krüge und Lampen. Weitere Schalen, etwa zyprische, sowie die mykenischen Importe – zwei Bügelkannen, ein Alabastron mit Schulterknick, möglicherweise ein einhenkeliger Napf, eine Flasche und eine Amphore (vW 9296.51459) – vervollständigen das Ensemble. Die genaue Fundlage der Objekte ist aufgrund ihrer
56
58
57
CALVET und GEYER 1987, 135–138; YON, LOMBARD und RENISIO 1987, 27–60 mit Abb. 1. VAN WIJNGAARDEN 2002, 57/58.
59
SCHAEFFER 1936, 139–142 und Abb. 9–15 zu Grab XIII; VAN WIJNGAARDEN 2002, 67. Vergleiche VAN WIJNGAARDEN 2002, Tabelle 3.
250 Tobias Mühlenbruch Quantität den Planskizzen leider nicht zu entnehmen.60 Geht man davon aus, daß bei einer Neubestattung keine alten Beigaben entwendet wurden, was allein aufgrund der geringen Menge nichtkeramischer Objekte nicht vollkommen ausgeschlossen werden kann, dann sind im Durchschnitt pro Bestattung nur einzelne Gefäße und nur in Ausnahmefällen andere Gegenstände beigegeben worden. Mykenische Keramik scheint in diesem Grab nicht in größeren Mengen gefunden worden zu sein, doch bleibt ihr Anteil auch im Vergleich zu der zyprischen Keramik unklar.61 Die genaue Fundlage bei den jüngsten Bestattungen könnte noch gewisse Aussagen zu diesen Themen erlauben, wenn etwa dort zum Beispiel die Mehrzahl der Metallobjekte und auch Importe gefunden worden sein sollten. Andererseits könnte dies auch chronologisch mit der Beliebtheit der Beigabe solcher Objektkategorien erst gegen Ende der Belegungszeit des Grabes oder individuellen Vorlieben der Bestatteten und/oder ihrer Angehörigen erklärt werden. Interessant ist zumindest die Beobachtung, daß bei zwei Kinderskeletten zyprische, also sogar importierte Keramik, gefunden wurde62. Das Formenspektrum mykenischer Keramik, sofern repräsentativ für das Grab, spricht für ihre Nutzung zum Transport und zur „Lagerung” der in ihnen zu rekonstruierenden Beigaben im Grab, während zyprische Schalen primär für Gelage im Kontext des Totenrituals genutzt worden sein dürften. Diese Befunde unterstützen van Wijngaardens Modell, daß unterschiedliche Bevölkerungsgruppen in den einzelnen urbanen Zentren die mykenische Keramik auf ebenso unterschiedliche Weise benutzt haben könnten.63 Die Verteilung einzelner Gefäße auf verschiedene Räume im Centre Ville von Ras Shamra (Ugarit), die nicht von der unteren Bevölkerungsschicht bewohnt gewesen sein dürften, spricht für seine Theorie. Allerdings darf nicht vergessen werden, daß die lokale Keramik die importierte bei weitem dominierte, was erneut für den herausgehobenen Charakter der Importe spricht, die zwar in gehobenen sozialen Kreisen vertreten war, aber nach
den Befunden nicht in größerer Anzahl erhältlich oder gewollt war. Die exakte Einbindung in die lokale Kultur ist schwierig zu interpretieren, da schon die Analyse der Raumfunktionen sehr komplex ist. Eingestürzte Obergeschosse, Verlagerungen gerade von kleinen Scherben, Abfälle, die in Gebäuden, die vor der Zerstörung der Stadt aufgelassen worden sein könnten, gelagert wurden, und multifunktional genutzte Räume, deren letzter Zustand bestenfalls rekonstruiert werden kann, setzen der archäologischen Interpretation enge Grenzen. Es fällt auf, daß regelrechte mykenische Ausgußgefäße wie Kannen (Schnabelkannen, Kannen mit ausgeschnittenem Hals, Hydrien64 etc., ausgenommen aber Bügelkannen) fehlen, jedoch aus lokalen Waren vorliegen. Fragmente von geschlossenen feinkeramischen Vorrats- und Transportgefäßen wie etwa Bügelkannen sowie von offenen Gelagegefäßen wie Krateren und Tassen sprechen dennoch für einen Einfluß auf die Trinkgewohnheiten und das Repertoire importierter Substanzen einer möglichen Sub-Elite in den Wohnhäusern Ras Shamras (Ugarits), der mykenisch geprägt war oder wenigstens als mykenisch geprägt verstanden wurde. Wären mykenische Kannen in der Levante nachgefragt worden, so wären sie sicherlich in Südgriechenland für den Export hergestellt worden, wie dies für amphoroide Kratere und figürlich verzierte Keramik der Fall war. Zu einem ähnlichen Resultat führt das Studium von Grab XIII. Auch hier ist die Vermischung von Importen aus Südgriechenland und Zypern hervorzuheben, kann in einem Grab mit Mehrfachbestattungen aber eventuell auch damit erklärt werden, daß dort theoretisch ein Verstorbener nur mykenische und ein anderer im selben Grab nur zyprische Importe als Beigaben bekommen haben könnte. Offen ist, ob sich die Bewohner der damaligen Levante der unterschiedlichen Herkunft beider Objektkategorien bewußt waren, was ich jedoch annehmen möchte. Dann erschienen auch eine differenzierte Wertigkeit der verschiedenen Gefäße sowie unterschiedliche Verbreitungsmechanismen etwa für offene contra geschlossene Importformen möglich.65 Unter-
60
64
61 62 63
SCHAEFFER 1936, 139–142 und Abb. 9–15. SCHAEFFER 1936, 140. SCHAEFFER 1936, 139/140. VAN WIJNGAARDEN 2002, besonders 73, 110–115, 118–122, 124.
65
Allgemein in der Levante selten: LEONARD 1994. VAN WIJNGAARDEN 1999, 4; VAN WIJNGAARDEN 2002, besonders 73, 110–116, 118–122.
Die Synchronisierung der nördlichen Levante und Kilikiens mit der agäischen Spätbronzezeit 251
scheidet man, wie bereits für die Siedlungskontexte angedeutet, geschlossene Gefäße mit enger Mündung, die eher dem Transport und der Aufbewahrung gedient haben dürften, geschlossene Gefäße mit weiterer Mündung wie Kannen, die zum Ausgiessen bestimmt gewesen sein dürften, und offene, wahrscheinlich zum Trinken benutzte Gefäße, dann zeigt sich, daß mykenische Gefäße zumeist der ersten Kategorie oder letzten Kategorie angehörten, also feinkeramische Transportbeziehungsweise Vorrats- und Trinkgefäße stellen, während importierte Kannen oder Krüge und vor allem Schalen primär aus Zypern kamen, Kannen oder Krüge allgemein jedoch hauptsächlich lokaler Provenienz waren.
Faßt man die Entwicklung der Handelsbeziehungen in der Spätbronzezeit für das östliche Mittelmeer mit den Schwerpunkten Südgriechenland – Kreta – Zypern – Levante zusammen, so muß zunächst auf die Quellenlage hingewiesen werden. Das mykenische Südgriechenland wies während der gesamten Zeitspanne intensive Kontakte nach Kreta auf. Der archäologische Befund läßt Südgriechenland für SH I/II A als den nehmenden Part erscheinen, doch ist von einer Gegenleistung, die durch das Raster der Erhaltungsbedingungen fällt, auszugehen. Ab SH II B oder SH III A2 könnte Kreta von Mykenern beherrscht worden sein,66 und auch nach dem Ende der mykenischen Paläste ist von einem engeren Verhältnis beider Gebiete auszugehen.67 Erste Importfunde aus Zypern und der Levante gehören in Südgriechenland in SH II B und SH III A.68 Ein Import zyprischen Kupfers war höchstwahrscheinlich zumindest in der frühmykenischen Zeit unnötig, wenn Laureion in Attika ausgebeutet wurde.69 Aus SH III B-Kontexten stammen die meisten ostmediterranen Importe, was mit der vorangegangenen Zerstörung von Knossos zusammenhängen könnte, so daß die Mykener des Festlandes in SH III B den bis dahin kretisch dominierten Handel mit Zypern und der
Levante übernommen haben könnten.70 Dieser wiederum könnte, auf einem nicht mehr von den Palästen kontrollierten Niveau, in SH III C fortgesetzt worden sein.71 Keramik der Unterphasen SH III A2/B fand sich häufig auf Zypern und in der Levante, wo Gefäße der Phase SH III C zumeist lokal gefertigt worden zu sein scheinen. Dem Metallhandel, zumindest zwischen Südgriechenland und Zypern, könnte nun allerdings eine größere Bedeutung zugekommen zu sein.72 Seit dem Beginn der Spätbronzezeit wies Kreta Kontakte nach Zypern und zur Levante auf, die an dem Austausch von Keramik und zyprischem Kupfer festgemacht werden können. Für SM III A sind die meisten zyprischen und levantinischen Importe auf Kreta belegt, während östliche Importe in SM III B zurückgegangen sein könnten, was oben mit der Dominanz der Mykener in Verbindung gebracht wurde. Allerdings fand sich auch SM III B-Keramik häufiger auf Zypern und in der Levante. Dagegen könnte in SM III C wenig Kontakt zwischen Kreta und dem östlichen Mittelmeer bestanden zu haben.73 Zypern und die Levante erscheinen allein aufgrund ihrer relativen geographischen Nähe als zwei Gebiete, die in der Spätbronzezeit regelmäßigeren Handel untereinander betrieben. Dies zeigt die Verbreitung etwa von kanaanitischen Amphoren, und aufgrund seines Kupfers, das besonders ab 1300 vor Christus intensiver abgebaut wurde,74 war Zypern ein wichtiger Handelspartner. Der Überblick über den Handel in der Spätbronzezeit, der zu großen Teilen nur auf den Keramikfunden aufbauen mußte, hat für die verschiedenen Gebiete in den einzelnen Epochen ein Ungleichgewicht zwischen den Partnern gezeigt. Dies ist zum einen auf den Forschungsstand und die Quellenlage zurückzuführen, die nur indirekte Aussagen zum Austausch mit vergänglichen Materialien erlaubt, zum anderen aber wahrscheinlich auch mit komplexen Handelsstrukturen zu erklären, in denen Händler und Seefahrer auf unterschiedlichsten Wegen Güter transportierten und dadurch selber eine
66
71
DER HANDEL IM OSTMITTELMEERRAUM WÄHREND SPÄTBRONZEZEIT
DER
67 68 69 70
MOUNTJOY 1993, 11–15. MARAN 2005. CLINE 1994, 56, 64. STOS-GALE und MACDONALD 1991, 280. Etwa CLINE 1994, XVII.
72
73 74
DEGER-JALKOTZY 2002, besonders 66–70; MARAN 2004; SHERRATT 1994, 85; SHERRATT 2000. Vergleiche LEONARD 1994; SHERRATT 1994; SHERRATT 2000. CLINE 1994, XVII/XVIII; LEONARD 1994, 193–199. CADOGAN 1993, 92.
252 Tobias Mühlenbruch wichtige Komponente darstellten.75 Einen qualitativen wie quantitativen Sprung dürften die Austauschbeziehungen im 14. und 13. Jahrhundert vor Christus gemacht haben, als das mykenische Palastsystem mit seinen ökonomischen Bedürfnissen bestand, auf Zypern die Urbanisierung, wahrscheinlich mit einer intensivierten Kupfermetallurgie verbunden, einsetzte und an der Levanteküste etwa Ugarit und Amurru eine Blütezeit erlebten,76 gleichzeitig allerdings Kreta möglicherweise seine „Unabhängigkeit“ verlor. Die weitreichenden Umwälzungen um 1200 vor Christus dagegen führten zu einem weniger systematisierten Handel mit anderen Gütern, wahrscheinlich in geringerer Menge. ZUSAMMMENFASSUNG Im Rahmen des Projektes SCIEM 2000 soll auf der Basis der mykenischen Keramik und ihrer Imitate in Kilikien, Syrien und dem Libanon die Synchronisierung mit der Ägäischen Spätbronzezeit Südgriechenlands systematisiert werden. Dazu wird ein
Katalog der betreffenden Funde aus geschlossenen Kontexten erstellt und die Keramik mit Vergleichsstücken aus Siedlungssequenzen in der Argolis, dem mutmaßlichen Herkunftsgebiet der Masse südgriechischer Exporte, „verlinkt”. Die spätbronzezeitlichen Schriftquellen der Levante geben Aufschluß über die historischen Prozesse in diesem Gebiet, durch die primär Zerstörungshorizonte absolutchronologisch datiert werden können und für stratifizierte Importkeramik/Imitate termini post beziehungsweise ante quem liefern können. Das Studium der jeweiligen Kontexte der Importe und Imitate gibt Einblicke in ihre Rezeption, die an unterschiedlichen Quellengattungen wie Siedlungen, Gräbern und Kultgebäuden diachron – siehe etwa die Siedlungsabfolge von Tell Kazel (Sumur)77 – sowie synchron im Falle der Siedlungen, die durch die Seevölker zerstört wurden, untersucht werden können. Auch die Handelsmechanismen des Ostmittelmeerraumes mit ihren Entwicklungen durch die Jahrhunderte werden in einem auswertenden Teil betrachtet.
Bibliographie ARTZY, M. 1997
Nomads of the sea, 1–16, in: ST. SWINY, R.L. HOHLund H. WYLDE SWINY (Hg.), Res Maritimae. Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from prehistory to late antiquity. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium „Cities on the Sea“, Nicosia, Cyprus, October 18–22, 1994, Atlanta.
BELL, C. 2005
FELDER
BADRE, L. 1997
1998
Bey 003 Preliminary Report. Excavations of the American University of Beirut Museum 1993– 1996, Baal 2, 6–94. Late Bronze and Iron Age Imported Pottery from the Archaeological Excavations of Urban Beirut, 73–86, in: V. KARAGEORGHIS und N.CHR. STAMPOLIDIS (Hg.), Eastern Mediterranean. Cyprus – Dodecanese – Crete 16th–6th cent. B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Rethymnon – Crete in May 1997, Athen.
BUCHHOLZ, H.-G. 1974
75 76
1993
Kilise Tepe 1994, AS 45, 139–191.
Siehe ARTZY 1997. KLENGEL 1992, 130–151, 160–174.
Ägäische Funde und Kultureinflüsse in den Randgebieten des Mittelmeers. Forschungsbericht über Ausgrabungen und Neufunde, 1960–1970, AA, 325–462.
CADOGAN, G.
BAKER, H. D., COLLON, D., HAWKINS, J. D., POLLARD, T., POSTGATE, J. N., SYMINGTON, D. und THOMAS, D. 1995
Wheels within Wheels? A View of Mycenaean Trade from the Levantine Emporia, 363–370, in: R. LAFFINEUR und E. GRECO (Hg.), Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference/10e Rencontre égéenne internationale. Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14–18 April 2004, Aegaeum 25, Liège.
77
Cyprus, mycenaean pottery, trade and colonisation, 91–99, in: C. ZERNER und P. ZERNER und J. WINDER (Hg.), Wace and Blegen. Pottery as evidence for trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939–1989. Proceedings of the international conference held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Athens, December 2–3, 1989, Amsterdam.
JUNG 2007.
Die Synchronisierung der nördlichen Levante und Kilikiens mit der agäischen Spätbronzezeit 253
CALVET, Y. und GEYER, B. 1987
L’eau dans l’habitat. Le centre de la ville. 38e–44e Campagnes (1978–1984), RSO 3, 129–156.
FRENCH, E.B. und TOMLINSON, J. 2004
CECCHINI, S. M. und MAZZONI, ST. (Hg.) 1998
Tell Afis (Siria). Scavi sull’acropoli 1988–1992/The 1988–1992 Excavations on the Acropolis, Pisa.
CLINE, E. H. 1994
Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea. International trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean, Oxford.
The contribution of chemical analysis to provenance studies, 15–25, in: J. BALENSI, J.-Y. MONCHAMBERT und S. MÜLLER CELKA (Hg.), La céramique mycénienne de l’Égée au Levant. Hommage à Vronwy Hankey, Lyon.
GARSTANG, J. 1953
Prehistoric Mersin. Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey, Oxford.
GJERSTAD, E.
COURTOIS, J.-C. und COURTOIS, L.
1934
1978
HACHMANN, R. (Hg.)
Corpus céramique de Ras Shamra – Ugarit. Niveaux historique d’Ugarit. Bronze Moyen et Bronze Récent. Deuxième partie, Ugaritica 7, 191–370.
D’AGATA, A. L., GOREN, Y., MOMMSEN, H., SCHWEDT, A. und YASUR-LANDAU, A. 2005
Imported Pottery of LH III C Style from Israel. Style, Provenance, and Chronology, 371–379, in: R. LAFFINEUR und E. GRECO (Hg.), Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference/10e Rencontre égéenne internationale. Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14–18 April 2004, Aegaeum 25, Liège.
DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. 2002
Innerägäische Beziehungen und auswärtige Kontakte des mykenischen Griechenland in nachpalatialer Zeit, 47–74, in: E.A. BRAUN-HOLZINGER und H. MATTHÄUS (Hg.), Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und Griechenland an der Wende vom 2. zum 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr.. Kontinuität und Wandel von Strukturen und Mechanismen kultureller Interaktion, Paderborn.
1969
Vademaecum der Grabung Kamid el-Loz, Bonn.
1982
Über die Grenzen der Möglichkeiten einer statistischen Auswertung von Keramik aus Kamid elLoz, 179–208, in: R. HACHMANN (Hg.), Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kamid el-Loz in den Jahren 1971 bis 1974, Bonn.
HANKEY, V. 1967
2002
Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Drehscheibenkeramik der Schichten 19 bis 11, Kiel.
2004
Synchronisation of the Syrian Regions with the Aegean Late Bronze Age Sequences, Unpublizierter Projektantrag.
2007
Tell Kazel and the Mycenaean Contacts with Amurru (Syria), 551–570, in: M. BIETAK & E. CZERNY (Hg.), 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, Wien.
Einführung in die Vorgeschichte, München.
FRENCH, E. B. 1963
Pottery groups from Mycenae: a summary, BSA 58, 44–52.
1964
Late Helladic IIIA 1 pottery from Mycenae, BSA 59, 241–261.
1965
Late Helladic IIIA 2 Pottery from Mycenae, BSA 60, 159–202.
1966
A group of Late Helladic IIIB 1 Pottery from Mycenae, BSA 61, 216–238.
1967
Pottery from Late Helladic IIIB 1 destruction contexts at Mycenae, BSA 62, 149–193.
1969
A group of Late Helladic IIIB 2 pottery from Mycenae, BSA 64, 71–93.
1975
A reassesment of the mycenaean pottery at Tarsus, BAS 25, 53–75.
1993
Turkey and the East Aegean, 155–158, in: C. ZERund P. ZERNER und J. WINDER (Hg.), Wace and Blegen. Pottery as evidence for trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939–1989. Proceedings of the international conference held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Athens, December 2–3, 1989, Amsterdam.
NER
Mycenaean pottery in the Middle East: Notes on finds since 1951, BSA 62, 107–147.
JUNG, R.
EGGERS, H.J. 1959
Cilician Studies, RA 3, 155–203.
KITCHEN, K.A. 2000
Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt (Absolute Chronology I). The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a current Assessment, 39–52, in: M., BIETAK (Hg.), 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–12 th of May 1998, CChEM 1, Wien.
KLENGEL, H. 1992
Syria 3000 to 300 B.C., Berlin.
LEONARD Jr., A. 1994
An Index to the Late Bronze Age Aegean Pottery from Syria-Palestine, Jonsered.
LIVERANI, M. 1990
Prestige and Interest. International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600–1100 B.C., Padua.
MARAN, J. 2001
Zur Frage des Vorgängers des ersten Doppelpala-
254 Tobias Mühlenbruch stes von Tiryns, 23–29, in: ST. BÖHM und K.-V. VON EICKSTEDT (Hg.), Idakh. Festschrift für Jörg Schäfer, Würzburg. 2004
2005
The spreading of objects and ideas in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean: Two case examples from the Argolid of the 13th and 12th centuries B.C., BASOR 336, 11–30. Late Minoan coarse ware stirrup jars on greek mainland – a post-palatial perspective from 12th cent. BC Argolid, 415–431, in: A.L. D’AGATA, J. MOODY und E. WILLIAMS (Hg.), Ariadne’s Threads. Connections between Crete and the Greek Mainland in Late Minoan III (LM IIIA2 to LM IIIC). Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Athens, Scuola Archeologica Italiana, 5–6 April 2003, Athen.
SCHAEFFER, C. F. A. und CHENET, M. G. 1949
SCHÖNFELD, G. 1988
Bericht zur bemalten mykenischen Keramik. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982/83, AA, 153–211.
SHERRATT, S. 1994
Commerce, iron and ideology: Metallurgical innovation in 12th–11th century Cyprus, 59–106, in: V. KARAGEORGHIS (Hg.), Cyprus in the 11th century B.C.. Proceedings of the International Syposium organized by: The Archaeological Research Unit of the University of Cyprus and The Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia 30–31 October, 1993, Nicosia.
2000
Circulation of metals and the end of the Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean, in: C.F.E. PARE (Hg.), Metals make the world go round. The supply and circulation of metals in Bronze Age Europe. Proceedings of a conference held at the University of Birmingham in June 1997, Oxford, 82–95.
MOMMSEN, H. und MARAN, J. 2000/2001 Production places of some Mycenaean pictorial vessels. The contribution of chemical analysis, OpAth 25/26, 95–106.
Corpus céramique de Ras Shamra, 131–301, in: C.F.A., SCHAEFFER Ugaritica II, Nouvelles Études relatives aux Découvertes de Ras Shamra, Paris.
MOUNTJOY, P. A. 1986
Mycenaean decorated pottery. A guide to identification, Göteborg.
SHERRATT, E. S. und CROUWEL, J. H.
1993
Mycenaean pottery. An introduction, Oxford.
1987
1999
Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery, Leidorf.
2004
Miletos: A Note, BSA 99, 189–200.
SINGER, I.
2005
The mycenaean pottery from the 1934–1939 excavations at Tarsus, 83–134, in: A. ÖZYAR (Hg.), Field seasons 2001–2003 of the Tarsus-Gözlükule interdisciplinary research project, Istanbul.
1999
MOUNTJOY, P. A., und MOMMSEN, H. 2001
Mycenaean pottery from Qantir-Piramesse, Egypt, BSA 96, 123–155.
Mycenaean Pottery from Cilicia in Oxford, OJA 6, 325–352. A Political History of Ugarit, 603–733, in: W.G.E. WATSON und N. WYATT (Hg.), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten, Band 39, Leiden, Boston und Köln.
SOMMER, U. 1991
PODZUWEIT, CHR.
Zur Entstehung archäologischer Fundvergesellschaftungen. Versuch einer archäologischen Taphonomie, in: Studien zur Siedlungsarchäologie I, Bonn, 51–193.
1978
Bericht zur spätmykenischen Keramik, AA, 412–440.
1979
Bericht zur spätmykenischen Keramik, AA, 471–498.
STOCKHAMMER, P.
1981
Bericht zur spätmykenischen Keramik. AA, 194–220.
1983
Bericht zur spätmykenischen Keramik – Tiryns 1981, AA, 359–402.
1988
Keramik der Phase SH IIIC-Spät aus Unterburg – Tiryns 1982/83, AA, 213–225.
1992
Studien zur spätmykenischen Keramik, Unpublizierte Habilitationsschrift Bonn.
unpubl. The Change of Pottery’s Social Meaning at the End of the Bronze Age: New Evidence from Tiryns, in: C. BACHHUBER und G. ROBERTS (Hg.), Forces of Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Papers of the Conference Held at St. John’s College, Oxford, 25.–26. März 2006, Oxford.
RENFREW, C. und BAHN, P. Archaeology. Theories Methods and Practice, 2London.
STOS-GALE, Z. A. und MACDONALD, C. F. 1991
RUTTER, J. B. Rez. zu LEONARD 1994, BASOR 305, 87/88. SCHAEFFER, C. F. A. 1936
1939
Les Fouilles de Ras Shamra – Ugarit. Septième campagne (printemps 1935). Rapport sommaire, Syria 17, 105–149. Ras Shamra – Ugarit et le Monde Egéen, 53–106, in: C.F.A. SCHAEFFER (Hg.), Ugaritica. Ètudes relatives aux découvertes de Ras Shamra, Paris.
Sources of Metals and Trade in the Bronze Age Aegean, 249–287, in: N.H. GALE (Hg.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. Papers presented at the Conference held at Rewley House, Oxford, in December 1989, Jonsered.
STUBBINGS, F. H. 1951
Mycenaean pottery from the Levant, Cambridge.
STÜLPNAGEL, H. 1999
Mykenische Keramik der Oberburg von Tiryns. Material der Ausgrabungen 1984, 1985 im Bereich des großen und kleinen Megarons. Dissertation Freiburg.
Die Synchronisierung der nördlichen Levante und Kilikiens mit der agäischen Spätbronzezeit 255
VAN
WIJNGAARDEN, J. G.
1999
An archaeological approach to the concept of value. Mycenaean pottery at Ugarit (Syria), Archaeological Dialogues 6, 2–23.
2002
Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (ca. 1600–1200 BC), Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 8, Amsterdam.
2005
Mycenaean Heirlooms, Antiques and Souvenirs in the Levant and Cyprus, 405–413, in: R. LAFFINEUR und E. GRECO (Hg.), Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference/10e Rencontre égéenne internationale. Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14–18 April 2004. Aegaeum 25, Liège.
YAGCI, R. 2003
YON, M. 1992
The End of the Kingdom of Ugarit, in: W.A. WARD und M.S. JOUKOWSKY (Hg.), The Crisis Years: The 12th century B.C.. From beyond the Danube to the Tigris, Dubuque, 111–122.
1998
La cité d’Ougarit sur le tell Ras Shamra, Paris.
2000
Répartition et contextes de la céramique mycénienne d’Ougarit, 1–27, in: M. YON, N. HIRSCHFELD und V. KARAGEORGHIS, Céramiques mycéniennes, RSO 13, Paris und Nikosia.
WARDLE, K. A. 1969
A group of Late Helladic IIIB 1 Pottery from within the Citadel of Mycenae, BSA 64, 261–297.
1973
A group of Late Helladic IIIB 2 Pottery from within the Citadel of Mycenae. With Appendices by J. Crouwel and E. French, BSA 68, 297–348.
WOOLLEY, L. 1955
Alalakh. An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–1949, Oxford.
The Stratigraphy of Cyprus WS II & Mycenaean Cups in Soli Höyük Excavations, 93–106, in: B. FISCHER, H. GENZ, É. JEAN und K KÖROGLU. (Hg.), Identifying Changes: The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its Neighbouring Regions. Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul, November 8–9, 2002, Istanbul.
YON, M., LOMBARD, P. und RENISIO, M. 1987
L’organisation de l’habitat: le maisons A, B et E. , Le centre de la ville. 38e–44e Campagnes (1978–1984), RSO 3, 11–128.
ZAVADIL, M unpubl. Die mykenische Keramik aus den Grabungen im Bereich der Palastmegara auf der Oberburg von Tiryns, Kampagnen 1997/1998. Unpubliziertes Manuskript.
ZUR ENTWICKLUNG DER KÖNIGLICHEN JENSEITSABSICHERUNG IN DEN THEBANISCHEN TOTENTEMPELN DES NEUEN REICHES Von Hosam Refai
Die Suche nach verschiedenen Mitteln zur Absicherung der jenseitigen Fortexistenz war stets ein zentrales Thema im Alten Ägypten, wohl schon seit der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit. Allein der Grabbau und die Bestattung schienen dieses Ziel nur in beschränktem Maße zu garantieren, und bereits das Alte Reich bietet eine Fülle an Einrichtungen und Ritualen, die der Göttlichkeit des Königs und der Erhaltung seiner Macht im Jenseits dienten.1 Mehrere Konzepte des Alten und Mittleren Reiches bleiben auch im Neuen Reich erhalten.2 Die Totentempel des Neuen Reiches übernehmen nun die Funktion der Tal- und Totentempel der Pyramidenanlagen.3 Einzelne Motive des Bildprogrammes der älteren Bauten finden dabei Einzug sowohl in die Grab- als auch in die Tempeldekoration, wenngleich im Rahmen der religiösen Neuerungen der 18. und 19. Dynastie nicht mehr die alleinige “Vergöttlichung” des Königs im Vordergrund steht, sondern dessen Begleitung von und Vereinigung mit dem Sonnengott. Spätestens der Totentempel von Hatschepsut in Deir el-Bahari legt sowohl architektonisch als auch bildlich die Grundlage für die Weiterentwicklung der Totentempel des Neuen Reiches.4 Von den nur spärlich erhaltenen Totentempeln der frühen 18. Dynastie5 kann man nur vermuten, dass sie bereits solche Neuerungen aufgewiesen hatten. So wie bei den neu konzepierten Unterweltsbüchern, die ihren Ursprung in der Umbruchszeit zum Neuen Reich haben,6 muss man in dieser Zeit auch die Anfänge der Neugestaltung des königlichen Totenkultes suchen.
1
2
3 4
5
Vgl. dazu D. ARNOLD, Rituale und Pyramidentempel, MDAIK 33, 1977, 8ff. Siehe D. ARNOLD, Vom Pyramidenbezirk zum „Haus für Millionen Jahre“, MDAIK 34, 1978, 1ff. R. STADELMANN, Totentempel III, LÄ VI, 706. Vgl. D. ARNOLD, op. cit., 5ff.; R. STADELMANN, Totentempel und Millionenjahrhaus in Theben, MDAIK 35, 1979, 305ff. Siehe dazu W.M.F. PETRIE, Six Temples at Thebes, London 1897; R. STADELMANN, ibid., 305 und 309.
Der Totentempel der Hatschepsut bildet in besonders interessanter Weise einen Übergang zwischen den Pyramidenanlagen des Alten und Mittleren Reiches und den späteren Totentempeln. Er vereint dabei die Bauelemente, die fortan aufgegeben werden, wie Aufweg und Taltempel, mit wegweisenden Neuerungen wie der von nun an klassischen Dreiteilung des hinteren Tempelteils.7 Unter Thutmosis III. werden die noch verbleibenden architektonischen Relikte des Alten und Mittleren Reiches aufgegeben. Sein Totentempel (Hnkt-anx) bildet nun das Vorbild für alle weiteren Totentempeln der 18. und 19. Dynastie.8 Erst unter Sethos I. sind wieder bedeutende Änderungen in der architektonischen Konzeption unternommen worden. Räumlich und bildlich wird die königliche Regeneration und Vereinigung mit Amun-Re nun schrittweise vom Eingang des Tempels bis zur Vollendung im hinteren Tempelteil vollzogen. Ähnlich wie im Luxor-Tempel, in dem der König sich im Rahmen des Opetfestes stufenweise beim Eindringen in den Tempel mit seinem Ka vereinigte und göttliche Aspekte erhielt, die ihn zur Ausübung seiner Herrschaft befähigten,9 ist jeder Schritt in den Totentempel Teil einer die jenseitige Existenz sichernde Prozedur, die stets wiederholt werden muss. In ihr fliessen Details aus allen Epochen des ägyptischen religiösen Gedankenguts zusammen. Der Eingangspylon mit dem ersten Hof und Königspalast erinnern an den „Palast-Aspekt“ der Pyramidenbezirke des Alten Reiches.10 Auf dieser „Festbühne für die Zurschaustellung der königlichen Macht“11 herrscht
6
7 8
9
10 11
E. HORNUNG, Ägyptische Unterweltsbücher, Zürich und München 1972, 18. D. ARNOLD, op. cit., 8; R. STADELMANN, op. cit., 305f. Siehe H. RICKE, Der Totentempel Thutmoses’ III, Beiträge Bf. 3.1., 1939, 17ff.; R. STADELMANN, op. cit., 306ff. Siehe dazu L. BELL, Luxor Temple and the Cult of the Royal Ka, JNES 44.4, 1985, 289. D. ARNOLD, op. cit., 6. R. STADELMANN, op. cit., 312.
258 Hosam Refai noch vordergründig der König. Hier wird die königliche Macht zur Schau gestellt und das Chaos wird vertrieben,12 nicht nur aus Ägypten im allgemeinen, sondern konkret auch aus dem Tempel, der bereits hinter diesem Teil absolut rein und abgesichert für den Regenerationsprozess sein muss. Der folgende Festhof ist Schauplatz einer ganzen Reihe verschiedener Götterfeste, die alle das selbe Ziel verfolgen, nämlich die Erneuerung der Königsmacht und die Verschmelzung von Gott und König.13 Architektonisch und kultisch ist er eine Weiterentwicklung der offenen Kapellen und Statuenhöfe der Pyramidenanlagen des Alten Reiches.14 Der Säulensaal dahinter ist die Schwelle zwischen der königlichen und der göttlichen Sphäre des Tempels. Hier ruhen die Götterbarken beim Talfest und nehmen die Barke des Königs mit in die Prozession auf. Die Nebenkapellen des Hypostyls, eine Neuerung ab dem Totentempel Sethos’ I. in Qurna, spielen dabei verschiedene Rollen im Rahmen der königlichen Regeneration. In diesen Kapellen wird der König gereinigt, vereint sich mit Amun und wird von der weiblichen Personifikation seines Totentempels neu geboren.15 Den Schutz dieses so wichtigen Tempelteils gewähren Darstellungen verschiedener Totengötter und zahlreiche Schutzsymbole.16 Hier spielt Hathor eine besonders wichtige Rolle als jenseitige Schutzgottheit.17 Im Totentempel von Hatschepsut gewinnt sie durch die Weiblichkeit der Regentin – und der damit verbundenen Bevorzugung einer Verschmelzung mit einer weiblichen Gottheit – eine besondere Stellung.18 Eine eigene Kapelle der Hathor wird auch im Totentempel von Thutmosis III. beibehalten, verschwindet aber in den nachfolgenden Tempeln. Der unterweltliche Schutzaspekt der Hathor, v.a. als
Göttin des Westens, wird stattdessen um so stärker in ihren zahlreichen Darstellungen in den Königsgräbern im Tal der Könige wie auch in Privatgräbern betont.19 In der Seitenkapelle IV des Totentempels Sethos’ I. verleiht ihre Darstellung als Westgöttin diesem Tempelbereich einen unterweltlichen und regenerierenden Aspekt.20 Am Übergang vom Säulensaal zum hinteren Tempelteil wird der wiedergeborene König von Hathor und Mut gesäugt und tritt nun neugeboren und mit Amun göttlich vereint in das Amunsanktuar ein.21 An dieses zentrale Amunsanktuar, das zusammen mit dem Hypostyl und seinen Nebenkapellen die wesentliche Rolle in der Regeneration des Königs im Rahmen des Talfests gespielt hat,22 grenzen ab Hatschepsut und Thutmosis III. im Norden und Süden zwei weitere Kultbereiche. Im Norden ist es der Sonnenhof mit seinen Nebenräumen, eine Weiterentwicklung der Statuenhöfe des Alten Reiches, und der Platz, auf dem die Opfer für Re-Harachte dargebracht wurden, an denen der König durch die in Nischen aufgestellten Königsstatuen teilnehmen durfte.23 Im Süden ist es der Bereich des königlichen Totenkultes, mit der seit dem Alten Reich traditionellen Opferstelle für den Osiriskönig. Stadelmann hat diesen Regenerationskult des Königs als einen Doppelkult erklärt, bei dem der König durch den zentralen Amun-Kult und die südlichen Totenopferräume für seine jenseitige Existenz doppelt abgesichert ist. Für ihn wird dabei die alte Tradition der Totenopfer an einer Scheintür, die Absicherung des Toten im Alten Reich, durch die Verbindung des Königskults mit dem Talfest im Neuen Reich ergänzt.24 Der wesentliche Schritt in der Absicherung der königlichen Fortexistenz dürfte allerdings in Anleh-
12
17
13
14
15
16
E. HORNUNG, Geschichte als Fest. Zwei Vorträge zum Geschichtsbild der frühen Menschheit, Darmstadt 1966, 17ff.; R. STADELMANN, op. cit., 312. Siehe dazu H. REFAI, Die Bestätigung im Fest. Zur Rolle der thebanischen Feste bei der Erneuerung der Königsmacht, Memnonia 9, 1998, 181ff. R. STADELMANN, Die Ägyptischen Pyramiden. Vom Ziegelbau zum Weltwunder, Darmstadt 1985, 60f. H. REFAI, Untersuchungen zum Bildprogramm der großen Säulensäle in den thebanischen Tempeln des Neuen Reiches, Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 18, Wien 2000, 159ff.; ders., Der Tempel als Mutter, SAK 30, 2002, 299ff. H. REFAI, Untersuchungen zum Bildprogramm der großen Säulensäle in den thebanischen Tempeln des Neuen Reiches, Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 18, Wien 2000, 151ff.
18 19
20
21 22 23 24
R. STADELMANN, op. cit., 309. D. ARNOLD, op. cit., 8. E. HORNUNG, Tal der Könige. Die Ruhestätte der Pharaonen, Zürich und München 1982, 88. Vgl. auch H. REFAI, Hathor als gleichzeitige West- und Baumgöttin, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELAMAN und A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, OLA 149.1., 2006, 287ff. H. REFAI, Untersuchungen zum Bildprogramm der großen Säulensäle in den thebanischen Tempeln des Neuen Reiches, Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 18, Wien 2000, 161f. Ibid., 152f. und 162. R. STADELMANN, op. cit., 316f. Ibid., 317f. Ibid., 319f.
Zur Entwicklung der königlichen Jenseitsabsicherung in den thebanischen Totentempeln des Neuen Reiches 259
Abb. 1 Luxor-Tempel. Raum XVII (nach H. NELSON, Key Plans Showing Locations of Theban Temple Decorations, OIP 56, 1941, Tafel XXIII)
nung an die Unterweltsbücher in der Aufnahme des Königs in die Sonnenbarke und seiner Teilnahme am Sonnenlauf sein. Die Aufnahme der Königsbarke in das Barkenensemble der thebanischen Triade und die Verschmelzung des Königs mit Amun im Hypostyl ist ein diesseitiger Festakt im Rahmen des Talfests. Dadurch wird der König vergöttlicht und überquert nach seiner Wiedergeburt durch seine Tempelmutter und der Säugung durch verschiedene Muttergottheiten die Schwelle zur göttlichen Sphäre des Tempels, deren Mittelpunkt das Amunsaktuar mit seinen Nebenräumen bildet. Diese Schwelle ist zugleich ein Übergang in eine andere Dimension: Der König tritt ins Jenseits ein, wird aufgenommen in die Barke des Sonnengottes und nimmt nun am Sonnenlauf teil. Hier kann man wieder einen Vergleich mit dem Luxor-Tempel heranziehen, der in Raum XVII im Hinterteil des Tempels (Abb. 1)
25
26
Siehe dazu H. BRUNNER, Die Sonnenbahn in Ägyptischen Tempeln, in: A. KUSCHKE und E. KUTSCH (Hrsg.), Archäologie und Altes Testament. Festschrift für Kurt Galling, Tübingen 1970, 27ff.; ders., Die südlichen Räume des Tempels von Luxor, AV 18, Mainz am Rhein 1977, 79ff. Vgl. H. BRUNNER, Die Sonnenbahn in Ägyptischen Tempeln, in: A. KUSCHKE und E. KUTSCH (Hrsg.), Archäologie und Altes Testament. Festschrift für Kurt Galling, Tübingen 1970, 31f. Er führt mehrere Quellen des Neuen Reiches an, die von dem Totentempel als ein
eine Kultstelle für den Sonnenlauf bietet, die als Teil der kontinuierlichen Prozedur der Herrschaftsbefähigung des lebenden Königs zu betrachten ist.25 Im Totentempel bilden die Bereiche nördlich und südlich des Hauptsanktuars eine architektonische Wiedergabe der beiden Horizontberge, zwischen denen die Sonne emporsteigt, ebenso wie die beiden Pylontürmen am Eingang des Tempels. Der Sonnenhof ist zugleich Abbild des himmlischen Jenseits, des Bereichs von Re-Harachte, Atum und Nut. Im Süden ist es das westliche unterweltliche Totenreich, der Bereich des Osiris, des Sokar und der Hathor als Westgöttin. Im Totentempel wird damit ein vollkommenes Kultgeschehen wiedergegeben, von dem die jenseitige Wiedergeburt des Königs und seine Aufnahme in die Sonnenbarke auch in seinem Totentempel verwirklicht wird.26
Achet und ein Platz des Sonnengottes sprechen. In Medinet Habu spricht der Gott zum König: „Dein Tempel ist wie das Achet des Himmels, und Aton ist in ihm“ (Medinet Habu VI, Tafel 390); und „Wenn Re aufgeht, so ist sein Glanz in seinem (d.h. des Tempels) Inneren und seine Strahlen umfangen seinen Bau“ (Medinet Habu VI, Tafel 389 b); „Re geht auf und leuchtet in seinem (d.h. des Tempels) Inneren; seine Strahlen umfangen das Allerheiligste“ (Medinet Habu VI, Tafel 389 b).
260 Hosam Refai
Abb. 2 Deir el-Bahari. Totentempel der Hatschepsut. Raum III (nach E. NAVILLE, Deir el-Bahari IV, Tafel CXV)
Leider ist das Bildprogramm dieser hinteren Tempelteile der thebanischen Totentempel bis auf Teile der Darstellungen des Totentempels der Hatschepsut in Deir el-Bahari, des Totentempels Sethos’ I. in Qurna und des Totentempels Ramses’ III. in Medinet Habu fast gänzlich verschwunden. Im Tempel der Hatschepsut erscheint die Königin in Raum III der königlichen Totenopferkultstätte in der Hauptdarstellung der Rückwand auf der Sonnenbarke gemeinsam mit Atum, Maat und Nephthys und in Adoration vor den Personifikationen der Tag- und Nachtstunden27 (Abb. 2). Darstellungen der Amun-Barke finden sich auf beiden Seitenwänden des Amunsanktuars,28 in Raum XI dahinter erscheint die weibliche Personifikation des Tempels29 als Hinweis auf die jenseitige
Wiedergeburt. Im Tempel Sethos’ I. in Qurna erscheint in Raum XIX des Amunsanktuars die Darstellung des Osiris auf der Barke,30 der vom personifizierten Westen im Njnj-Gestus empfangen wird.31 Stadelmann sieht diesen Raum als dem Osiris als Nachtsonne gewidmet.32 In Medinet Habu ist die Wiedergabe der beiden Jenseitsgebiete deutlicher. Die Darstellungen des nördlichen Re-Harachte-Komplexes sind grösstenteils erhalten und zeigen im Sonnenhof (Raum 18) den König und Paviane in Adoration vor der Sonnenbarke33 (Abb. 3) und in Raum 19 die erste Stunde des Buches von der Nacht, sowie Auszüge aus den Sonnenhymnen von Tb 15.34 Im Süden zeigt die königliche Totenopferkultstätte die stufenförmige Regeneration des Königs
Abb. 3 Medinet Habu. Totentempel Ramses’ III. Raum 18 (nach Medinet Habu VI, Tafel 421 c)
27 28 29 30
E. NAVILLE, Deir el-Bahari IV, Tafel CXV. E. NAVILLE, Deir el-Bahari V, Tafel CXLI und CXLIII. E. NAVILLE, Deir el-Bahari V, Tafel CXXXIX. E. OTTO, Eine Darstellung der „Osiris-Mysterien“ in Theben, in: W. HELCK (Hrsg.), Festschrift für Siegfried Schott zu seinem 70. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden 1968, 99ff.
31 32 33 34
PM II, 416 (83). R. STADELMANN, op. cit., 317. Medinet Habu VI, Tafel 421 c. Medinet Habu VI, Tafel 422.
Zur Entwicklung der königlichen Jenseitsabsicherung in den thebanischen Totentempeln des Neuen Reiches 261
Abb. 4 Medinet Habu. Totentempel Ramses’ III. Raum 26 (nach Medinet Habu VI, Tafel 469)
im unterweltlichen Totenreich.35 Die Darstellung der weiblichen Personifikation des Tempels gleich am Eingang in Raum 20 ist als Zeichen der jenseitigen Wiedergeburt des Königs zu deuten.36 Die weitere Prozedur umfasst u.a. das Mundöffnungsritual und die rituelle Reinigung durch Iunmutef und die Krönung durch Harsiese vor Ptah-Sokar-Osiris bis zur vollen Transformation zum Osiris-König in den Räumen 24–27, die eine Wiedergabe der Unterwelt en miniature bilden.37 Die Verbindung dieser Unterweltsreise mit dem Sonnenlauf wird in der in Totentempeln seltenen Wiedergabe von Totenbuchsprüchen in Raum 26
und 27 unterstrichen, die hier einer klar durchdachten Auswahl unterliegen: In Raum 26 ist es Spruch 110 mit den „Sprüchen des Opfergefildes“ und der dazugehörigen Vignette mit der Darstellung der Sonnenbarke im unteren Register (Abb. 4), die in Medinet Habu wie in der 4. und 5. Stunde des Amduats schlangenköpfig erscheint38 und bezeichnenderweise „Barke des Re-Harachte“ heißt,39 in deutlicher Gegenüberstellung zur Barke des Sokar in Raum 25.40 In Raum 27 ist Spruch 148 angebracht, der die Nahrungsversorgung des Toten im Jenseits und seinen Schutz garantiern soll,41 allerdings auch
35
38
36
37
W. MURNANE, United with Eternity. A Concise Guide to the Monuments of Medinet Habu, Chicago und Kairo 1980, 53. H. REFAI, Der Tempel als Mutter, SAK 30, 2002, 303 und Abb. 3. Medinet Habu VI, Tafel 447–469.
39 40 41
Vgl. dazu E. HORNUNG, Ägyptische Unterweltsbücher, Zürich und München 1972, 27. Medinet Habu VI, Tafel 469. Medinet Habu VI, Tafel 480. Medinet Habu VI, Tafel 474.
262 Hosam Refai direkt mit dem Sonnengott verbunden ist, was durch seinen Anruf am Anfang des Spruches deutlich wird:
Im Totentempel von Medinet Habu wird hinter dem klassischen dreiteiligen Hinterteil des Tempels eine weitere Raumgruppe (38–48) hinzugefügt (Abb. 5), deren Funktion bisher nicht erklärt wurde. Die Darstellungen an den Wänden zeigen v.a. Amun-Re in einer Reihe verschiedener, zum Teil selten auftretender Erscheinungsformen. In Raum 40 sind es gleich vier verschiedene Formen: Amun-Re „der Urzeitige der beiden Länder“, ein löwenköpfiger Amun-Re „Groß an Würde“, ein widderköpfiger Amun-Re-Kamutef sowie ein ithyphallischer Amun.43 In den Räumen 4144 und 4345 sind weitere Darstellungen des thronenden AmunRe und Amun-Re-Harachte angebracht, und in Raum 44 wird Amun-Re in zwei verschiedenen Formen dargestellt, die Reliefs sind allerdings grösstenteils zerstört.46 In Raum 45 folgen wieder zwei Darstellungen von Amun-Re-Harachte und AmunRe „mit hohem Federschmuck“47 und in Raum 46 Amun-Re „der Urzeitige der beiden Länder“, MinAmun48 sowie Min-Kamutef getragen von einem Priester in einer Festprozession.49 Schliesslich werden in Raum 48 Amun-Re-Kamutef und dreimal Amun-Re dargestellt.50 Die Reliefs der restlichen Räumen (38, 39, 42 und 47) sind bis auf spärliche Überreste verschwunden, aber auch dort dürften weitere Erscheinungsformen des Amun-Re angebracht gewesen sein. Aufgrund der feinen Reliefarbeit in den Räumen der vorderen Reihe (38–41 und 44–46) hatte Hölscher eine besondere Bedeutung für diese Raumgruppe vermutet, während er die Räume der hinteren Reihe (42–43 und 47–48) als Magazinräume für wichtige Kultgegenstände betrachtete.51 In ähnlicher Weise hat auch Murnane die Funktion dieser Raumgruppe interpretiert.52 Stadel-
mann hat hingegen die Räume der vorderen Reihe als hintere Erweiterung für das Hauptsanktuar des Amun betrachtet.53 Der unterschiedlichen Qualität der Reliefarbeit dürfte man allerdings keine grosse Bedeutung beimessen, auch die hintere Raumgruppe sollte dem zentralen AmunBereich des Tempels zugeordnet werden, und die gesamte Raumgruppe kann als Identitätsstätte des Königs gedeutet werden, die nicht nur der Verschmelzung des Königs mit dem Amun seines Totentempels dient, sondern mit Amun in möglichst vielen seiner Erscheinungsformen. In diesen Räumen kann man eine kultische Prozedur vermuten, die den König in jedem der Räume mit einer Reihe anderer Erscheinungsformen des Amun verschmelzen liess, sodass der König die Göttlichkeit des Amun in all ihren verschiedenen Formen, d.h. in ihrer Gesamtheit erfassen konnte. Die Suche nach vollkommenem Schutz und erfolgreicher Regeneration lässt im Laufe des Neuen Reiches den König sich nun nicht mehr mit der Verschmelzung mit Amun-Re und der Teilnahme am Sonnenlauf begnügen. Dieser Wunsch schien nur durch die Erfassung jeder möglichen göttlichen Kraft garantiert zu sein. Der königliche Totentempel wird in der Folge allmählich zu einem Tempel verschiedenster Toten- und Schutzgötter. Spätestens im Totentempel von Hatschepsut wird diese Entwicklung mit der Verlegung des Königskults auf die Südseite des nun Amun-Re gewidmeten Hauptsanktuars und der Errichtung von Nebenkulten für eine Reihe anderer, für die jenseitige Existenz wichtiger Gottheiten eingeleitet, die nun in keinem der späteren Tempel fehlen.54 Ein weiterer Schritt war es, die Funktion der einzelnen Gottheit in verschiedenen Aspekten zu erfassen, sowohl in der Ausführung dieser Funktion durch eine Fülle anderer Gottheiten, als auch in der anonymen Zurschaustellung einer göttlichen Kraft, bei der die Gesamtheit der göttlichen Mächte zu erfassen versucht wird, oder auch in der Komplementierung einer weiblichen Gottheit durch ein männliches Pendant, oder
42
48
“Sei gegrüßt, der in seiner Sonnenscheibe erstrahlt, Lebendiger, der aus dem Horizont hervorging!”42
43 44 45 46
47
Tb (HORNUNG), 299 und 505. Medinet Habu VII, Tafel 512 und 513. Medinet Habu VII, Tafel 515 und 516. Medinet Habu VII, Tafel 520 und 522. Medinet Habu VII, Tafel 525 a, b und c. Vgl. auch U. HÖLSCHER, Medinet Habu III, 20. Medinet Habu VII, Tafel 526 und 527.
49 50 51 52 53 54
Medinet Habu VII, Tafel 529 und 530. Medinet Habu IV, Tafel 209. Medinet Habu VII, Tafel 534–537. U. HÖLSCHER, Medinet Habu III, 20f. W. MURNANE, op. cit., 65f. R. STADELMANN, op. cit., 311 und Abb. 2 c. Ibid., 320f.
Zur Entwicklung der königlichen Jenseitsabsicherung in den thebanischen Totentempeln des Neuen Reiches 263
Abb. 5 Medinet Habu. Totentempel Ramses’ III. Hintere Raumgruppe (nach Medinet Habu VII, fig. 16)
umgekehrt, ebenfalls mit dem gleichen Zweck einer vollendeten Wiedergabe der göttlichen Kraft.55 Beispiele dafür zeigen sich u.a. in unterweltlichen Funktionen wie derjenigen der Westgöttin,56 der Baumgöttin57 oder der weiblichen Muttergottheit.58 In Medinet Habu liegt wohl der gleiche Gedanke hinter der Addition dieser Raumgruppe, die auch mit der zunehmenden politischen Gefährdung Ägyptens in der 19. und 20. Dynastie zu erklären ist, die zuvor im Ramesseum die
Kriegsdarstellungen bis in den Säulensaal einrücken liess und somit noch effektiver nach Schutz durch die apotropäische magische Wirksamkeit der Schlachtbilder suchte.59 In Medinet Habu wird indes die göttliche Nähe bevorzugt. Der König vereint sich nicht nur – wie bisher – mit einem Aspekt des Amun-Re, sondern mit der Gesamtheit des Gottes, mit all seinen verschiedenen Erscheinungsformen. Nur so schien sich der Regenerationswunsch des Königs in einer immer bedrohlicheren Umwelt zu verwirklichen.
55
58
56
57
H. REFAI, Überlegungen zur Baumgöttin, BIFAO 100, 2000, 386f. H. REFAI, Die Göttin des Westens in den thebanischen Gräbern des Neuen Reiches, ADAIK 12, 1996, 28f. H. REFAI, Überlegungen zur Baumgöttin, BIFAO 100, 2000, 386.
59
J. ASSMAN, Muttergottheit, LÄ IV, 266ff.; H. REFAI, Der Tempel als Mutter, SAK 30, 2002, 302. E. HORNUNG, Geschichte als Fest. Zwei Vorträge zum Geschichtsbild der frühen Menschheit, Darmstadt 1966, 17ff.
THE COFFIN FROM TOMB I AT BYBLOS1 By Robert Schiestl
The ‘Royal Tombs’ discovered at Byblos in the 1920s2 are a group of richly equipped Middle and Late Bronze Age chamber tombs for the local rulers, containing artefacts reflecting Levantine, Aegean and Egyptian traditions. Classifying objects from these tombs in one of the above mentioned categories is, however, at times difficult,3 in particular when only working with published reports and not the original artefacts. Among the best known objects from tombs I and II are the obsidian cylinder jar and the small obsidian chest bearing names of Egyptian kings (Amenemhet III and IV of the late 12th Dynasty, 1853–1799 B.C.) and generally considered Egyptian made.4 The thus established synchronism has been long considered a chronological anchor for Levantine archaeology of the first half of the second millennium; however, it has been recently put into doubt.5 Most of the material from these tombs has not been discussed since the original publication. Such analysis would be very worthwhile, as the site of Byblos to date remains unique in the Levant both for the amount and the depth of evidence for interaction with Egyptian culture. Thus we can hopefully move from focussing on singular objects to a discussion of
1
2 3 4
5
This paper is an excerpt from a talk titled „Überführungen von Bestattungsgedanken: Die Fürstengräber von Byblos als ägyptische Gräber?“ presented at the „Neue Forschungen“: Bestattungen – Form und Bedeutung, held at the „Arbeitsstelle Ägyptisches Wörterbuch“ of the BerlinBrandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, June 30, 2005. I thank Prof. S.J. Seidlmayer for the invitation to speak there. VIROLLEAUD 1922 and MONTET 1928. LILYQUIST 1993, 41–44; MONTET 1928, No. 610 and 611; Beirut, General Direction of Antiquities, Inv. No. 17308 and 17299; for excellent photographs see Liban, l’autre rive, 72. LILYQUIST 1993, 44; See also the lecture delivered by Karin Kopetzky, SCIEM 2000, Vienna, at the 3rd ICAANE, 2002, in Paris (“Stratigraphie comparée. Tell elDabca and the Royal Tombs I–III of Byblos, New Chronological Evidences”). Based on, primarily, ceramic evidence, she suggested dating tombs I and II to MB IIB (equivalent
how Egyptian culture was understood, used and produced at Byblos. This paper will discuss a group of small, hitherto unexplained, items found in the sarcophagus of tomb I. The owner of tomb I is not named in his tomb, but has been identified with Abishemu, the father of the owner of tomb II, Ipshemuabi.6 The sarcophagus in tomb I (Fig. 1) contained human bones of an adult male, animal bones (goat/sheep, cattle, bird and fish), two stone vases, metal dishes and jars, jewellery, a mirror, a pair of tweezers,7 a scimitar, a pair of silver sandals and various smaller items and fragments,8 whose original use or purpose could not be established with certainty. It is with some of these (Fig. 2) that this paper is concerned. While the tomb does not seem to have been anciently robbed,9 the contents of the sarcophagus had suffered severely from natural decay: all organic remains had disintegrated, and most of the metal objects were heavily corroded. The objects in the sarcophagus are described as lying in a dark, ashy layer,10 which could very well have been the decomposed wood of a coffin. Inside the sarcophagus a group of flat, 3–5 mm thick faience objects of different shapes was found
6 7
8
9
10
Tell el-Dabca str. E/3–2, appr. 1680–1620 BC), or about 130–200 years later than the conventional dating. MONTET 1928, 174–176, 202. VIROLLEAUD 1922, fig. 5; MONTET 1928, Nr. 708, pl. LII; The object is described as a needle. However, I believe it is half of a pair of tweezers, an object found in Egyptian, Levantine and Aegean burials of the Middle Bronze Age (PHILIP 2006, 161–162). For a good parallel for the shape see Diospolis Parva, Tomb Y 176 (PETRIE 1901, pl. XXXII, 32). VIROLLEAUD 1922 , 281–289, and MONTET 1928, Nr. 610, 615, 621–624, 634, 640, 650, 652, 671, 684–687, 692, 708, 724, 726, 746, 748, 751–753, 785bis. MONTET 1928, 146; See, however, WARMENBOL 1996, who discusses modern plundering of the tomb. I thank Karin Kopetzky for bringing this article to my attention. VIROLLEAUD 1922, 281.
266 Robert Schiestl
Fig. 1 Tomb I at Byblos. Combination of VIROLLEAUD 1922, fig. 2 (the tomb chamber) and VIROLLEAUD 1922, fig. 4 (the interior of the sarcophagus)
(Fig. 2).11 Most possess bevelled edges; their colour is described as mainly white or yellowish, rarely blue or green. While Virolleaud suggested their use as inlays of some sort, he could not make sense of the shapes, as his arrangement on his fig. 7 (here Fig. 2) shows. It is here suggested that the pieces in the lower middle (in the darker oval) be reassembled as a pair of wedjat-eyes (Fig. 3).12 Such eyes are inlaid only on one Egyptian item, namely coffins, and I suggest that is what they were used for here as well. As they are shown inversely on Virolleaud’s
figure, the pieces have been turned around to display them as they would have been seen from the front. The depiction of a pair of wedjat-eyes is a common feature on Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdom coffins, and these eyes can often be inlaid with faience pieces.13 As the inlays are flat, they had been originally fitted in depressions on a rectangular coffin. The use of this type of coffin is common in the Middle Kingdom and continues into the Second Intermediate Period, in the course of which it is eventually replaced by the anthropoid coffin.14
11
13
12
VIROLLEAUD 1922, fig. 2, 288–289; MONTET 1928, 187, Nr. 726. For the crucial suggestion I am indebted to Anne Seiler.
14
LACAU 1904, pl. IX and XIX, IDEM 1906, 77, 101–128. IKRAM and DODSON 1998, 196–206; BOURRIAU 2001, 17–20.
The Coffin from Tomb I at Byblos 267
Fig. 2 Group of objects found in Byblos, tomb I, scale 1 to 3, reproduced after VIROLLEAUD 1922, fig. 7. The objects in the darker shaded oval in the middle are made of faience, in the lightly shaded oval on the left are of ivory
Fig. 3 Faience pieces found in the sarcophagus (see Fig. 2) reassembled as a pair of wedjat-eyes. Scale 1 to 3 (drawing by R. Schiestl)
On Egyptian coffins the eyes are often set in a frame or combined with a false door. Possibly some of the numerous further faience fragments (Virolleaud and Montet mention “hundreds”) formed part of additional coffin décor. Rectangu-
lar pieces of gold foil15 were also found in the sarcophagus, which could have been used to decorate the edges of the coffin, as was the case in royal and elite Middle Kingdom examples from Egypt.16
15
16
VIROLLEAUD 1922, 287–288.
DE
MORGAN 1895, pl. XXXVI; IDEM 1903, 50, fig. 109.
268 Robert Schiestl
Fig. 4 The coffin from Byblos tomb I reconstructed. Placement of inlaid eyes on coffin. A: standard Egyptian, B: standard Egyptian turned 180°, C: eyes in the south, at the head, facing east. Scale 1:40 (illustration by R. Schiestl)
The group of ivory pieces (Fig. 2, bottom left, in the lightly shaded oval) do not belong to the coffin décor, but formed inlays on a separate small wooden box. Two such boxes found in the 12th Dynasty tomb of Sit-hathor-yunet, who was buried in the reign of Amenemhet III at Lahun, could be reconstructed (see Fig. 6 for one such box)17 and help us understand what the Byblosbox might have looked like. The long rectangular panel is to be placed on the top of one side of such a box, either the short or the long end, the hook-like pieces are broken elements used to create a decorative façade with ‘niches’ (see Fig. 6). They are to be placed at a right angle to the horizontal panel. In the case of the depicted box the ‘niches’ alternate with flat ivory panels. Fig. 5 shows the recess in Sit-hathor-yunet’s tomb where the boxes were stored. The shaded areas indicate the fragmented pieces of façade panelling. When the long thin part breaks, characteristically “hooked” fragments remain, as found in the Byblos sarcophagus. The long rectangular slabs shown in the area of Box 1 and 2 represent the horizontal top panels. Not enough ivory fragments were published to be able to graphically reconstruct this small box. However, the coffin’s basic shape and size, based on the dimensions of the sarcophagus, can be estab-
lished (Fig. 4). No information is provided on the precise find spot of the pieces in question. The drawing of the sarcophagus’ contents shows three concentrations (see Fig. 1), two little heaps in the south, one in the north. While the body had disintegrated and the find spot of the few remaining bones was not recorded, the in situ documentation of certain significant items in the sarcophagus allows us to reconstruct the basic orientation of the burial (Fig. 1): The remains of a gold falcon-collar in the south indicate the location of the head, the feet, with the silver sandals, had been placed in the north. The scimitar was located in or near the right hand of the deceased. The sarcophagus was oriented precisely north-south, reproducing the elite Egyptian position in the Middle Kingdom.18 However, in Egypt, the head would be in the north, the feet in the south, thus the body in tomb I was “standing on its head”, by Egyptian standards. This seems odd, unless the head was intended to be directed towards Egypt, but it is hard to verify such an idea. Obviously, Byblos lacks the ordering principle of the north-south flowing Nile. Where then should we place the eyes on the coffin? In Egyptian coffins the eyes are always located at the head of the deceased, enabling him or
17
18
BRUNTON 1920, pl. XII; WINLOCK 1934, pl. I.
SEIDLMAYER 1990, 412–424; PODVIN 2000, 283–284.
The Coffin from Tomb I at Byblos 269
Fig. 5 Recess in chamber of tomb of princess Sit-hathor-yunet, at Lahun (after WINLOCK 1934, fig. 2). The shaded areas indicate the distribution of the distinctively fragmented ivory pieces of façade panelling. Reproduced with kind permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
her to “see” out of the coffin, establishing a connection to the offerings placed there and also to the rising sun.19 In standard Egyptian coffins, oriented north-south, the eyes are on the northern end of the eastern side (Fig. 4 A). If such a position were maintained here, it would place the eyes at the feet, an unlikely scenario. Simply turning such a coffin by 180 degrees, as seems to have been the case for the body, would result in the eyes facing out of the chamber (Fig. 4 B), to
19
WILLEMS 1988, 47.
the west, away from the offerings heaped in front of sarcophagus. Placement of the eyes in the south (Fig. 4 C), facing east, would provide a connection between the head of the deceased and the offerings placed in front of the coffin, as well as an eastern orientation. This seems to me the most likely position. If accurate, it would represent a remarkable adaptation of the ultimate Egyptian object to specific local requirements.
270 Robert Schiestl This is the first evidence for a wooden Egyptian style coffin in the Levant, and it is very fitting that it was found in the Lebanon. After all, the Byblite economy thrived on trading precisely the raw material for producing Egyptian coffins. Evidence in the Lebanon for the use of coffins is almost completely lacking. Organic materials are rarely preserved in Lebanese tombs. As an exception, charred remains of a box used for a burial of the early second millennium at Tell
cArqa,
in the northern Lebanon, were able to be analysed. The wood proved, surprisingly, not to be cedar.20 In all likelihood the coffin from tomb I at Byblos was locally produced. The adaptation of this coffin to suit the local use emphasizes how steeped in and well versed in Egyptian culture the elite at Byblos was. They produced their own version of Egyptian culture, in which they lived, and chose to be surrounded with in death.
Fig. 6 One of Sit-hathor-yunet’s boxes reconstructed (WINLOCK 1934, pl. I, A). Scale about 1:4. Reproduced with kind permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
20
Information kindly provided by J.-P. Thalmann, director of the excavations at Tell cArqa.
The Coffin from Tomb I at Byblos 271
Bibliography BOURRIAU, J.
DE
2001
1895
Fouilles à Dahchour, Mars–Juin 1894, Vienna.
1903
Fouilles à Dahchour en 1894–1895, Vienna.
Change of Body Position in Egyptian Burials From the Mid XIIth Dynasty until the Early XVIIIth Dynasty, in H. WILLEMS (ed.), Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egpytian Old and Middle Kingdoms, OLA 103, Leuven.
BRUNTON, G. 1920
Lahun I. The Treasure, BSAE 27, London.
MORGAN, J.
PETRIE, W.M.F. 1901
PHILIP, G. 2006
IKRAM, S. and DODSON, A. 1998
The Mummy in Ancient Egypt, Equipping the Dead for Eternity, London.
LACAU, P. 1904
Sarcophages antérieurs au Nouvel Empire I, CG 28001–28086, Cairo.
1906
Sarcophages antérieurs au Nouvel Empire II, CG 28087–28126, Cairo.
Diospolis Parva. The Cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu, EEF 20, London. Tell el-Dabca XV. Metalwork and Metalworking Evidence the late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period, UZK 26, Wien.
SEIDLMAYER, S.J. 1990
Gräberfelder aus dem Übergang vom Alten zum Mittleren Reich. Studien zur Archäologie der Ersten Zwischenzeit, SAGA 1, Heidelberg.
VIROLLEAUD, C. 1922
Découverte a Byblos d’un hypogée de la douzième dynastie égyptienne, Syria 3, 273–306.
Liban, l’autre rive,
WARMENBOL, E.
1998
1996
Catalogue of the exhibit at the ‘institut du monde arabe’, 27 October 1998 until 2 May 1999, Paris.
LILYQUIST, C. 1993
Granulation and Glass: Chronolgical and Stylistic Investigations at Selected Sites, ca. 2500–1400 B.C.E., BASOR 290, 29–94.
WILLEMS, H. 1988
MONTET, P. 1928
Byblos et l’Egypte. Quatre Campagnes de Fouilles à Gebeil. 1921–1922–1923–1924, Haut Commissariat de la République Française en Syrie et au Liban. Service des Antiquités et des Beaux Arts. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 11, Paris.
Les tombes royales I et II de Byblos: la puissance et les apparences, Cent notes avec texte, 157–186, in: Les Moyens d’expression du pouvoir dans les sociétes anciennes, Lettres Orientales 5, Leuven. Chests of Life, A Study of the typology and conceptual development of Middle Kingdom standard class coffins, Medelingen en verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux” 25, Leiden.
WINLOCK, H.E. 1934
The Treasure of El-Lahun, Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 4, New York.
RESTAURATORISCH-NATURWISSENSCHAFTLICHE UNTERSUCHUNG VON TUTHMOSIDISCHEN PUTZEN AUS cEZBET HELMI / TELL EL-DABcA Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung altägyptischer Kalkputztechnik Von Alexandra Winkels
1. EINLEITUNG Im Frühjahr 2005 konnten innerhalb eines großen tuthmosidischen Palastdistriktes1 bei cEzbet Helmi im nord-östlichen Nildelta erstmals in größerem Umfang unbemalte und bemalte Putzflächen in situ gefunden werden. Innerhalb des Distriktes wurden bisher drei Palastanlagen ergraben sowie der große Komplex des herrschaftlichen Gebäudes L, der östlich des Palastes G liegt.2 Der Bestand an originalen Kalkputzen fand sich in mehreren Räumen des Gebäudes L in Gestalt von Estrichen, Wandputzen und verputzten modellierten Architekturbereichen. In einigen Bereichen blieb ein Teil der Sockelzonen mit dem Putz erhalten. Die Lehmziegelarchitektur der Anlagen ist nach BIETAK und FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2006 vorwiegend noch anhand ihrer Unterbauten rekonstruierbar. Ein Großteil des zuvor in cEzbet Helmi an verschiedenen Stellen gefundenen Kalkputzbestandes fand sich verschüttet in Form von verstürzten Fragmenten. Die Paläste F und G waren teilweise mit Wandmalereien ausgestattet, die in verstürzter fragmentarischer Form seit 1989 an verschiedenen Stellen des Areals geborgen werden konnten. Auf Grund des Stiles, der dargestellten Motive und der Werktechnik wurden sie als minoische Wandmalereien auf Kalkputz identifiziert.3
1
2
3
Die Ausgrabung des rund einen Kilometer westlich von Tell el-Dabca gelegenen Distriktes ist seit den letzten 15 Jahren das Hauptprojekt des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes Kairo und des Institutes für Ägyptologie der Universität Wien mit der Unterstützung der Kommission für Ägypten und Levante der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Siehe vorherige Grabungsberichte: z.B. JÁNOSI 2000, 195–210; BIETAK, DORNER und JÁNOSI 2001, 27–119; BIETAK und FORSTNERMÜLLER 2003, 39–50; BIETAK und FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2006, 65–100. Siehe Übersichtsplan des Bezirkes in BIETAK und FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2006, 69, fig. 3; 86, fig. 19. Die Produktion der Wandmalereien kann nach BIETAK 2005 zur Zeit der Herrschaft von Tuthmosis I und II
Diese Funde von cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca sind ein wichtiges frühes Beispiel für die Materialkombination von Kalkputz auf Lehmziegelarchitektur sowie für das Vorkommen von Kalkmörteln und -putzen in Ägypten im zweiten Jahrtausend v. Chr. Bis heute ist über die altägyptische Kalkputz- und Mörteltechnik dennoch wenig bekannt. In der Fachliteratur, die sich mit altägyptischen Materialien und Techniken befasst,4 wird darauf nicht konkret eingegangen. Materialund werktechnische Studien5 beziehen sich in erster Linie auf die Erforschung der historischen Maltechnik und Materialien der ägyptischen (und ägäischen) Wandmalerei. Die Zusammensetzung und Werktechnik unbemalter Putze wird dabei nicht näher aufgeführt. Der umfangreiche Bestand an unbemalten Putzen aus cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca blieb bisher weitgehend unbeachtet. Die Untersuchung dieses bedeutenden originalen Bestandes und die Erforschung der historischen Putztechnologie bilden daher den Schwerpunkt dieser Arbeit als singuläres Beispiel zur Klärung einiger offener Fragen über die altägyptische Kalkputztechnik. Der Beitrag stellt die Ergebnisse der Untersuchung von Kalkputzfragmenten aus dem tuthmosidischen Palastdistrikt mit verschiedenen Metho-
4
5
oder auch in der von Hatschepsut und Tuthmosis III stattgefunden haben. In dieser Zeitspanne bestanden archäologisch und ägyptologisch belegte intensive Kontakte zwischen dem minoischen Kreta und Ägypten, die einen Technologietransfer auch im Bereich der Wandmalerei und Mörteltechnik begünstigten. Siehe: BIETAK 2005, 84. Zur Werktechnik und zum Technologietransfer siehe auch BRYSBAERT 2002, 95–107; SEEBER 1997, 25–32. LUCAS and HARRIS 1989, 74, 79; CLARKE and ENGELBACH 1990; NICHOLSON and SHAW 2000, darin: LEE and QUIRKE, 117f. Z.B.: EL GORESY 2000; BRYSBAERT 2002; JONES 2005; BORELLI und LAURENZI TABASSO 1996.
274 Alexandra Winkels den der Mörtelanalyse und der Befunduntersuchung in situ in einem der Grabung bei Tell elDabca angegliederten Feldlabor vor. Die Arbeit widmet sich der Erforschung folgender Fragen: – Wie sind die Putze chemisch-mineralogisch zusammengesetzt? – Welche Rohmaterialien wurden zur Mörtelherstellung verwendet? – Wie wurden sie gewonnen bzw. hergestellt? – Wie erfolgte die werktechnische Ver- und Bearbeitung? – Hat man in der Zusammensetzung von Putzen mit unterschiedlicher Funktion (Boden-, Wand-, Deckenflächen) bewusst variiert? – Unterscheidet sich die Zusammensetzung der bemalten und der unbemalten Putze? – Unterscheidet sich die Zusammensetzung und Bearbeitung der Putze in Präsentationsgebäuden und einfacheren Räumlichkeiten? Die Intention dieser vergleichenden Mörtelanalyse ist es auch, an einem konkreten Beispiel aufzuzeigen, wie die Untersuchung von Mörteln und Putzen von einem Restaurator oder einer Restauratorin in einem Labor auf der Grabung durchgeführt werden kann, wenn die Ausfuhr von Proben von der Grabung erschwert und dadurch die Zusammenarbeit mit einem naturwissenschaftlichen Labor nicht möglich ist. In der interdisziplinären Zusammenarbeit mit Ägyptologen und Archäologen sollte dadurch von restauratorischer Seite ein wissenschaftlicher Beitrag erfolgen, der über die Konservierung und Restaurierung des Bestandes hinausgeht. Aus restauratorischer Sicht ist die Untersuchung der Zusammensetzung und Werktechnik von originalen Mörteln und Putzen nicht nur für die Kunsttechnologie, sondern vor allem für deren Konservierung, z. B. in Bezug auf die Auswahl geeigneter Konservierungsmaterialien, von großer Bedeutung. 2. DER UNTERSUCHTE PUTZBESTAND Im Rahmen der Arbeit wurden im Grabungslabor insgesamt 29 Proben untersucht (siehe Tabelle
6
Die zwei Hauptbauphasen des Palastbezirkes werden nach BIETAK und FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2006, 68 wie folgt datiert: Die frühe Bauphase (C/3, Stratum d) umfasst den Zeitraum um 1500–1450 v. Chr. während der Herrschaft von Tuthmosis I bis Tuthmosis III. Die zweite späte Phase (C/2, Stratum c) wurde auf die Regie-
1). Mit dieser Auswahl von unbemalten Putzen unterschiedlicher Funktion aus verschiedenen Gebäuden und Grabungsebenen sollte ein möglichst breites Spektrum des erhaltenen Bestandes erfasst werden. Die untersuchten Putze stammen überwiegend aus den zwei Hauptbauphasen (C/2 und C/3)6 des tuthmosidischen Palastbezirkes. Von den in situ gefundenen unbemalten Putzflächen des Gebäudes L aus dem Grabungsareal Helmi VI wurden 18 Proben aus verschiedenen Architekturbereichen entnommen (Proben 001–015). Die Proben 003, 003a und 008 stammen von den modellierten Architekturteilen (Treppenstufen und erhöhtes Podest, Dais). Charakteristische Befunde des vorgefundenen Bestandes wurden vor der Entnahme in situ erfasst. Es sollte untersucht werden, ob anhand charakteristischer Merkmale der in situ erhaltenen Putze auch verstürzte Putzfragmente ihrer ursprünglichen Funktion zugeordnet werden könnten. Die Probe eines älteren Bodenputzes (P. 025) aus der frühen Hyksoszeit aus dem Grabungsareal Khatana diente beispielhaft dem Vergleich zur zeitlich früheren Werktechnik. Von dem verstürzt gefundenen Bestand an unbemalten Putzen wurden vier Boden-, Wandund Deckenputzfragmente aus dem Areal des Palastes G im Grabungsareal H III (P.: 017, 018, 020 bis 022) ausgewählt. Zwei Proben der minoischen Wandmalereien wurden analysiert, um einen direkten Vergleich zwischen bemalten und unbemalten Putzen zu ermöglichen. Bei der Probe 016 handelt es sich um ein verschüttetes Fragment der Malereien aus dem Palast G.7 Die Probe 026 stammt von einem minoischen Spiralfries8, dessen Fragmente überwiegend in dem Areal H IV gefunden wurden. Im Frühjahr 2001 nördlich des Palastes F entdeckte Beckenanlagen wurden auf Grund ihrer Füllung mit Kalkmaterial in Schichtdicken bis zu 20 cm als so genannte „Mörtelbecken“ bezeichnet.9 Laut JÁNOSI 2002 wurden die Becken zum Anmischen von Mörtel verwendet. Die Tatsache, dass es keine aufgehenden Wandflächen gab und das Kalkmaterial über die erhaltenen niedrigen
7 8 9
rungszeit von Tuthmosis III und Amenophis II um 1479–1400 v. Chr. datiert. BIETAK und FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2006, 92. ASLANIDOU 2002, 13–27. Siehe besonders: JÁNOSI 2002, 205, fig. 7a, b, Abb. 8.
Restauratorisch-naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von tuthmosidischen Putzen aus cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca 275
P.-Nr. 001 002 003 003a 004 004a 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 013a 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026
Techn. Verwendung Treppenstufen Wandputz Treppenstufen Treppenstufen Estrich Estrich Estrich Wandputz Estrich Putz der Dais Wandputz Estrich Wandputz Wandputz Estrich Estrich Wandputz Estrich Wandputz Deckenputz Wandputz Estrich Wandputz Deckenputz Deckenputz Teilhydratisierter Brandkalk Brandkalkkonglomerat Wandputz Wandputz
Grabungsareal /Planquadrat H VI-r/23 H VI-r/23 H VI-r/23 H VI-r/23 H VI-r/23 H VI-r/23 H VI-r/23 H VI-r/23 H VI-r/23 H VI-r/23 H VI-r/24 H VI-r/24 H VI-s/21 H VI-s/23 H VI-s/25w H VI-s/25w H VI-r/24 H VI-s/26 H VI-p/24 H III-n-o/15 H III-n-o/15 H III-o/p16 H III-o/15–o/16 H III-o/15–o/16 H III-o/15–o/16 HI e/f26, pl. 1–2 HI-S e/f26, pl. 1–2 F II- r/23 H IV/5/3–o/98
Rel. Bauschicht c–d c–d c–d c–d c–d c–d c–d c–d c–d c–d c–d c–d c–d c–d c–d c–d c–d c–d b–d d d o d(c) (d) (d) c c
Tabelle 1 Liste der untersuchten Proben
Mauerkanten der Becken hinausragte, schloss aus, dass es sich um Räumlichkeiten mit verputzten Böden handeln konnte. Der Inhalt zweier Proben aus diesen Becken sollte analysiert werden um die Frage zu erörtern, ob dieses oder ähnliches Material zur Herstellung der Putze hat Verwendung finden können. Der untersuchte Putzbestand wies einen relativ guten Erhaltungszustand auf. Die originalen Oberflächen und Unterseiten waren meist nur leicht verwittert; nur die Bodenputze und einige verstürzte Fragmente waren oberflächlich teilweise abgenutzt bzw. mechanisch beschädigt. Auf den Oberflächen einiger in situ entnommener Proben waren leichte Salzausblühungen zu sehen, jedoch keine Schädigung des Putzgefüges durch Salzsprengung. Die in situ erhaltenen Putzflächen des Gebäudes L fanden sich durch starke Stauchungen teilweise übereinander geschoben.
Rissnetze senkrecht zur Oberfläche unterteilten die Putze in unterschiedlich große Fragmente. Während die Wandputze netzartige Rissbilder aufwiesen, waren die Estriche von eher parallelen, in der Breite des Raumes verlaufenden Rissen durchzogen. Die Risse entstanden als Folge der mit dem Steigen und Fallen des Grundwasserspiegels verbundenen Quell- und Schrumpfprozesse des Mauerwerks aus Lehmziegeln und des Bodenmaterials. Durch die starke Adhäsion an ihrem Träger waren die Putze diesen Prozessen dauerhaft direkt ausgesetzt. In ihren mechanischen Eigenschaften wesentlich starrer als der jeweilige Träger, konnten die Putzflächen die durch Quellen und Schwinden entstehenden Spannungen nicht kompensieren. Die Rissbildungen der Putzflächen entsprechen daher annähernd den Schwundrissen des Mauerwerkes oder Bodens. 3. ANGEWANDTE METHODEN DER MÖRTELANALYSE Die Auswahl der Untersuchungsmethoden erfolgte in Abstimmung mit den vor Ort gegebenen Rahmenbedingungen. Einzelne Geräte wurden bei der Anreise importiert; ansonsten bestimmte die gegebene Ausstattung der Werkstatt im Grabungshaus die Durchführbarkeit von Untersuchungen. Einzelne Analysegänge konnten durch leichte Modifikationen an die gegebenen Umstände in dem Grabungslabor angepasst werden. Dies gewährleistete für die praktische Anwendung der Mörtelanalytik eine wissenschaftlich fundierte Arbeitsweise unter einheitlichen Bedingungen. Im Folgenden werden die vor Ort durchführbaren Methoden der Mörteluntersuchung kurz aufgeführt und beschrieben: In situ wurde jeweils ein kleines Probenfragment, das durch Risse vorgebildet war, mit dem Skalpell entnommen, ohne die Putzschichten zusätzlich zu stören. Es wurden prinzipiell kleine Mengen an Probenmaterial für die einzelnen Untersuchungen verwendet, um den originalen Bestand so wenig wie möglich zu reduzieren. 3.1 Optische, mikroskopische Untersuchung und fotografische Dokumentation Zur Erfassung des aktuellen Erhaltungszustandes und Erscheinungsbildes der Putzproben wurden die unbehandelten Probekörper optisch-visuell und mikroskopisch untersucht. Die Ober- und Unterseiten sowie bedeutende Details wurden im Streiflicht und Auflicht mit Hilfe eines Reprosta-
276 Alexandra Winkels tives in einheitlichem Abbildungsmaßstab und unter dem Mikroskop fotografisch dokumentiert10 (Abb. 1 u. 2 bzw. 12 , 17, 18). Dies ermöglichte die Sammlung charakteristischer Befunde bezüglich der historischen Werktechnik sowie der Zusammensetzung der Mörtelmaterialien. 3.2 Bestimmung der Rein- und Rohdichte Dichte und Porosität stellen wichtige Parameter für die physiko-mechanischen Eigenschaften von Mörteln und Putzen dar. Um Näherungswerte dieser Parameter für die Putze aus cEzbet Helmi zu gewinnen, erfolgte die Ermittlung der Reinund Rohdichte mittels einer Kombination von Wasseraufnahme und Auftriebsverfahren. Es kann ausschließlich entsalztes Wasser als Eintauchmedium eingesetzt werden.11 Auf einer digitalen Feinwaage (Genauigkeit: 1 Milligramm) wurden folgende Werte bestimmt: Trockenmasse der Probe (nach Trocknung bei 105°C), Masse und Auftrieb des mit Wasser gesättigten Probekörpers. Mit diesen Werten ließen sich mit Hilfe einer Formelsammlung12 die Dichte- und Volumenwerte der Probe errechnen. 3.3 Untersuchungen am Anschliff Zur Untersuchung der Zusammensetzung und der Gefüge der Putze wurden Anschliffe von den entnommenen Proben hergestellt.13 Durch individuelle Ergänzungen und Variationen konnte die Vorgehensweise den Rahmenbedingungen in dem Grabungslabor optimal angepasst werden. Zur Herstellung der Anschliffe wurden die getrockneten Probekörper mit einer Schmelze aus Cyclododecan14 getränkt und durch das Erstarren der Schmelze temporär gefestigt. Anschließend konnten die Putzfragmente per
10
11
12
13 14
Mikroskop Leica Wild M3, Objektivvergrößerung 60–90f.; Kamera: Nikon Coolpix 995; Okularprojektiv, Nikon. Die Dichte der Flüssigkeit muss bekannt sein, um die gewünschten Werte berechnen zu können. Da vor Ort keine ausreichende Ventilation oder ein Abzugssystem vorhanden war, wurde einfaches destilliertes Wasser als Lösemittel anderen gesundheitsschädlichen Varianten vorgezogen. Persönliche Mitteilung Christoph Herm, Hochschule für Bildende Künste Dresden. Anschliffuntersuchung in Anlehnung an LENZ (1999). Dieses temporäre Festigungsmittel ist flüchtig und sublimiert bei Lagerung an der Luft wieder aus dem Pro-
Hand mit destilliertem Wasser auf einer Diamantschleifscheibe geschliffen werden. Der Feinschliff erfolgte auf mit Siliziumcarbid beschichtetem Nassschleifpapier in verschiedenen Körnungen (220–2400). Am fertigen Anschliff konnten dann anhand von definierten Parametern wichtige Merkmale des jeweiligen Putzgefüges und dessen Struktur bestimmt werden. Zur Charakterisierung des Bindemittels wurden dessen Farbigkeit, die Ritzhärte des Mörtels nach Mohs,15 die Zusammensetzung mittels Anfärbung und damit die entsprechende Mörtelkategorie bestimmt. Der Anteil an sichtbaren Poren sowie sichtbaren Abdrücken und Hohlräumen konnte anhand von Vergleichsbildern, die in der Mineralogie und Sedimentologie Verwendung finden, in Prozent eingeschätzt werden. Solche Vergleichsbilder wurden auch zur Abschätzung des Verhältnisses von Bindemittel zu enthaltenen Partikeln sowie deren Sortierung,16 des prozentualen Anteils an Zuschlag17 und möglicher enthaltener Bindemittel-Partikel angewendet. Die Kornformen wurden nach ihrem Rundungsgrad18 bestimmt. Die Korngrößen von mineralischen Zuschlägen sind unter dem Mikroskop messbar und in entsprechenden Tabellen definiert.19 In Verbindung mit der Definition des prozentualen Anteils kann halbquantitativ die Korngrößenverteilung ermittelt werden. Durch diese halbquantitativen und qualitativen Bestimmungen können vergleichbare Aussagen getroffen werden und eine Klassifizierung der Putze wird möglich. Die Gesamtfarbigkeit des Mörtels oder Putzes, die sich aus allen im Mörtelgefüge enthaltenen Komponenten ergibt, sowie die Farbigkeit der Bindemittelmatrix mit enthaltenen Feinstbe-
15
16 17 18 19
bekörper. Dies hat u. a. den Vorteil, dass die Farbigkeit der Bindemittelmatrix nach Abdampfen des Festigungsmittels von der Oberfläche des Anschliffs (durch das örtliche Klima war dies schon innerhalb von ein bis zwei Tagen gegeben) unverfälscht eingeschätzt werden kann. Ritzhärteskala nach Mohs z.B. unter: http://www. chem.tu-freiberg.de/boehme/lehre/hartstoffe/mohs/ html, 2003. TUCKER 1996, 7. MÜLLER 1994, 174. Siehe Rundungsgrade bei KOENSLER 1989, 46, Abb. 15. JASMUND und LAGALY 1993, 19.
Restauratorisch-naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von tuthmosidischen Putzen aus cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca 277
standteilen oder natürlichen Verunreinigungen wurden optisch am befeuchteten Anschliff durch das definierte Farbkartensystem ROCK-COLOUR CHART nach Munsell® bestimmt. Mit der Digitalkamera und einem Okularprojektiv wurden die Anschliffe unter dem Mikroskop fotografiert. Zur repräsentativen Abbildung des Gefüges wurde immer ein 1–1,5 cm breiter Ausschnitt der gesamten Putzschicht aufgenommen, daneben charakteristische Details und Befunde. 3.4 Die Anfärbung von Bestandteilen Zur Identifizierung des Bindemittels und der genaueren Bestimmung der mineralischen Bestandteile der Putze wurden ausgewählte Anfärbemethoden herangezogen. Bei den anfärbenden Reagenzien handelt es sich meist um farbige Salze, Komplexbildner oder Farbstoffe, deren saure oder basische Lösungen eine Komponente des zu bestimmenden Minerals auflösen. Die angelöste Komponente reagiert mit der anfärbenden Reagenz zur sichtbaren Färbung. Anfärbungen am Mörtelanschliff und Dünnschliff zeigen neben der Identifizierung bestimmter Mineralkomponenten deren Lage und Verteilung im Mörtelgefüge. So kann die Herkunft bestimmter Anteile in einem Putz definiert werden, beispielsweise Gips als Nebenbestandteil im Bindemittel oder im Zuschlag. Die Anfärbungen auf Calcit und Gips können zudem herangezogen werden, um mögliche Sinterschichten oder Vergipsungen zu lokalisieren. Die Anfärbung auf Magnesium deutet auf dolomitische Anteile hin. Für die untersuchten Putze war außerdem die Anwesenheit von bestimmten puzzolanischen Tonmineralen und Eisenverbindungen oder anderen Bestandteilen mit hydraulischem Potential in den Gefügen interessant.20 Die folgenden Anfärbemethoden wurden durch eigene Modifikationen u.a. in der Konzentration der Färbelösungen21 für die Anwendung
20
Puzzolane, wie bestimmte Tone oder Mehle niedrig gebrannter Ziegel, können durch chemische Reaktion mit gelöschtem Kalk bzw. Branntkalk (Kalkhydrat) und Wasser ein hydraulisch erhärtendes Bindmittel bilden. So kann ein hydraulischer Kalkmörtel entstehen, der auch unter Wasser abbinden kann. Solche Mörtelmaterialien erreichen eine höhere Endfestigkeit als reiner Kalkmörtel und sind nach dem Erhärten wasserfest. Hydraulische Anteile bzw. Mörtel können außerdem durch Mitbrennen u. a. von eisen-, silicium- oder alu-
an Mörteln und Putzproben optimiert und angewendet: – Anfärbung auf Calcium/Calcit mit Alizarinrot S nach FRIEDMANN (1959) – Sulfat/Gips mit Alizarinrot S nach WARNE (1962) – Magnesium/Dolomit mit Magneson nach LANGBEIN et al. (1982) – Anfärbung auf Eisen(III)-oxid mit Kaliumhexacyanoferrat(II) nach FÜCHTBAUER (1988) – Anfärbung auf Kaolinit mit Methylenblau nach TRÖGER (1989) Die Anfärbemethoden wurden jeweils an künstlich hergestellten Vergleichsproben (z.B. Kalk- oder Gipsmörtel) in einem Vorversuch auf ihre Wirksamkeit geprüft. Vor der Anfärbung wurde das Gefüge mit entsalztem Wasser einige Sekunden vorgesättigt, anschließend wenige Sekunden in die Anfärbelösung getaucht und schließlich mit entsalztem Wasser ausgewaschen. Wiederum ein paar Sekunden später war eine positive Anfärbung erkennbar (siehe Abb. 3). Einzig die Färbelösung für den Kaolinit-Nachweis bedurfte einer leicht längeren Einwirkzeit (bis zu einer Minute). Die Anfärbung ergab sich hier erst mit dem Trocknen des Probemateriales. 3.5 Untersuchung von Dünnschliffen Die Analyse von Dünnschliffen ausgewählter Proben ermöglichte weitere Aussagen zu Mineralbestand und Gefüge der Putze sowie deren Porosität. Die Proben wurden in einem kleinen Exsikkator unter mit einer Wasserstrahl-Pumpe erzeugtem Vakuum in blau gefärbtem Epoxidharz eingebettet.22 Nach der Härtung wurde der Probekörper einseitig fein angeschliffen und auf einen leicht angerauten Objektträger aufgeklebt. Mit der Diamantsäge konnten die Proben bis auf wenige Millimeter heruntergeschnitten und
21 22
miniumhaltigen Bestandteilen, z.B. von tonhaltigem Kalkstein bei der Brandkalkherstellung, entstehen. In Anlehnung an LENZ (1999). Die Einfärbung des Kunstharzes mit Sudanblau sollte eine bessere Differenzierung von Luftporen gegenüber Rissbildungen und anderen möglichen Hohlräumen gewährleisten. Durch das Einbetten unter Vakuum ist ein Vordringen des Harzes bis in kleinste Porenräume möglich.
278 Alexandra Winkels
Abb. 1 Geglättete Oberfläche eines Wandputzes, Streiflicht-Aufnahme
Abb. 2 Unterseite einer Deckenputzprobe mit Reliefabdruck, Streiflicht-Aufnahme
anschließend auf Nassschleifpapier manuell fein geschliffen werden.23 Die Untersuchung der Schliffe erfolgte unter dem Polarisationsmikroskop24 in linear polarisiertem Licht und bei gekreuzten Polarisatoren. So konnten mineralische Zuschlags- oder Bindemittelpartikel durch spezifische Doppelbrechung genauer bestimmt und im Gefüge lokalisiert werden. Neben der Bestimmung der mineralogischen Zusammensetzung und der Abbildung des Gefüges der Mörtelbestandteile wurde das Augenmerk auf besondere Charakteristika der Putzen wie z. B. eine makroskopisch nicht erkennbare Schichtenabfolge gerichtet. Aus Gründen der Effizienz wurde die polarisationsmikroskopische Bestimmung auf die häufigsten Minerale und einige Besonderheiten beschränkt.
zweier nasschemischer Analyseverfahren25 wurde angestrebt, das Bindemittel-Zuschlag-Verhältnis von Kalkmörteln mit carbonatischen Zuschlagsoder Bindemittelpartikeln ermitteln zu können. Damit sollte die Auflösung von calcitischen oder dolomitischen Bestandteilen verhindert und somit deren Erfassung als Partikel ermöglicht werden. Folgender vorläufiger Untersuchungsablauf kam zur Anwendung:
3.6 Nasschemische Analysen Die nasschemische Analyse einer Auswahl von Proben ermöglicht eine qualitative und quantitative Bestimmung des Bindemittel-Zuschlag-Verhältnisses und des „Kieselsäure“-Gehaltes (Siliciumdioxid) als ungefähres Maß für Anteile von hydraulischen, latent hydraulischen und reaktionsfähigen puzzolanischen Bestandteilen in Mörteln oder Putzen. Durch die Kombination und leichte Variation
23 24 25
Siliciumcarbid-Nassschleifpapier, Körnungen 220–4000. Leica Wild M3. WISSER und KNÖFEL 1987, BECKER und HERM 2000, CASADIO, CHIARI und SIMON 2005.
– Nach Trocknung bis zur Gewichtskonstanz: Zerkleinerung der Proben (Probenmenge 1,08– 1,64 g) und Behandlung dieser mit einer EDTAdinatriumsalz-Dihydrat-Lösung26 in entsalztem Wasser (0,1 mol/l). – Nach angepasster Einwirkzeit: Filtrieren der Suspension (Weißbandfilter); Spülen des Rückstandes mit entsalztem Wasser und Trocknen über Nacht im Trockenschrank (105°C). – Wägung des getrockneten Rückstandes. Wie erwünscht, blieben die calcitischen Bestandteile durch die EDTA-Behandlung zwar erhalten, ihr Anteil konnte dennoch nicht definitiv erfasst werden, da das Bindemittel um die Partikel nicht vollständig gelöst wurde. Das Verfahren müsste in dieser Hinsicht noch verbessert werden.27
26 27
(EDTA) = Ethylendiamintetraessigsäure. Siehe SIMON (2003), 181.
Restauratorisch-naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von tuthmosidischen Putzen aus cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca 279
Abb. 3 Anfärbung auf Calcit, die rote Färbung belegt Kalk als Bindemittel und calcitische Partikel, Anschliff (P. 001)
Abb. 4 tonige Einmischungen in der Bindemittelmatrix, AS (P. 014)
Abb. 5 eingewanderte rötlich-bräunliche Ton- und Eisenbestandteile in Randbereichen AS (P. 020)
Abb. 6 helle Säume und Füllungen rekristallisierter junger Calcitkristalle in Poren, Hohlstellen und Rissen, 1 cm, Dünnschliff (P. 012), + Pol., Kompensator Rot I Filter
Abb. 7 gerundete Kalkspatzen in der Bindemittelmatrix, l. daneben rund-ovale, tiefe Hohlräume verwitterter organischer Fasern, Bildbreite 4 mm, AS (P. 011)
Abb. 8 kantengerundete primäre Calcitpartikel in der Bindemittelmatrix, Bildbr. 4 mm, AS (P. 009)
280 Alexandra Winkels Der Probenrückstand der EDTA-Analyse wurde für die weiterführende nasschemische Analyse mit verdünnter Salzsäure und einer Natriumcarbonat-Lösung28 behandelt. Damit konnten folgende Anteile an Putzbestandteilen bestimmt werden: 1. In EDTA löslicher Bindemittelanteil (Carbonat) 2. In Salzsäure löslicher Bindemittelanteil (Carbonat) 3. In Natriumcarbonat-Lösung löslicher Bindemittelanteil (Kieselsäure) 4. Unlöslicher Zuschlag Mit der Ausgangsmasse der getrockneten Proben kann damit nach WISSER und KNÖFEL (1987) das Bindemittel-Zuschlag-Verhältnis (B:Z) und der Kieselsäure-Gehalt berechnet werden. 3.7 Siebanalyse Die bei der Nasschemischen Analyse zurückgebliebenen, getrockneten unlöslichen Zuschläge der ausgewählten Proben wurden im Anschluss mit einem Analysesiebsatz (mit Maschenweiten von 1000–75mm) gesiebt. Danach wurde jeweils der in den Sieben verbliebene Rückstand gewogen. Dadurch konnte der Anteil der verschiedenen Korngrößen (in Masseprozent) einer Probe bestimmt werden. Aus der Summe der ermittelten Korngrößen ist die Korngrößenverteilung des Zuschlages für die jeweilige Probe erfassbar. 4. ERGEBNISSE DER UNTERSUCHUNG Die Untersuchungsergebnisse wurden für jede Probe gesondert auf Datenblättern in einer Datenbank zusammengestellt. Im Folgenden werden die wichtigsten Ergebnisse summarisch dargestellt. Bei der Interpretation dieser ist zu beachten, dass sie sich auf den gealterten Zustand der Putze beziehen.
Estrichputzen als auch bei den Putzen der modellierten Architekturteile handelt es sich damit ausschließlich um Kalkmörtel. Minimale Gips- oder Magnesium-Gehalte in den Proben können auf natürliche Verunreinigungen des zur Bindemittelherstellung verwendeten Kalkmateriales oder der Zuschläge zurückgeführt werden. Sie sind zu gering, als dass von einem sekundären Bindemittelanteil gesprochen werden kann. Die nasschemische Analyse ausgewählter Proben ergab einen Kieselsäure-Gehalt von bis zu zwei Prozent und damit einen geringen Anteil von ehemals hydraulischen oder latent hydraulischen Komponenten in den Putzmaterialien.29 Die nasschemisch ermittelten BindemittelZuschlag Verhältnisse zwischen 14:1 und 61:1 verdeutlichen den sehr hohen Bindemittelgehalt (Tabelle 2). Dieser wird durch die optisch am Anschliff abgeschätzten Matrix-Partikel-Verhältnisse zwischen 90:10 und 80:20 grundsätzlich bestätigt. Hierbei gingen die Bindemittel-Partikel allerdings in den Partikel-Anteil ein. In der für alle Putzproben charakteristischen feinkristallinen Bindemittelmatrix sind die Zuschläge unregelmäßig ohne bestimmte Textur verteilt. Die weiß-gelbliche bis leicht rötlich-graue Grundfarbigkeit der bindemittelreichen Putze wird durch die Farbigkeit der Bindemittelmatrix30 geprägt und entspricht dieser weitgehend. Durch natürliche Verunreinigungen der Ausgangsstoffe und ein Einmischen von tonig-lehmigem Erdmaterial ist die Bindemittelmatrix einiger Proben inhomogen und stellenweise rötlich-bräunlich bis
P.- Nr. 013 012 010 014 015 009 021 017
4.1 Zusammensetzung der Putze und Beschaffenheit der Rohmaterialien Die Anfärbemethoden, die nasschemische Analyse sowie die Dünnschliffmikroskopie ergaben als Bindemittel der untersuchten Putzproben Calciumcarbonat. Sowohl bei den Decken-, Wand- und
28
29
Weiterführung des Analyseganges nach WISSER und KNÖFEL (1987). Dieser Wert ist jedoch zu gering, um von hydraulischen Kalken zu sprechen.
Kieselgel (SiO2) 0,8% 1,3% 0,7% 1,5% 2,0% 1,7% 1,8% 0,6%
Zuschlag
Z/B- Verhältnis
4,2% 2,4% 1,8% 1,7% 6,8% 2,4% 1,6% 2,0%
1:23 1:40 1:53 1:58 1:14 1:41 1:61 1:50
Tabelle 2 Ergebnisse der HCl-Behandlung der nasschemischen Analyse
30
Farbigkeit nach Munsell: HUE 5Y 8/1 Yellowish gray, HUE 5Y7/2 Yellowish gray und HUE N8/ N9 Very light gray.
Restauratorisch-naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von tuthmosidischen Putzen aus cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca 281
Abb. 9 Estrich mit eingemischtem Keramik- und Ziegelmehl, AS (P. 025)
Abb. 10 im Putzgefüge eines Estriches erhaltene organische Faser, Bildbr. 1cm (P. 004)
Abb. 11 Hohlraumformen organischer Zuschläge von Halmen, Fasern und Stängeln, Bildbr. 4,5 mm, AS-Detail (P. 010)
Abb. 12 Sinterschicht der Putzoberfläche mit Abdrücken verwitterter organischer Fasern (P. 012)
Abb. 13 parallel bis schräg zur Putzoberfläche ausgerichtete längliche, schmale Hohlräume von organischen Fasern und gebogenem Muschelfragment (m.), Bildbr. 1 cm, DS (P. 013), + Pol., Kompensator Rot I Filter
Abb. 14 Brandkalkkonglomerat mit Partikeln unterschiedlicher Kalksteinsorten, AS (P. 024)
282 Alexandra Winkels braun-gräulich gefärbt (Abb. 4). An den Randbereichen vieler Putzfragmente zeigte sich im Anschliff eine rötlich-bräunliche Färbung (Abb. 5). Die Ursache dieses Phänomenes ist das nachträgliche Einwandern von tonigen und eisenhaltigen Feinstbestandteilen aus dem umgebenden Boden oder aus den Putzträgern.31 Dieses Einmischen und Einwandern von Feinstpartikeln ergab in den gefärbten Bereichen durch das Ausfüllen kleinster Hohlräume eine Verdichtung des Gefüges. Die Ritzhärte ist in den gefärbten Bereichen mit 4 Mohs jeweils um eine Einheit höher als in den Bindemittelbereichen aus reinem Kalk.32 Außerdem fanden sich weitere Verunreinigungen wie kleinste Kohlepartikel in der Bindemittelmatrix der Putze. Gefärbte Einschlüsse in Form rötlicher, gelber oder schwarz-bräunlicher Körnchen konnten sowohl in dem Material der Mörtelbecken als auch bei einigen der Putzproben beobachtet werden. Einschlüsse von blauen kantigen Pigmentkörnern (Ägyptisch Blau) und rote Pigmentkörner fanden sich in Poren oder Hohlräumen der Putze. Die Putzschichten sind gut durchcarbonatisiert. Sie weisen mit einem geringen Gehalt an sichtbaren, meist gut gerundeten Luftporen von durchschnittlich 1 bis 3% relativ dichte bzw. sehr feinporige Gefüge auf.33 Innerhalb der Putzschichten variiert die Gefügedichte (siehe Abb. 6). Umlagerungen und Rekristallisation von Calciumcarbonat führten zu bereichsweisen Auflockerungen der Bindemittelmatrix, zur Ausheilung von Rissen sowie vereinzelt zur Bildung von Sekundärporen. In feinen Kristallsäumen sind junge, sekundäre Calcitkristalle an den Innenwandun-
31
32
33
Darin enthaltene Tonmineral- und Eisenbestandteile, vor allem in Form von Eisenhydroxid, sind in alkalischwässrigem Milieu leicht löslich. Durch wechselnde Lösungs-, Transport- und Fällungsprozesse können die ton- und eisenhaltigen Bestandteile in die Ränder der lange im nassen Bodenmilieu gelagerten Putzfragmente oder -flächen transportiert und in der Bindemittelmatrix abgeschieden worden sein. Dieses Phänomen wurde durch Untersuchungen von MIDDENDORF et al. 2004 bestätigt. Mörtel mit größerem Feinanteil durch Verwendung ungewaschener Sande wiesen demnach eine höhere Druckfestigkeit auf. Der Anteil an lichtmikroskopisch sichtbaren Luftporen hängt vor allem von der Konsistenz des verwendeten Bindemittels und dem Feinanteilgehalt ab. Je weniger Wasser aus dem Frischmörtel während der Härtung
gen von Luftporen, Hohlräumen und Rissen auskristallisiert. Die Lagerung des Putzmaterials im nassen Boden des Grabungsareals begünstigte eine solche Carbonatanlösung, -umlagerung und Rekristallisation.34 Charakteristisch für die Putze aus Tell elDabca/cEzbet Helmi ist ein hoher Anteil an calcitischen Bindemittelpartikeln (3 bis 10 %). Diese sind in Form von Kalkspatzen und Calcitpartikeln enthalten und grundsätzlich sehr gut in die Bindemittelmatrix eingebettet. Bei den „Kalkspatzen“ (siehe Abb. 7) handelt es sich um unvollständig gelöschte Reste von Branntkalk (Calciumoxid) (siehe dazu Kapitel 4.2). Durch ihre Struktur und eine weiße bis weiß-gelbliche, teilweise natürlich verunreinigte Farbigkeit sind sie in den Putzgefügen leicht von der Bindemittelmatrix abgegrenzt. Als kleine Klümpchen enthalten, haben sie meist eine gerundete bis gut gerundete Form. Ihre Größe variiert von unter 0,25 mm bis 0,63 mm. Ein Nachlöschen von Kalkspatzen in Verbindung mit einer Volumenvergrößerung war in den untersuchten Putzgefügen nicht zu verzeichnen. Die Calcit-Partikel unterscheiden sich durch ihre Struktur und ihre Farbigkeit von den Kalkspatzen. Als bis zu 2,5 mm große, meist gerundete bis gut gerundete Partikel sind sie in unterschiedlichen Erhaltungsformen und Erscheinungsbildern in den Putzgefügen erhalten (Abb. 8). Auf Grund der gröberen kristallinen Struktur sowie ihrer gerundeten Kornform kann man davon ausgehen, dass es sich um im Brennprozess nicht vollständig durchgebrannte Kalksteinpartikel handelt.35 Daher sind sie herstellungstech-
34
35
verdunsten muss, desto weniger Luftporen bleiben im carbonatisierten festen Mörtel zurück. Durch einen hohen Gehalt an feinen Zuschlagskörnern und Feinstanteilen im Gefüge, wie in den untersuchten Proben gegeben, wird das Wasser feiner verteilt. Siehe auch: MIDDENDORF et al. 2004, 27, 29. Unter dauerhafter Durchfeuchtung kann abgebundenes Calciumcarbonat in kohlen(stoff)saurem Wasser chemisch angelöst werden. Die dabei entstehende Lösung (Calciumhydrogencarbonat) kann durch das Gefüge der Putze transportiert und an anderer Stelle abgeschieden werden. Dort kristallisiert sie als Calciumcarbonat wieder aus. Bei unzureichender Brenntemperatur und Brenndauer können bei den verwendeten Kalksteinbrocken „im Kern der Stücke (...) die nicht entsäuerten Kalkstein-
Restauratorisch-naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von tuthmosidischen Putzen aus cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca 283
Abb. 15 zweischichtiger Malschichtaufbau, eingebettete gelbe Lasur, Ägyptisch-Blau-Schicht auf der Putzoberfläche, AS (P. 026)
Abb. 16 Inhalt eines Mörtel-Beckens: wechselnde Schichtung aus lehmigem Erdmaterial und Brandkalkkonglomerat (P. 024)
Abb. 17 Glättspuren an der Putzoberfläche (P. 004)
Abb. 18 Borstenstrukturen in der Putzoberfläche (P. 017)
nisch und hinsichtlich der Zusammensetzung zum Bindemittelanteil zu zählen. Nachträglich als Zuschlag zugegebener, zerkleinerter Kalkstein wäre an wesentlich spitzeren Bruchkanten zu erkennen.36 Partikel, bei denen der Kern noch als kristalliner Calcit vorliegt, der äußere Rand
jedoch aus einer feinen mikritischen Grundmasse besteht, belegen eine Übergangsphase von kristallinen Calcit-Partikeln zu Kalkspatzen bei unvollständiger Durchbrennung. Dieser Befund stützt die These, dass es sich um Primärkörner von zur Bindemittelherstellung verwendeten
herzen in gerundeter Form“ erhalten bleiben. Der Grad der Durchbrennung kann auch von der Lagerung im Brennofen, in dem verschiedene Temperaturzonen mit unterschiedlichen Temperaturen entstehen können, abhängen. Siehe: KNÖFEL 1989, 38.
36
Dies bestätigte die versuchsweise Zerstampfung einzelner Kalksteinpartikel aus den Mörtelbecken. Das so zerkleinerte Kalksteinmaterial liegt dann in Form von splittrigen Kalksteinchips oder scharfkantigen Kalksteinbröckchen vor.
284 Alexandra Winkels
12
21
15
100%
Siebdurchgang in M.-%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% 75
125
250
500
1000
Maschenweite in μm Diagramm 1 Sieblinien (Kornsummenkurven) der säureunlöslichen Zuschläge der Putze mit größtem (P. 015), kleinstem (P. 021) und mittlerem (P. 012) Zuschlag-Bindemittel-Verhältnis
Kalksteinen handelt. Je nach dem Grad der Durchbrennung variiert auch die Farbigkeit von weißlichem Grau-braun bis hellem Gelblich-weiß. Die Calcit-Partikel machen einen großen Anteil des Korngehaltes in den Putzen aus und fungieren dadurch als stabilisierender Zuschlag in den an mineralischem Zuschlag armen Putzgefügen. Der geringe Gehalt an mineralischen Zuschlägen in den Putzen variiert von 3 bis 4%. Feinste Kornfraktionen im Bereich von 250–75mm dominieren überwiegend die bei der Siebanalyse ermittelten Korngrößenverteilungen. In einigen Putzen überwiegen auch Kornfraktionen im Durchmesser von 250–500mm (Diagramm 1). Die Zuschläge weisen trotz des teilweise sehr unterschiedlichen Z/B-Verhältnisses ähnliche Korngrößenverteilungen (Sieblinien) auf.
37
38
Nach DORNER (2001), 11, war das Gelände um Tell elDabca zur Zeit des beginnenden Neuen Reiches neben dem verzweigten Flusssystem des Pelusianischen Nilarmes durch die so genannten „Geziras“, eine Anzahl von größeren und kleineren Sandrücken aus gelben und ockerfarbigen Sanden, geprägt. Durch geologische Untersuchungen im Bereich des nordöstlichen Nildeltas von Van Wesemael konnten
Den Hauptmineralbestand der feinkörnigen mineralischen Zuschläge in den Putzen bilden Quarzkörner, Feldspat und Glimmer. Der überwiegend starke Rundungsgrad der weiß-gelblich, ockerfarbig bis bräunlichen Quarzkörner, teilweise mit Ton- und Eisenhydroxidsäumen, deutet auf einen Anteil an ungewaschenem Flusssand hin. Solche Sande waren sowohl in den aeolischen Ablagerungen der „Géziras“37 als auch in den alluvialen Sedimenten38 des Bodenmaterials enthalten und vor Ort verfügbar. Mit einem vergleichsweise hohen mineralischen Zuschlagsanteil von 22 %, einem MatrixPartikel-Verhältnis von 70:30 und einer rötlichbräunlichen Matrixfarbigkeit39 bildet der Bodenputz aus dem Grabungsareal Khatana (P. 025) eine Ausnahme (siehe Abb. 9). Neben Quarzkör-
39
die Hauptbestandteile des Bodens als alluviale Sedimente aus siltigem Lehm und Ton, siltig–tonigem Lehm, sandigem Ton und gröberem Sand mit einem geringen Anteil von Muschelschalen definiert werden. Siehe dazu: VAN WESEMAEL, B. 1988, 126, 128. Munsell-Werte: HUE 5Y 6/4 Dusky yellow, HUE 10YR 6/6 Dark yellowish orange, HUE 10Y 6/2 Pale olive.
Restauratorisch-naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von tuthmosidischen Putzen aus cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca 285
nern, Feldspat und unterschiedlichen Gesteinsfragmenten enthält er eine Zumischung zerkleinerter bis gemahlener gebrannter Keramikscherben oder Lehmziegel.40 Dieser Befund belegt das Einmischen von puzzolanischen Materialien in den Putz. Die Frage, ob sich dabei hydraulische Phasen gebildet haben bzw. ein hydraulischer Mörtel entstanden ist, konnte bisher noch nicht eindeutig belegt werden.41 Durch Anfärbung war es möglich, Kaolinit in dem Putz deutlich nachzuweisen. Dieses beginnt sich bei Temperaturen von 500–600°C zu zersetzen. Das Vorkommen des Tonminerals ist daher ein Hinweis dafür, dass die puzzolanischen Materialien nicht mit dem Kalk gebrannt, sondern bei der Mörtelherstellung mit dem Bindemittel vermischt wurden. Da keine Wandputze in Verbindung mit dem Bodenfragment gefunden wurden, bleibt die Frage, ob in der Zusammensetzung zwischen Estrich und flächigem Wandputz differenziert wurde, für das Putzmaterial aus Kathana bisher leider ungeklärt. Ein Hauptbestandteil der Putze ist mit einem Anteil von 5 bis zu 15 % organischer Zuschlag in Form von pflanzlichen Fasern und vermutlich Tierhaaren. Infolge der langen Lagerung im nassen Bodenmilieu sind diese organischen Materialien heute überwiegend verwittert. Vereinzelt blieben organische Relikte erhalten, das Material konnte jedoch nicht eindeutig identifiziert werden (siehe Abb. 10). Anhand von feinen Reliefstrukturen an den Oberflächen, Unterseiten und Bruchkanten der Putzproben sowie der zurückgebliebenen Hohlräume im Putzgefüge konnte der ehemalige Gehalt der organischen Zuschläge dennoch am An- und Dünnschliff nachvollzogen und abgeschätzt werden. Die Abdrücke und die tiefen, im Querschnitt rund bis ovalen oder schmalen länglichen Hohlräume belegen ein Untermischen der organischen Zuschläge in unterschiedlichem
Zustand (Abb. 11). Sowohl ganze Stücke pflanzlicher Stängel oder Halme als auch pflanzliche Fasern waren länger belassen bis zerhäckselt in den Putzen enthalten. Denkbar ist die Zugabe von Getreidestroh und -spreu, Heu sowie Flachs- oder Hanffasern o. ä. Besonders die in vielen Proben beobachteten, weich gebogenen Eindrücke in den geglätteten Putzoberflächen (Abb. 12), die runde bis ovale Querschnittform vieler tiefer Hohlräume (Abb. 7) und ihre Feinheit sprechen für den Zusatz an Haaren z. B. von Nutztieren, neben dem Gehalt an pflanzlichen Fasern. Der hohe Anteil dieser Zuschläge bedeutet eine Armierung direkt im Mörtelgefüge, die u. a. aus der alt-ägyptischen Lehmziegel- und Lehmputzproduktion bekannt ist. Dieser Befund legt die Übernahme von klassischen Elementen der altägyptischen Lehmputztechnik in die Kalkputztechnologie nahe. Die Kohäsion des Mörtelmaterials und die Adhäsionsfähigkeit am Putzträger werden dadurch verbessert. Das Verdunsten des Anmischwassers während der Härtung lässt den Kalkputz im Makrobereich schrumpfen. Dies kann zur Bildung von Schwundrissen im Mörtelgefüge führen. Durch eine Stabilisierung mit organischen Zuschlägen konnte eine solche nachweislich verringert werden. Dies ist ein weiterer Aspekt, der entscheidend zur Stabilität und Beständigkeit der Putze aus cEzbet Helmi beigetragen hat. In einem geringen Anteil von 1 bis 3 % fanden sich Schalentierfragmente unterschiedlicher Spezies in den Putzen. Von vereinzelten Schneckenfragmenten abgesehen, handelte es sich hauptsächlich um Bruchstücke oberflächlich glatter, leicht gebogener Muschelschalen.42 Auch die Schalentierfragmente sind überwiegend verwittert. Die zurückgebliebenen Hohlräume haben meist eine gebogene, längliche Form mit geradem bis leicht schrägem Abschluss (Abb. 12). Das enthaltene Schalentiermaterial kann sowohl aus dem Erdmaterial der Umgebung stammen43 als
40
42
41
In einem weiteren Bodenputzfragment aus ähnlichem Mörtelmaterial fanden sich größere Scherbenstücke in den Putz gemischt und teilweise sogar in die Oberfläche eingedrückt. Ob das hydraulische Potential von eisen- und tonhaltigen Bestandteilen von Keramik-, Ziegel- oder des örtlichen Erdmaterials schon bekannt war und die Zugabe daher bewusst erfolgte, um einen stabileren Bodenmörtel herzustellen, kann nicht definitiv belegt werden.
43
Die von BRYSBAERT 2002 erwähnte Verwendung der aus der Mörtelherstellung im ägäischen Raum bekannten Moluskenart „Murex trunculus und Murex brandaris“ als Zuschlag in den bemalten Putzen von Tell el-Dabca konnte durch diese Untersuchung für die Putze noch nicht belegt werden. VAN WESEMAEL 1998, S.128 schreibt, dass auch ein geringer Anteil von Muschelschalen in dem Bodenmaterial des Areals um Tell el-Dabca enthalten war.
286 Alexandra Winkels auch nachträglich zugegeben worden sein. Dass es sich dabei um einen Rückstand aus gebranntem Muschelkalk handelt oder Muschelschalen einzeln mit gebrannt wurden, ist unwahrscheinlich. Durch den Brennvorgang zerfällt das Carbonat von Muschelschalen nachweislich. Charakteristisch ist die waagerecht bis leicht schräg zur Putzoberfläche orientierte Ausrichtung der länglichen Hohlräume sowohl der organischen Zuschläge als auch der Schalentierfragmente (Abb. 13). Feine Mikrorisse im Gefüge fast aller Proben waren mikroskopisch erfassbar. Die Ausprägung der Risse unterscheidet sich meist klar durch die ehemalige Funktion des jeweiligen beprobten Putzes und ist an der Ausrichtung des Putzträgers orientiert. Bei den Estrichen verlaufen sie waagerecht bis leicht schräg zur Putzoberfläche oder Unterseite, bei Wand und Deckenputzen sind sie tendenziell senkrecht zu diesen ausgeprägt. Diese entstanden offensichtlich vor allem nachträglich, verursacht durch andauernde Quell- und Schrumpfprozesse des Trägers oder durch Kompression der Fragmente in Folge der verstürzten Lagerung unter schweren Erdlasten. Die Materialien aus den Mörtelbecken konnten als ehemaliges Branntkalk-Konglomerat (P. Abb. 14) und eine ursprüngliche Mischung aus Kalkhydrat und teilweise hydratisiertem Branntkalk mit feinen Carbonatisierungshorizonten (P. 023) identifiziert werden. Im Gegensatz zu den anderen Putzproben weisen sie keine definierbaren bearbeiteten Oberflächen oder ein gleichmäßig durchmischtes Gefüge auf. Es handelt sich um Bindemittelrohmaterial in unterschiedlichem Zustand, das zur Mörtelherstellung weiterverarbeitet werden konnte. Die aufgeführten materialtechnischen Befunde gelten auch für die Wandputze mit minoischer Wandmalerei. Als besonderes Merkmal weist die gesamte untere Zone des Wandmalereifragments des minoischen Spiralfrieses (P. 026) eine charakteristische, viel dunklere Matrix- und Gefügefarbigkeit auf, die sich aus einem größeren Anteil von Nilschlamm ergibt. Die Malschicht der Probe 016 ist zweischichtig
44
Zum Brennen von Kalk wird eine Brenntemperatur von etwa 896–1200°C im Vergleich zum Gipsbrand leicht höheren Brenntemperaturen benötigt. In für die Keramikproduktion oder Metallherstellung ver-
aufgebaut (Abb. 15). Auf einer dünnen, mit gelbem Pigment angelegten Lasur, die 1 bis 2 mm unterhalb der Putzoberfläche horizontal angereichert ist, liegt eine blaue Farbschicht. Durch Polarisationsmikroskopie wurde das feinkörnige Pigment als Ägyptisch Blau definiert. Bei dem gelben Pigment handelt es sich scheinbar um einen natürlichen Ocker. Die schwarz-bräunliche Pigmentschicht der Malschicht von Probe 026 ist aus Eisenhydroxiden, Tonmineralen und Pflanzenkohle zusammengesetzt. 4.2 Betrachtungen zur Werk- und Verarbeitungstechnik Die Herstellungstechnologie hat einen wesentlichen Einfluss auf die Ausprägung der Gefüge von Mörteln und Putzen sowie auf deren Eigenschaften. Die Ergebnisse der Untersuchungen ermöglichen den teilweisen Nachvollzug der Herstellungstechnik der Rohmaterialien sowie der historischen Werktechnik. Herstellung des Bindemittels Der Umfang des bisher ergrabenen Kalkputzbestandes setzt eine sehr umfangreiche Branntkalkherstellung voraus. Kleinste im Bindemittel der untersuchten Putze eingeschlossene Kohlepartikel belegen eindeutig das Brennen des Kalksteinrohmaterials. In Tell el-Dabca wurden bisher jedoch keine Öfen, Gruben o. ä. gefunden, die eindeutig eine Verwendung zum Brennen von Kalk belegen, damit bleibt bisher ungeklärt, in welcher Form Kalk gebrannt wurde.44 Welche Art von Kalkstein zur Herstellung der großen Mengen Kalk für die umfangreichen Putzflächen in Tell el-Dabca–cEzbet Helmi verwendet wurde, ist nicht definitiv belegt. Die geologischen Gegebenheiten vor Ort erforderten grundsätzlich die Anlieferung von Kalksteinmaterial. Größere Kalksteinpartikel, die im BranntkalkKonglomerat der Mörtelgruben erhalten blieben, belegen aber die Verwendung von unterschiedlichen Kalksteinsorten. Es fanden sich sowohl gelblich-weiße Kalkgesteinpartikel mit einer dichten fein-kristallinen mikritischen Grundmasse (Minimikrit), Partikel eines grau-weißlichen, teil-
wendeten Öfen konnten solche Temperaturbereiche erreicht werden (siehe NICHOLSON 2000). Ähnliche Öfen sind daher theoretisch auch für die Produktion von gebranntem Kalk denkbar.
Restauratorisch-naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von tuthmosidischen Putzen aus cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca 287
weise leicht grünlichen mikrokristallinen Calcits (mit leichtem Magnesiumanteil) sowie eines weißen grobkörnigeren Kalksteins. Kalksteinpartikel mit nummulitischen Foraminiferen belegen außerdem die Verwendung von fossilienreichem Muschelkalk. Das Erscheinungsbild der kristallinen Calcitpartikel in den Putzen entspricht diesen Kalksteinsorten, was bestätigt, dass es sich dabei um primäre Calcitpartikel aus dem Bindemittel handelt. Der nachgewiesene minimale Magnesiumanteil in den Putzproben 017 und 022 deutet außerdem auf die anteilige Verwendung eines dolomitischen Kalkes zur Branntkalk-Herstellung hin. Daneben deutet die partiell ermittelte stärkere Ritzhärte von 4 Mohs u.a. auf die anteilige Verarbeitung von natürlichen hydraulischen Kalken oder Dolomitkalk hin. Lagerung des Rohmaterials und Mörtelzubereitung Die mikroskopische Untersuchung der Materialien aus den Mörtelbecken (P.-Nr. 024, 025) bestätigte eine Lagerung des Bindemittel-Rohmaterials zur Mörtelherstellung in unterschiedlicher Konsistenz. Die Becken befanden sich außerhalb der Palastfriedung am Flussarm, leicht abseits der Baustellen.45 An einem quadratisch ausgestochenen Stück des Beckens mit Branntkalk-Konglomerat ist eine Art der Lagerung gut abzulesen: Der Lehmmutterboden der ausgehobenen Grube wurde mit mindestens ein bis zwei Lagen Palmrispen ausgelegt.46 Darauf fand sich grobkörniger gebrannter Kalk abwechselnd mit Lagen aus lehmigem Erdmaterial geschichtet (siehe Abb. 16). Eine solche Abdeckung mit dem verfügbaren Erdmaterial kann verhindern, dass die Branntkalkschichten vorzeitig durch Kontakt mit der Atmosphäre carbonatisieren.47 Eine solche schichtweise Lagerung von Kalkmaterial und Lehm oder zumeist Sand ist aus verschiedenen Epochen und Kulturkreisen zur Mörtelherstellung im so genannten Trockenlöschverfahren bekannt.48 Die Kalkspatzen in den Putzgefügen belegen die Herstellung der Mörtel in einem trockenen
45 46 47 48
BIETAK und FORSTNER-MÜLLER 2006, 68. JÁNOSI 2002, 208. KRAUS, WISSER und KNÖFEL 1989, 208. Zumeist wurde Brandkalk und Sand mehrlagig aufgeschichtet und anschließend mit Wasser besprengt. Der Sand diente vermischt mit dem gelöschten Kalk als Zuschlag. Siehe KRAUS, WISSER und KNÖFEL 1989, 208.
Löschverfahren. Dabei wird dem gebrannten Kalk eine geringe Wassermenge zugegeben, die über den theoretisch zum Hydratisieren des Calciumoxids zu Löschkalk (Calciumhydroxid) nötigen Bedarf nicht wesentlich hinausgeht. So kommt es zu einem ungleichmäßigen Löschen des Branntkalkes, wobei „Kalkspatzen“ in Form kleiner nicht vollständig gelöschter Klümpchen, „dichte mikritischer Areale“49 entstehen. Auch die gleichmäßige Carbonatisierung,50 der geringe sichtbare Luftporenanteil und die geringe Schwundrissausbildung sind charakteristisch für die Herstellung der Mörtel in einem trockenen Löschverfahren mit einer geringen Wassermenge. Die Weiterverarbeitung des gebrannten Kalkes und die Mörtelzubereitung können auf Grund der Befundlage wie folgt angenommen werden: – Abtragen der obersten Erdschicht, Aufdeckung des Branntkalkes, – Zugabe einer geringen Wassermenge zum Löschen der freigelegten Branntkalkschicht, – nach kurzem Löschen Abtragen des (gebildeten) Kalkhydrates, – u. U. Umschichtung in ein anderes Becken oder Behältnis, in dem der gelöschte Kalk gelagert oder nochmals durchgemischt wurde, – Durchmischen des Materials zur Verarbeitung, Zugabe von organischen und u. U. wenigen mineralischen Zuschlägen. Bei einem derart hohen Bindemittelgehalt, wie ihn die Putze aus cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca aufwiesen, hängt die Ausprägung der Mörtelgefüge entscheidend von der Art und Weiterbehandlung des gebrannten bzw. gelöschten Kalkes ab. Die Bindemittel-Partikel in den Putzen verdeutlichen, dass durch unterschiedliche Durchbrennung und ungleichmäßiges Löschen des gebrannten Kalkes eine materialspezifische, die Gefügestruktur prägende Kornverteilung entstehen kann. Da die Calcit-Partikel im BranntkalkKonglomerat erheblich größer sind als jene in
49 50
ARNOLD 2000, 248. Studien von ELGERT et al. 2002 zeigen, dass der Carbonatisierungsprozess bei Mörteln mit frisch gelöschtem, nicht eingesumpftem Kalk gleichmäßig von der Oberfläche in die Tiefe der Mörtelschicht verläuft.
288 Alexandra Winkels den Putzen, könnten größere Körner vor der Verarbeitung des Mörtels zum Putz entfernt worden sein. Die im Rohmaterial ebenfalls im Vergleich zu den Putzen größeren Kalkspatzen könnten im Zuge der weiteren Verarbeitung zerfallen sein. Die aufgeführten Lagerbedingungen und die Weiterverarbeitung des Brannt- und Löschkalkes begünstigten das Einmischen von lehmigem Erdmaterial, wie an den rötlich-bräunlich gefärbten Matrixbereichen vieler Putzproben evident ist. Auch die geringen mineralischen Zuschlagsmengen wurden eher versehentlich eingemischt als bewusst zugegeben. Das Einmischen der gesamten Abdeckschicht ist unwahrscheinlich. Wie durch die Nachstellung in eigenen Versuchen nachgewiesen werden konnte, hätte ihre Dimension im Verhältnis zu den Branntkalkschichten einen deutlich höheren Anteil Nilschlamm im Mörtel und damit eine dunklere Mörtelfarbigkeit ergeben. Antrag und Bearbeitung der Putze Die Untersuchung der Ober- und Unterseiten der Putzproben und der Befundstellen auf der Grabung ergab wesentliche Hinweise zum Aufbau der nicht mehr erhaltenen aufgehenden Wandflächen und Decken, über die Anbringung der Putze und deren Bearbeitung. Der stratigrafische Aufbau ist in den verschiedenen Architekturbereichen unterschiedlich. Die Negativabdrücke in den Ober- und Unterseiten der untersuchten Deckenputzschichten mit Schichtdicken von 0,8–1,8 cm wiesen den mehrschichtigen Aufbau der Decken nach: Den stabilisierenden inneren Kern der Deckenkonstruktion können hölzerne Deckenbalken gebildet haben. An diesen befestigte man Matten oder Bündel aus pflanzlichen Halmrohren bzw. Pflanzenstielen; an deren Unterseite trug man eine erste Mörtelschicht auf. Ein in diese eingedrücktes feineres Mattengeflecht diente als Armierung und Träger für eine raumseitig sichtbare geglättete Putzschicht. Die Armierungsmaterialien sind zum Großteil verwittert. Die Formen der Abdrücke deuten auf die Verwendung von Schilfrohr-, Papyrusstängeln oder Palmblättern sowie Palmblätter-Mittelrippen und Palmrispen als Armierungsmaterialien hin – Materialien, deren Verwendung aus anderen Bei-
51
Siehe KEMP 2000, 93, 94f., fig. 3,8 (b)
spielen der altägyptischen Lehmziegelarchitektur zur Deckenkonstruktion und Armierung von Lehmputzen bekannt sind.51 Die unbemalten wie auch die bemalten Wandputze (0,8–2,0 cm Schichtdicke)wiesen einen einschichtigen Aufbau auf. Sie wurden direkt auf das Lehmziegelmauerwerk oder auf einen LehmStroh-Putz über dem Mauerwerk angetragen. Aus Lehmziegeln und Lehm-Stroh-Putz oder Nilschlamm vorgeformte Architekturbereiche wie die Dais erhielten ihr Erscheinungsbild erst durch die Modellierung der Unterkonstruktion mit einer Putzschicht. Die Estriche sowie die modellierten Treppenstufen des Gebäudes L sind aus mehreren zur Oberfläche hin dünner werdenden Putzlagen (mit Schichtdicken von 0,5 mm und 2,9 cm) aufgebaut. Der Putzauftrag erfolgte sowohl auf Sand-, Lehm- oder Nilschlammziegelpflaster als auch direkt auf den zuvor eingeebneten Mutterboden. Stellenweise fungieren nur 0,5–1 mm dünne Putzlagen als Glättschicht zur Herstellung eines ebenen Oberflächenniveaus. Sie unterscheiden sich von den unteren Lagen durch einen etwas geringeren mineralisch und organischen Zuschlagsanteil und eine feinere Körnung. Zwischenlagen aus Nilschlamm und Lehm bilden bei manchen Böden und den Stufen eine Ausgleichsschicht. Dadurch entstand ein ebenes Niveau für den Putzantrag einer neuen Bauphase. In dem Gebäude L konnte die Anputzung eines Estriches an den angrenzenden Wandputz sowie der direkte Übergang von Wandputz in einen Estrich beobachtet werden, diese Befunde belegen dass dem Bauablauf entsprechend von oben nach unten verputzt wurde. Erhaltene verputzte Eckbereiche von Wandund Bodenanschlüssen zeigen eine stellenweise sehr exakte Modellierung der Raumecken. Fast alle Fragmente und erhaltenen Flächen der raumsichtigen Estriche, Wand- und Deckenputze weisen relativ stark geglättete Oberflächen auf. Teilweise makroskopisch im Streiflicht und unter dem Mikroskop sichtbare Strukturen zeigen verschiedene Arten der Bearbeitung des noch frischen Mörtels. Feine, positiv ausgeprägte, streifige Strukturen an der Oberfläche zeugen von der Glättung der Putze mit einem Spachtel oder ähnlichem Werk-
Restauratorisch-naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von tuthmosidischen Putzen aus cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca 289
Abb. 19 in die Oberfläche des Putzes eingeprägte Fingerzüge (P. 025) (Bildvorlage 4 cm)
zeug (siehe Abb. 17). Durch das Andrücken und die Verdichtung des Mörtels während des Glättvorganges kann sich Bindemittel an der Oberfläche anreichern; die gröberen Zuschläge werden dabei leicht nach unten gedrückt. Mit dem Überstreichen der noch frischen Putzoberfläche mit dem Werkzeug können solche Striemen entstehen. Feine, negativ in die Oberfläche der Deckenputze eingeprägte Borstenstrukturen (siehe Abb. 18) belegen auch das Verstreichen der Oberfläche mit einem borstigen Pinsel52 o.ä. Der Bodenputz aus Kathana wurde stellenweise mit Fingern angedrückt und verstrichen, wie in die Oberfläche eingeprägte Fingerzüge sehr anschaulich belegen (Abb. 19). Die Dichte der Putze, u. a. die wenigen sichtbaren Luftporen, deuten auf das Verdichten der Putzschichten über die Glättung hinaus hin. Dies kann durch Stampfen der Mörtelmasse während des Mischprozesses sowie Schlagen oder Stampfen der frischen Putzoberfläche mit entsprechenden Werkzeugen erreicht werden. Die sehr ebenen Unterseiten der Bodenputze weisen auf ein Stampfen hin. Die Wandputze sind im oberen Drittel zur Oberfläche hin ähnlich verdichtet,
52
53
54
In GUILLEMETE (ed.) 2002, S 201, fig. 151a–e sind verschiedene Pinsel aus pflanzlichen Fasern abgebildet, mit denen in ägyptischern Gräbern gearbeitet wurde und die in ähnlicher Form zur Verwendung gekommen sein können. Zu Beispielen von Werkzeugfunden siehe: ENGELBRECHT 1987, 144, Abb. 56; BIETAK 1994 45, Abb. 13; EVELY 1999, 154. Durch die feuchte Bodenlagerung ist durch zuvor
weisen aber eine tendenziell größere Porosität auf als die dazugehörigen Bodenmörtel und wesentlich unebenere Unterseiten auf. Diese wurden nach dem Auftrag eher geschlagen. Nur vereinzelt sind Spuren eines schmalen Werkzeugs an den Putzoberflächen sichtbar. Zur Bearbeitung und Glättung der großen Putzflächen ist daher die Verwendung von breiteren Antragswerkzeugen bzw. Glättspachteln anzunehmen. In Tell el-Dabca wurde ein steinernes Werkzeug gefunden, das zum Verputzen verwendet wurde. Des Weiteren können Werkzeuge wie Spachtel und Traufeln aus Holz, in der Zeit eher seltener aus Metall, sowie aus Stein für die Verund Bearbeitung der Putze zur Anwendung gekommen sein.53 Die untersuchten Wandmalereifragmente erlaubten einen beispielhaften Einblick in die angewandte Maltechnik. Die Verwendung einer Mischtechnik von Fresco- und Seccomalerei ist durch die Probe 016 (s.o.) nachgewiesen. Die gelb pigmentierte Lasur unter der blauen Schicht ist zwei Millimeter unter der Putzoberfläche horizontal angereichert. Eine solche calcitische Einbindung auch größerer Pigmentkörner in die Putzschicht ist nur durch den Auftrag des Pigmentes auf die noch feuchte, nicht vollständig abgebundene Putzoberfläche denkbar. Durch Glätten der Oberfläche nach dem Lasurauftrag kann das Pigment derart eingebettet worden sein (siehe dazu Abb. 15). In Seccotechnik wurde das blaue Pigment wahrscheinlich mit einem Bindemittel aufgetragen. Die blaue Pigmentschicht ist nicht carbonatisch in die Putzoberfläche eingebunden und in einer klaren Schichtgrenze von dieser abgegrenzt. Ebenso wurde die schwarz-bräunliche Farbschicht des minoischen Spiralfrieses offensichtlich in einer Seccotechnik aufgetragen. Die partielle Sinterschicht auf der Malschichtoberfläche entstand dem Anschein nach durch eine nachträgliche Sinterschichtbildung.54
beschriebene Carbonatumlagerungen auch eine nachträgliche Sinterschichtbildung an den Putzoberflächen möglich. So können nachträglich Malschichten bzw. Pigmente calcitisch eingebunden werden, ohne dass es sich um einen frescalen Auftrag der Pigmente handelte. Dies muss bei archäologischen Wandmalereien, die in feuchtem Boden lagerten, bei der Befundinterpretation hinsichtlich der verwendeten Maltechnik bedacht werden.
290 Alexandra Winkels 4.3 Differenzierung und Kategorisierung der Putze Sowohl in der Zusammensetzung als auch in der Ausprägung optischer Parameter wiesen die Putzproben eine große Ähnlichkeit untereinander auf. Dies erschwerte die Zuordnung von verstürzten Fragmenten zu ihrer ursprünglichen Funktion. Eigenschaften und optische Merkmale, in denen sich die in situ vorgefundenen Estriche, Wand- und Deckenputze etwas unterscheiden, halfen, die verstürzten Fragmente ihrer ursprünglichen technischen Funktion zuzuordnen. Neben charakteristischen Oberflächenstrukturen wie den Abdrücken der Armierungsmaterialien der Deckenputze (siehe Abb. 2) oder den angedrückten ebenen Unterseiten der Bodenputze kann die an dem Putzträger orientierte Mikrorissausbildung ein Unterscheidungsmerkmal darstellen.55 Der hyksoszeitliche Estrich aus Khatana stellt durch seine andersartige Zusammensetzung momentan ein Einzelbeispiel für ein wahrscheinlich hydraulisches Putzmaterial einer älteren Grabungsebene dar. Der Schluss, dass in dieser früheren Zeit die Putze grundsätzlich anders zusammengesetzt sind, kann auf Grund mangelnder Vergleichsmaterialien noch nicht gezogen werden. Die Zusammensetzung und Gefügestrukturen der tuthmosidischen Putze sind grundsätzlich ähnlich. Die in dem Gebäude L in situ, innerhalb eines Raumes gefundenen Putze oder die verstürzten Fragmente aus dem Bereich des Palastes G, die innerhalb eines Lokus bzw. einer Grabungsebene gefunden wurden, sind jeweils materialtechnisch als Einheit zu betrachten. Den Ergebnissen dieser Untersuchung nach unterscheidet sich die Zusammensetzung der Putze aus Palastarchitektur und öffentlichen Gebäuden nicht. Auch eine bewusste Variation in der Zusammensetzung der Putze je nach Funktion als Estrich, modellierter Bereich, an Wänden oder Decken konnte nicht belegt werden. Innerhalb eines Raumes bzw. eines Gebäudekomplexes
55
56
Da je nach Schüttlage der verstürzten Fragmente theoretisch eine Ausbildung unterschiedlicher Risse möglich war, ist eine Zuordnung allein auf dieser Grundlage nicht ausreichend. Die Veröffentlichung weiterer Ergebnisse der Untersuchung von Wandmalereifragmenten aus Tell el-Dabca von
wurde dasselbe Mörtelmaterial für alle zu verputzenden Flächen verwendet. Inhomogenitäten und leichte Variationen können durch das Nachmischen von Mörtel entstanden sein, da vermutlich nicht nach einer strengen Rezeptur gemischt wurde. Die Anlage der Mörtelbecken zur Materiallagerung bestätigt ein Verarbeiten desselben Mörtelmaterials in größeren Mengen. Auf Grund der Materialbeschaffenheit des Branntkalk-Konglomerats sowie des Löschkalkes ist eine Herstellung der Putze aus dem Material der gefundenen oder ähnlicher Mörtelgruben realistisch. Die vorhandenen Pigmenteinschlüsse sowohl in dem calcitischen Rohmaterial der Mörtelgruben als auch in den bemalten und unbemalten Putzproben sind ein weiterer Hinweis darauf. Außerdem können sie als weiterer Befund dafür gewertet werden, dass bemalte und unbemalte Putze teilweise in einem baulichen Zusammenhang gestanden haben. Es wurde auch festgestellt, dass die bemalten Putze aus demselben Rohmaterial wie die unbemalten Putze hergestellt worden sein können. Die nachgewiesene materialtechnische Ähnlichkeit der Wandmalereifragmente56 mit den unbemalten Putzen bestätigte die Verwendung desselben bzw. ähnlichen Mörtelmaterials. Ob der ermittelte, in den Wandmalereifragmenten um ein Prozent geringere Anteil an mineralischen und organischen Zuschlägen eine bewusste Differenzierung in der Zusammensetzung bedeutet, ist nicht nachvollziehbar. Die Differenzierung repräsentativer und einfacherer Räumlichkeiten bzw. Gebäudekomplexe spiegelt sich nicht in der Zusammensetzung der Putze wieder, sondern in erster Linie in deren Oberflächengestaltung. Bei den bemalten Putzen ist z. B. teilweise eine tendenziell stärkere Glättung der Oberfläche zu verzeichnen. Die Wandmalerei fungierte als Aufwertung der Putzschicht, mit der in erster Linie bedeutende Architekturbereiche geschmückt wurden. Unterschiede im stratigrafischen Aufbau57 zwischen bemalten Putzen
57
A. Brysbaert steht noch aus und wird weiteren Aufschluss über die Zusammensetzung dieser geben können. SEEBER 1997, 26 bestätigte, dass die minoischen Wandmalereien z. T. einen sehr komplexen mehrschichtigen Aufbau aufwiesen. Bis zu drei Putzlagen ergaben Schichtpakete von zu bis 15–20 cm.
Restauratorisch-naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von tuthmosidischen Putzen aus cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca 291
und unbemalten Putzflächen ist für den untersuchten Bestand nicht zu verzeichnen. 5 RESÜMEE DER UNTERSUCHUNG Durch die vorgestellten Methoden der Mörtelanalyse ließ sich in dem der Grabung in Tell elDabca angegliederten Labor eine Vielzahl von Ergebnissen gewinnen. Ein Vorteil der angewandten Methoden besteht darin, dass die Ergebnisse ohne lange Wartezeiten erbracht werden können. Dies ermöglicht noch im Verlauf der Grabung Klarheit über die chemisch-mineralogische Zusammensetzung des originalen Putz- und Mörtelbestandes sowie wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse zur historischen Werktechnik und Kunsttechnologie, die eine wichtige Ergänzung zu den Grabungsergebnissen darstellen . Erst durch die vergleichende Mörtelanalyse ist eine Charakterisierung des Putzbestandes in seinen individuellen Ausprägungen, ein verlässlicher Vergleich von verschiedenen Putzfragmenten und Mörtelmaterialien sowie eine Zuordnung von verstürzt gefundenen Fragmenten zu ihrer ursprünglichen Funktion überhaupt möglich. Durch den Herstellungsprozess bedingte Phänomene sowie lagerungs- und witterungsbedingte Veränderungen des originalen Materials, die den aktuellen Erhaltungszustand prägen, können bestimmt werden. Der Vergleich von Mörteln und Putzen an Anschliff- oder Dünnschliffproben ist auf Grund ihrer Anschaulichkeit für die Praxis sinnvoll. Die präparierten Probekörper können in Zukunft als Vergleichsbeispiele für weitere Putz- oder Mörtelproben dienen. Die digitale Sammlung der Ergebnisse auf Datenblättern ermöglicht den Aufbau einer Mörteldatenbank in der die Ergebnisse und Informationen vergleichbar sind. Die in dieser Arbeit durchgeführten Methoden der Mörtelanalytik erscheinen in gleicher oder ähnlicher Form auch auf andere ägyptologische und archäologische Grabungen übertragbar, an denen sich Fragestellungen zum erhaltenen Putzund Mörtelbestand ergeben, wie auch zur Analyse von Lehm- Putzen und -ziegeln. Die Wichtigkeit einzelner Parameter muss dabei für jedes Objekt neu definiert werden. Die Ergebnisse können direkt in die Entwicklung von geeigneten Konservierungsmethoden
58
ARNOLD 2000, 255.
und -techniken vor Ort einfließen. Parallel zu laufenden Konservierungsarbeiten bieten sie zum einen Hilfestellung bei der Aufklärung von Schadensmechanismen und ermöglichen zum anderen, die Konservierungsmaterialien und konservatorischen Methoden optimal auf den originalen Bestand abzustimmen. Dies gilt z. B. bei Festigungen, der Zusammenstellung von Konservierungsmörteln zur Kittung von Fehlstellen im Putz oder geeigneten Klebemörteln zum Zusammenfügen von Fragmenten. Die Mörtelanalyse kann zwar keine naturwissenschaftliche Datierung im eigentlichen Sinne liefern,58 ermöglicht aber die Sammlung von Vergleichsdaten, die für die Untersuchung weiteren Materials zur Verfügung stehen können. Die naturwissenschaftlichen Mörteluntersuchungen sollten daher immer mit der Ermittlung der Putzphasenfolge auf der Grabung einhergehen. So kann eine zeitliche Einordnung vorgenommen und die Entwicklung der Mörtel- und Putztechnik untersucht werden. Neben einem Beitrag zur Bauforschung ermöglicht die Befunduntersuchung in situ die Dokumentation von Befunden, bevor diese durch das Fortschreiten der Grabung verloren gehen können. Grundsätzlich ist eine breitere Forschung auf dem Gebiet der altägyptischen Mörtel- und Putztechnologie, nicht beschränkt auf die Kalkputztechnik und die Bereitstellung der Ergebnisse, wünschenswert. Die vielfältigen Ergebnisse dieser Arbeit verdeutlichen, wie umfangreich der Informationsgewinn der Untersuchung unbemalter Putze sein kann. In der Erfassung des originalen Putzbestandes und der historischen Werktechnik einer Grabung sind sie aus konservatorischer und kunsttechnologischer Sicht nicht zu vernachlässigen. Danksagung Mein herzlicher Dank gilt Prof. Dr. M. Bietak und Dr. I. Forstner-Müller. Durch deren freundliche Erlaubnis war es möglich, das Grabungsteam im Herbst 2005 sowie im Frühjahr 2006 auf die Grabung zu begleiten. Der Beitrag beruht auf der Seminararbeit der Verfasserin im Studiengang Kunsttechnologie, Konservierung und Restaurierung von historischem Kunst- und Kulturgut, im Fachbereich Wandmalerei und Architekturfarbig-
292 Alexandra Winkels keit an der HfBK Dresden. Ebenfalls danken möchte ich den Betreuern der Arbeit Prof. H. Leitner sowie Prof. Dr. C. Herm und Mag. R. Seeber. Außerdem sei Dr. S. Hoblyn, Dipl. Rest. A. Dähne und Dr. H. Siedel für ihre Hilfe gedankt,
sowie Dipl. Rest. R. Lenz für die in einem Seminar an der HfBK Dresden vermittelten Techniken der Mörtelanalyse. Abschließend möchte ich mich bei dem Team der Grabung für die gute Zusammenarbeit bedanken.
Bibliographie raohs’ Monuments, 1447–1455, in: RIEDERER, J. Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on Deterioration and Conservation of Stone, vol. 3, Berlin.
ASLANIDOU, K. 1992
Der minoische Spiralfries aus dem Grabungsareal H/IV in Tell el Dabca, Malvorgang und Rekonstruktion, Ä&L 12 , 13–27.
ARNOLD, B. 200
Technologische Untersuchungsmethoden, Zeitschrift für schweizerische Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte 57, 193–195.
BIETAK, M., DORNER und JÁNOSI, P. 2001,
Ausgrabung in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris, Vorbericht Tell el Dabca/cEzbet Helmi 1993–2000, mit einem Beitrag von A. von den Driesch und Joris Peters, Ä&L 11, 27–119.
BIETAK, M. und FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I. 2003
Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris. Vorbericht Tell el Dabc a, Areas H/III und H/VI, Ä&L 13, 39–50.
BIETAK, M. 1994
Die Wandmalereien aus Tell el Dabca/cEzbet Helmi – Erste Eindrücke, Ä&L 4, 44–69.
2005
The Setting of the Minoan Wall Paintings at Avaris, 81–90, in MORGAN, L. (ed.) Aegean Wall Painting. A Tribute to Marc Cameron, London.
BIETAK, M. und FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I. 2006
Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit bei cEzbet Helmi/Tel el Dabca. Vorbericht für Herbst 2004 und Frühjahr 2005, Ä&L 14, 65–100.
BRYSBAERT, A. 20002 Common Craftsmenship in the Aegean and East Mediterranean Bronze Age: Preliminary Technological Evidence with Emphasis on the Painted Plaster from Tell el-Dabca, Egypt, Ä&L 12, 95–107. BORELLI, E. und LAURENZI TABASSO, M. 1996
2005
Probleme der Datierung mit Putzen und Mörteln, 244–256, in: D. SCHUMANN (Hg.), Bauforschung und Archäologie: Stadt- und Siedlungsentwicklung im Spiegel der Baustrukturen, Berlin.
BECKER, T. und HERM, C. 2000
CASADIO, F., CHIARI, G. und SIMON, S.
Which Binder for the Egyptian Plasters of the Pha-
Evaluation of Binder/Aggregate Ratios in Archeological Lime Mortars with Carbonate Aggregate: A Comparative Assessment of Chemical, Mechanical and Microscopic Approaches, Archeometry 47, 667–689.
CLARKE, S. und ENGELBACH, R. 1990
Ancient Egyptian Construction and Architecture, Dover, New York.
DORNER, J. 1994
Ergebnis der Geländeuntersuchungen zur Rekonstruktion der historischen Topographie von Auaris und Piramesse – ein Vorbericht, Ä&L 4, 11–14.
ELGERT, K., CAZALLA, O., RODRIGUEZ, C., HANSEN, E. und SEBASTIAN, E. 2002
Über das Einsumpfen von Kalk. Warum sind historische Kalkmörtel so unterschiedlich erhalten?, Restauro 7/2002, 502–508.
EL GORESY, A. 2000
Polychromatic Wall painting Decorations in Monuments of Pharaonic Egypt: Compositions, Chronology and Painting Techniques, 49–70, in: SHERRAT, S. (ed.) The Wall Paintings of Thera. Proceedings of the First International Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas. 30 August–4 September 1997, Piräus.
ENGELBRECHT, A. (Hg.) 1987
Ägyptens Aufstieg zur Weltmacht, Katalog zur gleichnamigen Ausstellung, Roemer- und PelizaeusMuseum Hildesheim, Mainz.
EVELY, D. 1999
Fresco: A Passport into the Past. Minoan Crete Through the Eyes of Marc Cameron, Athens.
FÜCHTBAUER, H. 1998
Sedimente und Sedimentgesteine, Stuttgart.
GUILLEMETE, A. (Hg.) 2002
Les artistes de Pharaon. Deir e-Medineh et la Vallée des Rois, Turnhout.
Restauratorisch-naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von tuthmosidischen Putzen aus cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca 293
JÁNOSI, P.
MIDDENDORF, B., KRAUS, K., OTT, C.
2002
2004
Bericht über die im Frühjahr 2001 erfolgten Sondagen im Dorf cEzbet Helmi (Grabungsfläche H/ I), Ä&L 12, 195–210.
JASMUND, K. und LAGALY, G. 1993
Tone und Tonminerale: Struktur, Eigenschaften, Anwendungen und Einsatz in Industrie und Umwelt, Darmstadt.
NICOLSON, P.T. und SHAW, I. 2000
JONES, R.E. with an appendix by PHOTOS-JONES, E. 2005
Technical Studies of Aegean Bronze Age Wall Painting: Methods, Results and Future Prospects, 198–228, in: L. MORGAN (ed.), Aegean Wall Painting. A Tribute to Marc Cameron, London.
2000
Soil (including mud-brick architeture), 78–104, in: P.T. NICHOLSON and I. SHAW, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge.
KNÖFEL, D. 1989
Ergebnisse chemischer und mineralogischer Untersuchungen von Gesteinsbohrkernen und Proben historischer Mörtel, 38–43, in: Sonderausgabe Bautenschutz und Bausanierung, Köln
Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge.
SEEBER, R.
KEMP, B. 2000
Einfluss der puzzolanischen Komponenten natürlicher Sande für die Bewertung des säurelöslichen SiO2-Gehalts bei chemisch-mineralogischen Analysen historischer Mörtel, Internationale Zeitschrift für Bauinstandsetzen 10, No. 1, 17–36.
The Technique of the plaster preparation for the minoan wall paintings in Tell el Dabca/ Egypt – Preliminary Results, 25–32, in: S. SHERRAT (ed.) The Wall paintings of Thera. Proceedings of the First International Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas. 30 August–4 September 1997, vol. 2, Section E, Piräus.
TRÖGER, W.E. 1969
Optische Bestimmung der gesteinsbildenden Minerale, Teil 2, Textband, Stuttgart.
TUCKER, M.E.
KOENSLER, W.
1996
1989
VERHOEF, L.G. und WITTMAN, F.H.
Sand und Kies, Stuttgart.
KRAUS, K., WISSER, S. und KNÖFEL, D. 1989
1988
Über das Löschen von Kalk vor der Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts – Literaturauswertung und Laborversuche, Arbeitsblätter für Restauratoren Nr.1/1989 (Gruppe 6, Stein), 206–221.
Methoden der Sedimentologie, Stuttgart. The Relation Between Natural Landscape and Distribution of Archaeological Remains in the Northeastern Nile Delta, 125–129, in: VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. (Hrsg.), The Archeology of the Nile Delta: Problems and Priorities, Amsterdam.
LANGBEIN, R., HELMUT, P., SCHWAHN, H.-J.
WARNE, S.ST.J.
1982
1962
Karbonat- und Sulfatgesteine; Kalkstein – Dolomit – Magnesit – Gips – Anhydrit, Leipzig.
LENZ, R. 1999
Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der vergleichenden Mörtelanalyse an mittelalterlichen Gipsmörteln, unveröffentlichte Seminararbeit an der Hochschule für Bildende Künste Dresden.
A Quick Field or Laboratory Staining Scheme for the Differentation of the Major Carbonat Minerals, Journal Of Sedimentary Petrology 32, 29–38,
WISSER, S. und KNÖFEL, D. 1987
Untersuchungen an historischen Putz- und Mauermörteln, Teil 1: Analysegang, Bautenschutz und Bausanierung 10, Nr. 3; 4.6
NEW TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY OF THE GREY LUSTROUS WHEEL MADE WARE IN ISRAEL By Eli Yannai1
INTRODUCTION The grey/black juglets were first published by PETRIE during his excavations in Egypt (PETRIE 1906:15). From the very beginning of research into Cypriot pottery GJERSTAD dealt with the unique characteristics of the juglets and their definition as characteristic of the Canaanite pottery of the Middle Bronze Age (GJERSTAD 1926: 201, 206). During Petrie’s excavations at Tell el-Ajjul 38 juglets were found and they were categorized together with other vessels of Mycenaean, Minoan, Anatolian and Cypriot origin (PETRIE 1933: pl. 39:68A3’). Sjöqvist pointed out the technological similarity and the lustrous finish of some of the BLWMW juglets and the group of Tell el-Yehudiya ware. He believes the origin of the BLWMW is not in the early Cypriot pottery; rather they are the earliest imported vessels from Canaan to Cyprus (SJÖQVIST 1940: 55, 86, 103). After the excavations at Megiddo, Gordon Loud defined the juglets as Cypriot imports to the Land of Israel followed by a question mark he placed after the definition (LOUD 1948: pl. 26:12). In 1969 Ruth Amiran defined the juglet as a vessel whose origin lies in the pottery of the Land of Israel and Syria. In her opinion the globular form and rounded base were influenced by the shapes of the imported Cypriot vessels (AMIRAN 1969: 146). HENNESSY also defined the juglets as imported from Cyprus (HENNESSY 1963: 53). Eliezer OREN deals with the grey black juglets in a unique-
1 2
3
4
Israel Antiquities Authority We wish to thank Stefan Muenger for bringing this juglet to my attention. We wish to thank Karen Coballo-Paran for her permission to cite this within the framework of this publication. The objects from the tomb in Pella were published in the preliminary report (POTTS, COLLEDGE and EDWARDS 1985: fig. 9: 5) and in the final report (MCNICOLL, EDWARDS, HANBURY-TENISON, HENNESSY, POTTS, SMITH, WALMSLEY and WATSON 1992: pl. 58:2). In the preliminary report a juglet with a spherical body was published and in the final report a juglet with a base was pub-
ly ambiguous manner: one the one hand as a Cypriot import to the Land of Israel (OREN 1969: 130) and on the other as a vessel manufactured in the Land of Israel and exported to Cyprus (OREN 1969: 134; 1973: 77). According to Åström’s catalogue, in Cyprus this type of ware is diverse and besides the juglets includes shallow and deep bowls and jugs (ÅSTRÖM 1972: 217–220). With the exception of the juglets, until now no other vessels have been defined in Israel that have been made with the technique and in the form of this type of ware. Since Eliezer Oren’s study was published in 1969, grey juglets have been found in the Land of Israel in Tomb 902 at Kabri (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY and SCHEFTELOWITZ 2002), in a tomb at Yiftach’el (BARDA and BRAUN 2003), in the LB1 stratum at Tel Kinneret,2 in a rich tomb at Jalame,3 in Tomb 62 at Pella,4 in two rich tombs in ‘Ara (ILAN, GADOT and YANNAI forthcoming), in a tomb at Jatt (YANNAI 2000, 2005), in four rich tombs at Bahan (P ORATH , D AR and APPLBAUM 1985: 221–223; GERSHUNY forthcoming),5 in a large rich tomb at Shechem,6 in tombs at Askar near Shechem (MAGEN and EISENSTADT 2004: pls. 3:19, 5:13, 14, 6:18), in a tomb at Zawata (EISENSTADT, ARABAS and ABLAS 2004: pl. 7:17, 18, 19, 20), in a tomb on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem (SALLER 1964), in Stratum XXIIa at Tel Ashdod (DOTHAN and PORATH 1993: fig. 3:10), in two tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim (BEN ARIEH 2004: fig. 2.73:85) and we assume that sev-
5
6
lished. According to the information that was provided me by Steve Burk, other juglets were found in the tomb that were not published. The tomb was excavated by Gershon Edelstein and Ram Gophna in the 1960’s. the finds were turned over to Lily Gershuny for publication and she refuses to grant access to them. The tomb was excavated by Krista KLAMER in 1968 and was partially published in Qadmoniot (KLAMER 1981: 32–33). Scores of juglets of several types were found in it but the excavator is preventing any access to the finds.
296 Eli Yannai eral other juglets have been found that were not brought to my attention.7 The catalogue of juglets that will be discussed below is incomplete and does not include all of the juglets that were found in the country. Some of the juglets from Tel el Ajjul were found in the collections of the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, but most of the juglets from Ajjul send by the excavator to collections all over the globe.8 Juglets that were also found at Tel Gezer and Tel Jemme are not included in the catalogue because we were unable to locate them. The catalogue includes the juglets from the excavations that were published after that appearance of Duncan’s corpus and does not include the juglets from the excavations that were conducted in the country from the end of the 19th century until the 1920’s. Two rich assemblages from tombs in Bahan and Shechem are not presented in the catalogue due to technical reasons. In 2000 Yannai published the finds from a tomb at Jatt, on the northern coastal plain of Israel (YANNAI 2000). Petrographic analysis conducted on the juglets from Jatt has shown that some of the juglets, particularly the grey and red lustrous juglets, were imported into the Land of Israel from Cyprus. Despite these results the view that the juglets were made in the Land of Israel and Syria was still held by some of the Israeli researchers in 2002 (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY and SCHEFTELOWITZ 2002: 119–120) and also in 2003 (BARDA and BRAUN 2003). Recently a juglet was published that underwent petrographic analysis that proved it originated along the northern Lebanese/Syrian coast (MAGEN and EISENSTADT 2004). In 1999–2000 two tombs located in Wadi cAra, on the way to Megiddo, were excavated that yielded a wealth of finds from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. A group of twenty grey black juglets was found in the tombs along side other imported Cypriot vessels (ILAN, GADOT and YANNAI forth-
7
8
In the Lachish excavations complete information was not reported on all of the juglets and the exact identification of each type is not certain. Dozens of juglets were found at Ajjul and only some are presented in the catalogue, most of which are intact juglets. In addition to the juglets that are presented here, dozens of fragments of juglets were found that cannot be sorted typologically. In Petrie’s list of excavations I located 32 tombs at Ajjul in which gray juglets were recorded in them. In Oren’s article (OREN 1969) another 13 tombs were listed in
coming). Some of the jugs and juglets that were uncovered in the tomb at Jatt (YANNAI 2000) and in the tombs at ‘Ara are rare types and some of them combined in one vessel typical features of a number of different Cypriot wares. For this reason some of the vessels were examined petrographically by Y. Goren of the Tel Aviv University and Amir Gorzalczany of the Antiquities Authority. The petrographic examinations have confirmed that the juglets belonging to the BLWMW are not a homogenous group; many of them were made in Cyprus, some were made on the Lebanese coast and some were produced along the coast of Israel. The petrographic examinations have provided us with new insight into this group of ware. On the one hand this ware shares a number of structural qualities. On the other, it includes several different types that have a number of unique typological traits. We will therefore define the juglets belonging to this group as Grey and Black Lustrous Wheel Made Ware (GBLwmw). The outer hue of the juglets imported from Cyprus is light grey, sometimes with yellow spots (SJÖQVIST 1940: 54) and some of the juglets are dark grey. Between the light and dark grey juglets there are juglets that occur in all the other shades of grey also. A number of juglets are treated with a dark red slip. The red color indicates that the outer color of some of the juglets is a result of the slip applied to them but on some of the juglets the color is a result of the firing and no traces of a slip were found on the surface of the juglet. The special luster that is created on the surface of the juglet as a result of its quality burnish is what has given the juglets their name. The outer surfaces of most of the local juglets in the Land of Israel are hand burnished. The hand burnish on the local juglets is neither meticulous nor is it of a very fine quality like the burnish that is on the Cypriot juglets. Some of the
which gray juglets were found. The juglets were apparently identified according to the tomb registry cards that Petrie excavated and that are today located in London. These juglets are not discussed below because we do not have any details regarding which other vessels were found in the tombs. If the data from the tomb registry cards is correct the number of gray juglets that was found at Tell Ajjul is slightly greater than that in the catalogue discussed in this article. I am unable to answer why the data on the gray juglets is missing from the list of the tombs in the publication.
New Typology and Chronology of the Grey Lustrous Wheel Made Ware in Israel 297
1
2
3
Cypriote White Painted V
6
7
Type 2a Imported Cypriote Juglets
11
Lebanese Juglet
8
5
Type 1 “Proto” BLWmw Imported Cypriote Juglets
9
Type 2b Imported Cypriote Juglets
12
Type 4 Imported Syrian/Lebanese Production
4
10 Type 3 Imported Cypriote Juglets
13 Type 5 Locally produced Juglets
14 Type 6 Locally produced Juglets
Fig. 1 Black Lustrous Juglets from Cyprus, the Syrian/Lebanese Coast and Israel
Canaanite juglets are treated with a sloppy vertical burnish and some are not burnished at all, leaving the surface of the vessel matte and lusterless. Combining the local juglets with the imported juglets into one group is based on the similarity of the shape of the neck which distinguishes the assemblage of juglets in this ware, and also the reduction firing technique that turned the surface of the juglet grey or black. Most of the juglets that were checked were made in Cyprus and there are juglets that were made on the Syrian/
Lebanese coast and in the Land of Israel. The different forms, the quality of the different finishes and the surface colors of the juglets are uniform and unique to each of the different production centers in Cyprus and on the coast of the Levant. THE TYPOLOGY The increase in the number of juglets that have been found in archaeological excavations and classification of the juglets in light of the petrographic examinations has facilitated a renewed
298 Eli Yannai division of the juglets into different types that are comprised within this group of ware. Below we will present a catalogue of the grey black juglets and the assemblages in the Land of Israel in which these juglets were found. Based on the petrographic examinations, Types 1–3 were made in Cyprus, Type 4 was made on the coast of Lebanon and Types 5–6 were made in the Land of Israel. GROUP ONE: IMPORTED CYPRIOT JUGLETS Type 1 (Sjöqvist Type 2)9 – “Proto-Grey Lustrous” (Fig. 1:4, 5) (Catalogue Nos. 1–10) Hand-made spherical base and body, neck that is about half the length of the body’s height, flaring lotus-like rim and a handle that extends from the upper part of the body and is connected the entire length of the neck. Most of the juglets are black or dark grey in color. The Shape of type 1 juglets is very similar to a globular body type of White Painted V (Fig. 1:1,2), Red on Black and Bichrome Ware juglets (GUY and ENGBERG 1938: pl. 41: 27; PETRIE 1933: pl. 39:J 67A6’). These juglets had influence on some Cypriot pottery production centers (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY and SCHEFTELOWITZ 2002: fig. 5.61:10).10 This Cypriot juglet (Fig. 1:3) shows that the Cypriot White Painted V juglets with a spherical body influenced several pottery production centers in different respects. In Cyprus the potters who produced BLWMW juglets using reduction firing were influenced by it. The Cross Line Style of decoration on a spherical body is also similar to the group of Cypriot origin Bichrome juglets and jugs with a spherical body. The combination of a decoration from one Cypriot group on a spherical body of another Cypriot group, which was made on a wheel using a clearly Canaanite technique, is apparently a result of the transition from vessels in the style and techniques characteristic of the end of the Middle Cypriot period to vessels made on a wheel at the beginning of the Late Cypriot period. As we will see later, the beginning of the production of BLWMW juglets in Cyprus is a result of the same processes.
9
10
Sjöqvist’s Type 2, with a globular body, is designated Type 1 in this study. Juglets belonging to Types 2–8, which are the most common types of juglets in this group, do not appear in Sjöqvist’s catalogue. Therefore I prefer to assign new numbers to the types rather than base the new data on Sjöqvist’s catalogue. The juglet published by Scheftelowitz as local made but according to its form, the technique with which the
Therefore one defined the Type 1 juglet with the globular body from the Middle Cypriot period as “proto”, so as to differentiate it from the other types that were made with a flat base. THE CATALOGUE 1. Kabri - Tomb 902: (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY and SCHEFTELOWITZ 2002: fig. 5.61:9). The juglet was found together with a Type 2a grey black juglet (No. 12 in the catalogue), two White Painted VI juglets imported from Cyprus. One unique juglet with globular body, orange clay and decorated in a Cross Line Style originated from the Cyprus or Syrian/Lebanese coast (see above) (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY and SCHEFTELOWITZ 2002: fig. 5.61:9–12). The date of Tomb 902 is based on two scarabs that are incised with the name Yakebamw. Based on the two scarabs the tomb dates to the MB2B. No vessels were found in it that date to the Late Bronze Age. 2. Megiddo - Tomb 5040A from Stratum IX on the tell: (LOUD 1948: pl. 51:3) The juglet was found together with a typical lamp from the Middle Bronze Age and beginning of the Late Bronze Age (LOUD 1948: pl. 55:8). Also found were two jugs that are unique to Stratum IX (LOUD 1948: pl. 48:1, 9) and a jug characteristic of the Middle Bronze Age that was found in Strata IX–X at Megiddo (LOUD 1948: pl. 50:26). 3. Megiddo - Tomb 1100A: (GUY and ENGBERG 1938: pl. 54:20) This juglet was found together with a Type 2b grey/black juglet (No. 48 in the catalogue). The grey/black juglets were found together with bowls and carinated bowls that resemble the carinated bowls from Strata IX–X at Megiddo, a jug with a trefoil rim that is quintessentially of Middle Bronze Age tradition, dipper juglets and cylinder juglets and a White Painted VI juglet. The tomb is contemporary with Stratum X or the beginning of Stratum IX.
decoration is painted and the Cross Line Style decoration it is Cypriot origin juglet. But, the brown material mixed with numerous small bits of temper is most similar to the fabric of the juglets from the Syrian/ Lebanese coast. Therefore, until we have an exact date for it from a laboratory analysis, it will be impossible to ascertain if the juglet is Cypriot or Syrian.
New Typology and Chronology of the Grey Lustrous Wheel Made Ware in Israel 299
4. Megiddo - Tomb 251: (GUY and ENGBERG 1938: pl. 26:17) A Type 2b grey/black juglet (No. 11 in the catalogue) was found with the juglet. Also found with the juglets were bowls, a jug and dipper juglets similar to the vessels from Strata IX–X at Tel Megiddo. 5. Bet Shean -Tomb 42: (OREN 1973: fig. 30:11)11 The Type 1 juglet was also found in the tomb with a Type 2b juglet (OREN 1973: fig. 30:13), Monochrome bowls of an early type, several Chocolate on White vessels and a rare Bichrome bowl. Oren is of the opinion that the tomb is contemporary with Tomb 1100a–d at Megiddo in which a Type 3 juglet was found and dates only to the LB1A; no evidence was found in it indicating any later use of the tomb (OREN 1973: 98). 6. Pella - Tomb 62: 4(POTTS, COLLEDGE and EDWARDS 1985: fig. 9:5) This Type 1 juglet was found together in the tomb with a Type 2a juglet (MCNICOLL, EDWARDS, HANBURY-TENISON, HENNESSY, POTTS, SMITH, WALMSLEY and WATSON 1992: pl. 58:5) (No. 17 in the catalogue). Chocolate on White bowls, jugs and juglets, a RLWMW jug and an early form of a Monochrome bowl were also found. No Base Ring jugs were found in the tomb. These finds are contemporary with the Types 1 and 2a juglets. 7. Lachish - Tomb 7011: (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 77:774) A rare Black Slip III juglet from Cyprus (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 79: 814) was found together with the juglet in this unique tomb. This type of Cypriot ware is usually dated to the Middle Cypriot Age 3 (YANNAI 2000:61). A typical Middle Bronze Age jar (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 87:1008) was found together with the two juglets. The second jar (Type 1008) at Lachish was found in Tomb 7014, which is a typical tomb from the Middle Bronze Age (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 69:537; 77:733, 751, 753). A Type 5 juglet (see below) was found along with the vessels that are characteristic of the MB 2 which were in Tomb 7011. That juglet is the only
11
Oren published another juglet with a body whose lower part was reconstructed as a sphere (OREN 1973: fig. 30:12). Juglets with a similar body were sometimes found with a base and therefore we are uncertain whether the reconstruction of the spherical body of this juglet is correct.
vessel that is not definitely defined as a Middle Bronze Age vessel; it is also the latest vessel, which was found in the tomb (see the chronological discussion below). 8. Ajjul - Tomb 301 (PETRIE 1933: pl. XXXIX: 68A3’)12 The location of the tomb is not marked on the excavation plans and according to its number it was excavated inside the tell, in an area south of the “Governor’s Palace”. The stratigraphy in this area is unclear (PETRIE 1933: pl. XLVI). The gray juglet (PETRIE 1933: pl. XXXIX) that was found in the tomb was selected by Petrie as a prototype for the Type 68A3’ juglets with a globular body. Among the other vessels found together with the gray juglet was a large bowl (DUNCAN 1930:10E2), a large jug with a base ring and globular body (DUNCAN 1930:34B), a jug with a short wide neck (PETRIE 1933: fig. XXXV: 35F2), a dipper juglet (PETRIE 1933: pl. XXXVIII: 51G16) and a lamp (DUNCAN 1930: G3). All of the vessels are characteristic of the MB2B and are dated by Petrie to the time of the 15th Egyptian dynasty. 9. Ajjul -Tomb 364 (PETRIE 1933: pl. XXXIX: 68A3’) A tomb that is apparently composed of three secondary tombs (PETRIE 1933: pl. XLVIII). The other vessels found in the tomb include a large diameter bowl with a flat body and a rim that is folded in (DUNCAN 1930:21B), this bowl is most characteristic of the Middle Bronze Age; a Type 43 jar that could not be found in the catalogues; a Middle Bronze Age jug with a spout attached to its rim (PETRIE 1933: pl. XXXIX: 64Q) and a lamp that could not be found in the publications. No finds later than the Middle Bronze Age were recovered from the tomb. 10. Ajjul - Tomb 1532 (PETRIE 1934: pl. LXVII: 68A3’) A pit tomb (PETRIE 1934: pl. LXI) that is stratigraphically detached from its surroundings. A flat bowl with an inwardly folded rim (DUNCAN 1930:6C2) and a carinated bowl (18K2’) were found in it. The two bowls are from the MB2B. A
12
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Celia Bergoffen who allowed me access to information she has regarding the distribution of the gray juglets from the Tell el Ajjul tombs.
300 Eli Yannai scarab bearing the name of Amenhotep I was found in the tomb. Conclusion Five juglets with globular bodies were found in assemblages dating to the MB 2b only.13 One is a juglet from Tomb 42 at Bet Shean, the second is a juglet from Tomb 902 at Kabri that is well-dated to the MB2B based on the two scarabs engraved with the name Yakbamw, the third juglet with a globular body that was found in Tomb 7011 at Lachish and two juglets from tombs 301, 364 at Ajjul. The parallels and objects accompanying these three juglets indicates that the Type 1 juglet with the globular body first started to be traded in the markets of the Land of Israel at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, parallel to the MC3. The juglet with the globular body from Tomb 7011 at Lachish, tombs 301, 364 and 1532 at Ajjul are Type 1 juglets that was found in an assemblage that did not also contain Type 2 juglets. Type 1 juglets with a globular body were found with Type 2a juglets in Tomb 902 at Kabri and a Type 1 juglet was found together with a Type 2b juglet in Tomb 42 at Bet Shean. The latest BLwmw juglet were found in Tomb 1532 at Ajjul (No. 10 in the catalogue), dated the end of Type 1 juglets to the earliest 18th Dynasty king – Amenhotep I. The rest of the juglets with a globular body were found in assemblages with Type 2 juglets and they were found mixed together with finds that date to the MB2B and the LB1. No juglet with a globular body was found in a tomb that did not contain finds from the MB2B. Based on these finds we can assume that the Type 1 juglets with a globular body are amongst the earliest of the groups of grey juglets and it seems that the production and marketing of them came to a halt already in the MB2 or perhaps in a very early phase of the LB1A, parallel to the MC3. Type 2 (Catalogue Nos. 11–96) The Type 2 juglets are the most common of the group of grey
13
Tombs 364, 301 and 1532 from Tell el-Ajjul are not included in the count of the tombs from the Middle Bronze Age even though the vessels that were found in them are ascribed to this period. I prefer to base the information on more credible drawings. All of the vessels that were found in them are dated by Petrie and Duncan to the Second Intermediate Period in Egypt. 20. Celia BERGOFFEN published a gray juglet from Tomb 1154 (BERGOFFEN 2001: fig. 4) but in the list of finds
burnished juglets. In light of the findings of the study Type 2 is divided into two secondary groups. The two groups are characterized by a flat base with a small diameter, a spherical body, cylindrical neck, lotus-like rim and a handle that extends from the upper part of the body and is connected the entire length of the neck, from its top part to its bottom. They range in color from light grey and even light yellow through all the shades of grey to extremely dark grey. Black juglets of this type are very rare. The surface of the juglets is densely and uniformly hand burnished. The two types of juglets mainly differ in the shape of the body, the angle at which the base is connected to the body and the length of the neck in relation to the height of the body. Type 2a: (Fig. 1:6,7) The Type 2a juglets were made with an almost spherical body that is occasionally slightly squat. The diameter of the base is quite small and the angle at which the base is connected to the body of the juglet is almost imperceptible (and difficult to discern in drawings). The neck is short and is a third or a quarter of the height of the vessel’s body. Type 2b: (Fig. 1: 8,9) The Type 2b juglets were made with a more elongated form; the body is spherical and in most instances slightly ovoid. The diameter of the base is large and the angle at which the base is connected to the body is acute and accentuated. The length of the neck is equal to the height of the body. CATALOGUE OF THE TYPE 2A JUGLETS 11. Yiftachcel - Tomb 1 (BARDA and BRAUN 2003: fig. 4:23) Fourteen grey juglets were found in Tomb 1 at Yiftach’el (BARDA and BRAUN 2003: 93). The excavators only published two juglets from this large group: one Type 2a juglet and a Type 7 juglet (BARDA and BRAUN 2003: fig. 4:24). The excavators did not differentiate between the two types14
14
from the tomb published by PETRIE (1932: pl. LVIII) the vessel that appears in Bergoffen’s article does not appear. The excavation report was written by the excavators more than ten years before its publication and has since not been updated. Based on the information available to the excavators when writing the report, the juglets were published as vessels originating in the Land of Israel.
New Typology and Chronology of the Grey Lustrous Wheel Made Ware in Israel 301
and only published one of each type.15 Based on the finds in Tomb 1 at Yiftachcel, the tomb was used for interment from the beginning of the MB2A. A single early type of Base Ring juglet treated with a red lustrous slip (BARDA and BRAUN 2003: fig. 9:4) dates the final use of the tomb to the end of the LB1B (See below). 12. Kabri - Tomb 902: (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY and SCHEFTELOWITZ 2002: fig. 5.61:9) The juglet was found together with a Type 1 grey black juglet, two White Painted V–VI imported Cypriot juglets and a Cypriot juglet with a globular body decorated in the Cross Line Style (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY and SCHEFTELOWITZ 2002: fig. 5.61:8, 10–12). The chronology of Tomb 902 has already been outlined above in the discussion of the Type 1 juglets. The tomb dates from the MB2B. 13. Megiddo - Tomb 251: (GUY and ENGBERG 1938: pl. 26:18) This tomb is dealt with above in the discussion of the Type 1 juglets (No. 4). 14. Megiddo - Tomb 2009 in Stratum IX (LOUD 1948: pl. 51:4) The vessel is not whole. Judging from the height and shape of the neck it is either a Type 1 or 2a juglet but certainly does not belong to the Type 2b juglets. The juglet was found together with an elongated dipper juglet (LOUD 1948: pl. 50:22) and an imported Cypriot Bichrome juglet decorated in the Cross Line Style. Based on the presence of the Bichrome juglet, the vessel found in this tomb is Type 2a or Type 1. 15. Megiddo - Tomb 2106 in Stratum IX on the tell (LOUD 1948: pl. 59:5) The juglet was found in the tomb together with short dipper juglets with a prominent shoulder (LOUD 1948: pl. 58:7), an elongated dipper juglet (LOUD 1948: pl. 58:14) and a teapot (LOUD 1948: pl. 59:9). The excavator has determined that most of the vessels that were found in Tomb 2106 are
15
In the storehouses of the Antiquities Authority in Bet Shemesh there are about another ten juglets, most of which are Type 2b. We wish to thank Letecia BARDA, of the publication company and Galit Litani, curator of the Bronze Age collections at Bet Shemesh for assisting us in locating the juglets.
also present in Strata VIII–X. Therefore in assigning the tomb to Stratum VIII he based his determination on stratigraphic considerations but the scholars are right that contend that the assemblage of vessels that was found more suitably belongs to Stratum X or Stratum IX at the latest (STEWART 1955:49, ÅSTRÖM 1957:214, WRIGHT 1961:135, n. 49, OREN 1969:135, AMIRAN 1960:30). The excavators of Megiddo also reached the same conclusion (SHIPTON 1939:15). 16. Megiddo - Tomb 3004 Stratum IX on the tell (LOUD 1948: pl. 59:5)16 The excavators of Megiddo published Tomb 3004 from Stratum VIII. Clair EPSTEIN examined the field diaries of the Chicago expedition and reached the conclusion that Tomb 3004 is belongs to Stratum IX and not Stratum VIII (EPSTEIN 1963:101). A cylindrical juglet decorated in the Bichrome style (LOUD 1948: pl. 59:6) was found in it. A similar juglet also was found in Lachish (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 77:772) and also in Tomb 1100A at Megiddo (GUY and ENGBERG 1938: pl. 45:19). The juglet was also found together with a typical White Painted V–VI zoomorphic vessel (LOUD pl. 247:5). Similar zoomorphic vessels were found at Ajjul (PETRIE 1931: pl. 50:257; 1933: pl. 40:408; 1934: pl. 56:101R), Ugarit (SHAEFFER 1949: fig. 74:20), Hazor (YADIN et. al. 1961: fig. CCLXXVII:3), Gezer and Bet Shemesh (MACALISTER 1912: pl. 126:22, 25; GRANT and WRIGHT 1938: pl. 25:9). These vessels were dealt with by Karageorghis (KARAGEORGHIS 1965: fig. 26:1), ÅSTRÖM (ÅSTRÖM 1957:224) and GERSHUNY (GERSHUNY 1991:38–40). These imports are in keeping with the Tufnell’s conclusion that the production and marketing of grey juglets did not continue beyond the first half of the 15th century CE (TUFNELL 1958:192). 17. Pella - Tomb 62: (MCNICOLL, EDWARDS, HANBURYTENISON, HENNESSY, POTTS, SMITH, WALMSLEY and WATSON 1992: pl. 58:2) See Juglet 6 regarding the accompanying objects and chronological conclusions.
16
Two Type 2a juglets were found in Tomb 3004 (LOUD 1948: pl. 59:5); the tow juglets were broken. We are uncertain if both of the juglets are Type 2a. The excavator did not describe each juglet separately and described both of them in a laconic manner.
302 Eli Yannai 18. Bet Shean - Tomb 27 (OREN 1973: fig. 37:13) Tomb 27 is later than Tomb 42 and contains Base Ring jugs, juglets and bowls together with a typical White Slip II bowl (OREN 1973: fig. 37:3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11). OREN dates Tomb 27 to the Late Bronze Age 1 and 2 (OREN 1973: 99). 19. ‘En Nashab Tomb (Gal and Zori 2005) A MB2B and LB1A tomb include large group of ‘Chocolate on White’ bowls.
29. Ajjul Loc. GCC - Group 2020 (PETRIE 1952: pl. XXVIII: 68A7) Locus GCC is located in the lower city (PETRIE 1952: pl. XXXIII) and in it was the group of artifacts – 2020. This group includes two small bowls – one hand-made (DUNCAN 1930:13X2) and the other flat and open (PETRIE 1952 pl. XXV: 14Z2). Neither of the bowls is of any help in dating the tomb.
20–26. Jalameh
30. Ajjul Loc. GJJ - Group 2119 (PETRIE 1952: pl. XLI)
The tomb at Jalame was excavated by Karen CovelloParan on behalf of the Antiquities Authority. It is located slightly north of Jenin, in the southern Jezreel Valley. In the tomb were several hundred vessels of numerous types that date from the Middle Bronze Age 2b and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. No Base Ring 1 vessels were discovered in the tomb and based on the vessels that were found in it, it is contemporary with Tomb 42 at Bet Shean.17
Locus GJJ is north of the large courtyard building in the bottom stratum of the lower city (PETRIE 1952: pl. XXXII). The other vessels found together with the juglet include a bowl or chalice with a high pedestal (PETRIE 1952: pl. XXV: 17V5’), a dipper juglet with a short body (PETRIE 1933: pl. XXXVIII: 53C) and a small jug with a shoulder handle (PETRIE 1952: pl. XXVII: 60Q3’’). These finds may date from the end of the Middle Bronze Age or the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.
27. Ashdod - Stratum XXIIa: (DOTHAN and PORATH 1993: fig. 3:10)
31. Ajjul Loc. GHF - Group 2100 (PETRIE 1952: pl. XLI)
The juglet was found in excellent stratigraphy, inside a clean assemblage of the MB2B. Above this stratum is another layer (XXI) from the Middle Bronze Age and above them is Stratum XX where a fragment of a typical Bichrome vessel was found (DOTHAN and PORATH 1993: fig. 4:19). Fragments of typical BR I ware were found above them in Stratum XIX (DOTHAN and PORATH 1993: fig. 6:13, 14). From a strategraphic standpoint the juglet from Ashdod is the earliest juglet that was found in a strategraphic context in an excavation in Israel. 28. Ajjul Tomb 331 (PETRIE 1933: pl. XXXIX: 68G4’’) A pit tomb in the cemetery dating to the time of the 18th dynasty (PETRIE 1933: pl. XLVIII), next to other pit tombs, among them Tombs 394 and 397 that are presented below. These tombs were excavated in an open area northeast of the tell. Only two vessels were found in them: the gray juglet and a jug (PETRIE 1933: pl. 36 XXXIX: G7). It is possible the jug dates from the end of the Middle Bronze Age or the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.
17
Locus GHF was located in the southwestern corner of the excavation in the lower city. Apart from the gray juglet no other finds were published from the tomb. 32. Ajjul Tomb 394 (PETRIE 1933: pl. XLVIII) A pit tomb in the western group of tombs in the cemetery dating to the time of the 18th dynasty. This tomb is situated next to other pit tombs, among them Tomb 331, mentioned above and next to Tomb 397 (below). These tombs were excavated in an open area north of the settlement’s eastern gate. Among the vessels found in the tomb were a jar-jug (DUNCAN 1930:38H1), a dipper juglet with an elongated body (DUNCAN 1930: 51G7) and a jug (PETRIE 1933: pl. XXXVIII: 60Q15) with a globular body and a short narrow flaring neck. Jugs of this type are characteristic of assemblages that date from the end of the Middle Bronze Age and are not present in Late Bronze Age assemblages. 33–34. Ajjul Tomb 397 (PETRIE 1930: pl. XLVIII) A pit tomb in the cemetery dating to the 18th dynasty, just to the south of Tomb 394 that was presented above. The vessels that were found in it
I wish to thank the excavator, Karen Covello-Paran of the Antiquities Authority, for permission to present details about the tomb.
New Typology and Chronology of the Grey Lustrous Wheel Made Ware in Israel 303
include a black juglet and a Type 60Q9 jug (PETRIE 1933: pl. XI) which based on its form dates to the end of the Middle Bronze Age or the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. 35. Ajjul Tomb 402 (PETRIE 1933: pl. XLVIII) A pit tomb in the northern group of tombs in the cemetery that dates to the time of the 18th dynasty. Apart from the black juglet only a Type 74O18 cylindrical juglet was found in it. Juglets of this type were also found in contexts dating to the end of the Middle Bronze Age as well as in the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. 36. Ajjul Tomb 404 (PETRIE 1933: pl. XLVIII) A pit tomb in the cemetery that dates to the time of the 18th dynasty, several meters west of Tombs 394 and 397 that are presented above. Only the gray juglet, with no other accompanying items, was found in the tomb. 37. Ajjul Tomb 1003 (PETRIE 1932: pl. LII) A pit tomb in the cemetery that dates to the time of the 18th dynasty. A broken black juglet without a base was found in it (PETRIE 1932: pl. XXXV: 68) and PETRIE did not define it as a specific sub-type. A carinated bowl (DUNCAN 1930: 16K2) was also found together with the gray juglet. This type of bowl can date to either the Middle or Late Bronze Age. 38. Ajjul Tomb 1031 (PETRIE 1932: pl. LII) A pit tomb in the cemetery that dates to time of the 18th dynasty. Together with the gray juglet (PETRIE 1932: pl. LVI) a Type 1–2 Base-Ring jug was found (PETRIE 1932: pl. XXXV: 74K4). This gray juglet is the only juglet that was found together with a base-ring juglet and it may also belong to Type 2b. 39. Ajjul Tomb 1522 (PETRIE 1934: LXVII: 68A2) The exact location of the tomb does not appear in the plans. The nearest tombs numerically are Tombs 1521 and 1523, which are next to each other, next to and north of the wall between Complex EAT in the north and Complex EDC in the south (PETRIE 1934: pl. LXII). Despite the proximity to Tombs 1521–23, this is not proof that the tomb was located near them; however the possibility should not be negated. In the tomb were a carinated bowl (PETRIE 1934: pl. IV: 18J9) and a drop-like bottle whose manufactured was inspired by similarly shaped Egyptian vessels (PETRIE 1934: 31K7).
40–41. Ajjul Tomb 1539 (PETRIE 1934: pl. LXI) A pit tomb in the built-up area L.A., c. 1 m north of the wall dating to the Middle Bronze Age IIB and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. A Type 60M4 jug and two Type 68A2 gray juglets were also recovered from the tomb (PETRIE 1934: pl. LXVII). 42. Ajjul Tomb 1904 (Type 68A2) A pit tomb in the Lower Cemetery (PETRIE 1934: pl. LXIV), next to Tombs 1925 and 1928 in which imported Type 2B gray juglets (below) were found. A flat bowl (PETRIE 1934: pl. XLVII; 16B2), jar (DUNCAN 1930: 43F3) and a dipper juglet with a dumpy body (PETRIE 1934: pl. LIV: 53C2) were found in it. These vessels can date from either the end of the Middle Bronze Age or the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. 43. Ajjul Tomb 1905 (Type 68A2) A pit tomb in the Lower Cemetery (PETRIE 1934: pl. LXIV), c. 10 m west of Tombs 1926 and 1927 in which Type 2B gray juglets (below) were also found. Also found in the tomb was a base-ring bowl that is open and flat (PETRIE 1931: pl. XXXVII: 6C1), a bowl (PETRIE 1934: pl. XLVII: 16B2), a large jar jug (DUNCAN 1930: 38B4) and squat jar jug (PETRIE 1934: pl. LV: 38J2). These vessels can date from either the end of the Middle Bronze Age or the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. 44. Ajjul Tomb 1908 (Type 68A2) A pit tomb in the Lower Cemetery (PETRIE 1934: pl. LXIV), c. 5 m north of Tomb 1925 and near Tombs 1904 and 1928 in which gray juglets were also found. Among the other vessels found in the tomb was a hemispheric bowl adorned with a red stripe on the rim (DUNCAN 1930: 20H), a jar (DUNCAN 1930: 43E5), a dipper juglet with a small body (PETRIE 1931: pl. XLVII: 51P5), a dipper juglet with a piriform body (PETRIE 1931: pl. XLVIII: 60W4), an imported Cypriot Base-Ring Type 1 juglet (PETRIE 1934: pl. LVI:89J0) and an imported Cypriot White Painted V juglet (89A’). These vessels can date from either the end of the Middle Bronze Age or the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. 45. Tell Farcah (South) Tomb 613 (DUNCAN 1930: 68A2) A pit tomb in Cemetery 600, west of the tell (PETRIE 1930: pl. LI; LXVII). The juglet has a squat body, similar to the Type 2a juglets. Its shape is different than the juglets that were found in Tombs
304 Eli Yannai 611, 612, 624, 657 at Tell Far’ah, which are clearly Type 2b juglets. The juglet was also found with a White Painted V teapot (DUNCAN 1930: 64F2), a White Painted IV jug (DUNCAN 1930:89A), an early form of a Monochrome bowl (DUNCAN 1930: 19F1), a bichrome jug (DUNCAN 1930: 37C), a typical jar (43C1, 2) and a dipper juglet (52A3). Based on the assemblage of Cypriot vessels, the tomb dates to the end of the MBIIB or the beginning of the LB1A. CATALOGUE OF THE TYPE 2B JUGLETS 18 46. Hazor - Tomb 8112 in Area F on the tell (YADIN et al. 1961: fig. 240:4) Tomb 8112 is dated to Stratum 2 and the objects that were found in it were placed inside of Channel 3043 of Stratum 3 (YADIN 1961: fig. 77:3). Based on the chronology of the strata at Hazor, the tomb dates to the LB1. During the course of the excavation at Hazor different phases were not discerned during the Late Bronze Age 1 and it is difficult to ascertain if the tomb is from the beginning of the Late Bronze Age 1 or the end. 47. Megiddo - Tomb 258 (GUY and ENGBERG 1938: pl. 27:9) The juglet was found together with bowls, a carinated bowl, a jug and juglets of the types that were found in Strata IX–X. 48. Megiddo - Tomb 1100A (GUY and ENGBERG 1938: pl. 54:21) This tomb was discussed above in the context of Juglet 3 (Type 1). 49, 50. Megiddo - Tomb 77 (GUY and ENGBERG 1938: pl. 41:23, 24) These two juglets were found together with a jar and four dipper juglets that are characteristic of Stratum IX, a White Painted V teapot and a juglet. Based on the ceramic assemblage Tomb 77 is parallel to Stratum X or the beginning of Stratum IX. 51. Megiddo - Tomb 1141 (GUY and ENGBERG 1938: pl. 49:4) The upper part of a Type 2b juglet. Also found with the juglet was a Bichrome jug of either local
18
manufacture or imported from the Syrian/ Lebanese coast (GUY and ENGBERG 1938: pl. 49:5), a bowl, cooking pot, squat jar, three lamps similar to the types found in Strata IX–X on the tell and along side of which were several fragments of vessels from the same strata. 52. Megiddo - Tomb 3018C in Stratum IX The juglet was found together with an imported grey Cypriot juglet (Type 1 or Type 2a; LOUD 1948: pl. 51:4), two Bichrome vessels (LOUD 1948: pl. 48:5, 56:4), a bowl that is characteristic of the LB1A–B (LOUD 1948: pl. 54:13), a bowl similar to the Chocolate on White bowls (LOUD 1948: pl. 53:16), a jug decorated with red painted geometric patterns (LOUD 1948: pl. 49:1), a locally produced jug that resembles Bichrome jugs (LOUD 1948: pl. 49:10) and a biconical jug from the LB2 (LOUD 1948: pl. 49:18). 53. Megiddo - Tomb 2031 (GUY and ENGBERG 1938: pl. 26:12) This tomb was discovered in Area BB and was designated by the excavators as Stratum XII dating to the MB2b. A bowl (GUY and ENGBERG 1938: pl. 29:28) and a piriform juglet (Ibid. pl. 23:16) were found in it. These two vessels date at the very latest to the LB2. A gray juglet (Ibid. pl. 26:12) and an imported Cypriot Base Ring juglet (Ibid. pl. 26:11) were found together with these vessels. The juglet is dark gray and decorated with painted white stripes using the “brush combing method”. Juglets decorated in this style date to the 13th century BCE. The assemblage of finds demonstrates that the tomb was at the elevation of Stratum XII but it is reasonable to assume that it was originally from Stratum VIIb. In Stratum VIII were early types of imported Base Ring ware (LOUD 1948: pl. 58:18–20) together with an early type of monochrome bowl, a late bichrome jug and an early type of White Painted teapot (Ibid. pl. 61:20, 59:8, 10). Therefore we can reasonably assume that a gray juglet decorated with white stripes is contemporary with Stratum VIIb and later that Stratum VIII. 54–58. cAra - Tomb 1 The tomb no. 1 at cAra contained 980 pottery vessels together with other finds from the Late
One juglet was found at Gezer in an unclear strategraphic and chronological context and was removed from the catalogue (DUNCAN 1930: 60:X4).
New Typology and Chronology of the Grey Lustrous Wheel Made Ware in Israel 305
Bronze Age 2B until the 13th century BCE and it will be published in the future. Four Type 2 b juglets underwent petrographic examination and all of them are Cypriot imports. 59–63. cAra - Tomb 2 The Tomb no. 2 at cAra contained 780 pottery vessels from MB2a to LB2b. 4 type 2b juglets were found at the tomb deposits. 64. Bet Shean - Tomb 42 (OREN 1973: fig. 30:13) Tomb 42 was discussed above in the context of Juglet 6 (Type 1). 65–70. Jatt - Tomb 7 (YANNAI 2000: fig. 6: 63–66) Tomb 7 at Jatt contains a large number of early types jugs and juglets – Red Lustrous Base Ring (YANNAI 2000: fig. 7; 73–76; 8:77–86), an early type of Base Ring 1 bowl and an early monochrome bowl (YANNAI 2000: fig. 8; 87, 88) together with a Black Slip III juglet (YANNAI 2000: fig. 7:72) and a Cypriot RLWMW jug (YANNAI 2000: fig. 7:71). The tomb dates to the Late Bronze Age 1B (YANNAI 2000: 61). Eight grey juglets were found in the tomb at Jatt: four of them belong to the Type 2b Cypriot group, one is red and three are black. One of the juglets from Jatt is a Type 3 juglet and its origin is in Cyprus. Three of the juglets are of Canaanite types, two are Type 5 and one is Type 6. No Types 1 or 2a imported Cypriot juglets with a globular body were found in the tomb at Jatt. 71. Bahan (PORATH, DAR and APPLBAUM 1985: fig. 106:5) At Tel Bahan four rich tombs that contained hundreds of vessels from the Middle and Late Bronze Age were exposed. The tombs are slated to be published by Lily Gershuny. 72. Lachish - Tomb 1555 (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 77:776) The juglet was found together with a unique grey juglet with a Type 8 piriform body (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 77:775) and an imported Cypriot Base Ring juglet (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 80:860).
19
Favissa 128 is some distance away from the temple, co. 30 m to its north and was ascribed to the temple based on the finds discovered in it. Favissa 258 was located outside of Temple 1, below the western wall of Temple
73–75. Lachish - Fosse Tomple 1 (TUFNELL, Inge and Harding 1940: pl. 51b:276) Three Type 2b juglets were found in the ancient fosse temple (Fosse Temple 1). The three juglets were found in Favissae 128, 207, 258, which are ascribed by the excavator to the Fosse Temple 1.19 The date of the Fosse Temple 1 was determined mainly by the LMIIA type Mycenaean goblet that was found in the destruction level. The grey black juglets that were found in the favissae are earlier than or contemporary with the Mycenaean goblet. 76. Tell Beit Mirsim - Tomb 1 (BEN ARIEH 2004: fig. 2.73:85) Tell Beit Mirsim is located on the western fringes of the Judean Mountains, on the border of the Shephelah. Tomb 1 was excavated in a salvage excavation after some of its contents were plundered by tomb robbers. Therefore, the finds that were published from it are incomplete (BENARIEH 2004:7). In the opinion of the excavator the tomb dates to the LB1 and 2. Among the finds that were recovered from the tomb is a locally manufactured black juglet (Catalogue No. 162). Based on the Cypriot finds, particularly the late type of Base Ring and Milk Bowl vessels, I believe there are no vessels in the tomb earlier than the13th century BCE and that the Type 2a black juglet is the earliest vessel in the tomb. 77. Ajjul - Tomb 211 (PETRIE 1931: pl. LX) A pit tomb that was excavated inside the Copper Age Cemetery, east of the tell and south of the Middle Bronze Age cemetery (PETRIE 1931:pl. LV; 1933:pl. XL). 78. Ajjul - Tomb 241 (PETRIE 1931: pl. LX) A pit tomb that was excavated in the Copper Age Cemetery (PETRIE 1931: pl. LX) several meters from Tomb 211. Among the vessels found together with the gray juglet was a bowl with a lotus-like body made in the Egyptian technique (PETRIE 1931: pl. XXXVII: 6E13), an imported Mycenaean spherical flask (PETRIE 1931: pl. XLIX:69P5; FS189/FM 19:32 Multiple Stem and Tongue, Tongue-Shaped) and two Cypriot Base-Ring
2 and therefore its ascription it to Temple 1 is certain. Favissa 207 was located below Room A of the Fosse Temple 2 and therefore its ascription to Fosse Temple 1 is not in doubt.
306 Eli Yannai juglets (Types 89J9, 89K2). The Mycenaean flask appears in LEONARD’s catalogue and is defined as Type LHIIIA: 2 (LEONARD 1994: 84:1250). 79. Ajjul - Tomb 281 (PETRIE 1931: pl. LXI:68A5) A pit tomb that was excavated in the Copper Age Cemetery (PETRIE 1931: pl. LV), c. 10 m south of Tomb 241, mentioned above. Besides the gray juglet the following vessels were found in the tomb: a krater with two handles (PETRIE 1931: pl. XL:28A4), an early type of a monochrome bowl imported from Cyprus (DUNCAN 1930:19C) and another vessel (29G4) that could not be found in the reports but based on its form and place in DUNCAN’s catalogue is a sack-like Egyptian vessel. Based on the monochrome bowl that was found in it, the tomb dates to the end of the Middle Bronze Age or the beginning of the LBIA. A scarab bearing the name of Amenhotep I was also found in the tomb. 80. Ajjul - Tomb 368 (PETRIE 1933: pl. L) The location of the tomb could not be found on the plans. The following vessels were also found in the tomb: a Cypriot hemispherical bowl (DUNCAN 1930: 19M); a Mycenaean pyxis (PETRIE 1933: pl. XXXVIII: 55P10; FS94/FM Linear?), based on its shape it is a Mycenaean import but judging by the quality of its production it can be a local imitation. Given its form it belongs to Type LHIIIA (LEONARD 1994: 36:409). A Mycenaean stirrup jar (PETRIE 1933: pl. XXXIX:64M2). The stirrup jar does not appear in LEONARD’s catalogue. Based on it globular body and tall neck as drawn by PETRIE, it is not defined in Furumark’s classification. A Type 68A4 gray juglet (PETRIE 1933: pl.L), flask (DUNCAN 1930: 85R5), large jar jug (PETRIE 1933: pl. XXXIV:34Y6’), a small jug jar (PETRIE 1933: pl. XXXIV:34Y11), a Base-Ring 2 jug (PETRIE 1931: pl. 89H2) and a Type 34Y6’ jug that cannot be found in the catalogue. Based on the Mycenaean and Cypriot vessels that were found the tomb dates to the Middle Bronze Age 2B and it seems this is one of the latest assemblages in which gray juglets were found. 81. Ajjul - Tomb 374 (PETRIE 1933: pl. XLVIII) The juglet (68A3) was found together with an early type of Base-Ring I juglet (PETRIE 1934: pl. LVI: 89J2) and a group of vessels from the end of the Middle Bronze Age (BERGOFFEN 2001: fig. 2A). This tomb is the one of three tombs at Ajjul (i.e. Tombs 368, 375) where a BLWMW juglet
from the Late Bronze Age was found together with a Base Ring I juglet. The Base Ring juglet is a rare type and not many parallels to it have been found in the Land of Israel. A pit tomb located in the northern part of the cemetery dating to the time of the 18th dynasty. A bowl with a tall narrow pedestal, similar to the Chocolate on White bowls (DUNCAN 1930: 17V7) was found in it. Three different variations of this bowl were published. According to the type number, 17V7, it was published in Duncan’s corpus (DUNCAN 1930: 17V7) from Tomb 610 in Tell el Far’ah South. It was published a second time by PETRIE (1931: 17V7) in Assemblage 257. These two bowls have a tall very narrow base and a round, slightly closed body with a very thin wall. These bowls typify the Chocolate on White ware bowls. Another bowl with the same type number was published from Tel Ajjul (PETRIE 1933: pl. XXX:17V7). According to the numbers attached to this bowl it originated in Tomb 374 at Ajjul. This bowl has a tall broad base-ring, has a very open form and flat rim with a very large diameter (BERGOFFEN 2001: fig. 2A:17V7). The two variations that were published by Petrie, the small closed one and the large open one, are completely different from each other. In light of the contradiction in the articles it is difficult to know which bowl was really found in the tomb. The two variations date to the end of the Middle Bronze Age or the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. Also found alongside the bowl in the tomb were a jug jar (PETRIE 1931: pl. XLIV:34Z8) and a jug with a large body and a shoulder handle (PETRIE 1930: pl. XXXVI:38O3’’). OREN (1969: 128) and Celia Bergoffen have both discussed the date of the tomb. Both discussions date the tomb based on a Base-Ring juglet. In Oren’s opinion it is BR1 and in Bergoffen’s opinion it belongs to BR2 (BERGOFFEN 2001: 38). Based on the photographs on file in the archives of the Antiquities Authority it seems the juglet was wheel-made. Therefore I am not certain the juglet is a Base-Ring vessel at all and could very well be a juglet that was imported from Lebanon and not Cyprus. 82. Ajjul - Tomb 375 (PETRIE 1933: pl. L) A tomb whose location is not marked on the plans but according to its number and the numbers of the tombs that Petrie published, it is from the cemetery that dates to the 18th dynasty. Petrie determined that it dates to the reign of Thut-
New Typology and Chronology of the Grey Lustrous Wheel Made Ware in Israel 307
mose III, probably based on a scarab bearing his name that was found in the tomb (PETRIE 1933: pl. L). In the tomb were found a Cypriot WP V juglet (PETRIE 1933: pl. XXV:37X8), a Type 43E2 jar, and a Type 43C2 jar (PETRIE 1933: pl. XXXVII: 43C2’’), a jar characteristic of the end of the MB2B and a Mycenaean type globular flask (PETRIE 1933: pl. XXXIX:83K’). The drawing does not specify the globular flask’s motif model and therefore it is difficult to date it. A Base-Ring juglet (PETRIE 1932: 89K5) was found together with the Mycenaean flask. Based on the Cypriot juglet the tomb dates to the 14th century BCE. 83. Ajjul - Tomb 873 (PETRIE 1942: pl. XLI) The location of the tomb could not be found on the excavation’s plans but according to its number it was in the built complex in the southwestern corner of the tell. The tomb contained one gray juglet (PETRIE 1935: pl. XXVIII:68A7) together with two bowls (13X2, 14X2). 84. Ajjul - Tomb 1007 (PETRIE 1932: pl. LVI) A pit tomb, on the eastern fringes of the cemetery that dates to the 18th dynasty (PETRIE 1932: pl. LII). The tomb contained a gray juglet and half a scarab dating to the Middle Bronze Age (PETRIE 1932: fig. VII:2), without any other funerary offerings. 85. Ajjul - Tomb 1008 (PETRIE 1932: pl. LVI) A pit tomb, on the eastern fringes of the cemetery that dates to the 18th dynasty (PETRIE 1932: pl. LII). Besides the Type 89A5 gray juglet, a jar (43E5) and dipper juglet (PETRIE 1932: pl. XXXIV: 51P9) were found in the tomb. The two vessels can date from either the end of the Middle Bronze Age or the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. 86. Ajjul - Tomb 1161 (PETRIE 1932: pl. LVIII) A pit tomb, on the eastern fringes of the cemetery dating to the 18th dynasty (PETRIE 1932: pl. LII). Besides the gray juglet, a single dipper juglet (PETRIE 1932: pl. XXXIV: 51P3) was found in the tomb. 87. Ajjul - Tomb 1918 (PETRIE 1934: pl. LXVII) A northernmost pit tomb in the Lower Cemetery (PETRIE 1934: pl. LXIV), c. 10 m from Tombs 1925 and 1928. The other vessels that were found
20
together with the gray juglet are a large deep bowl with a high base ring (PETRIE 1933: pl. XXX: 17V4), a carinated bowl (PETRIE 1934: pl. XLVII: 16K8), a dumpy jar (PETRIE 1934: pl. LII:43C2’) and a dipper juglet with a short body (PETRIE 1933: pl. XXXVIII:53R6). All of these vessels can be from the end of the Middle Bronze Age or the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. 88. Ajjul - Tomb 1922 (PETRIE 1934: pl. LXVIII) An amphoriskos with a candlestick rim (PETRIE 1934: pl. LV: 60Q25’) was found in the tomb. This amphoriskos can be from either the end of the Middle Bronze Age or the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. An amphoriskos with a broken neck (PETRIE 1934: pl. LV: 60Q25’) was found together with the gray juglet. Similar amphoriskoi appear in assemblages from the Late Bronze Age 1. 89. Ajjul - Tomb 1925 (PETRIE 1934: pl. LXVIII) A pit tomb in the Lower Cemetery (PETRIE 1934: pl. LXIV), slightly north of Tomb 1928 which is described below. Also found together with the Type 68A5 gray juglet was a large diameter bowl with a high base ring, curved wall and rim with an inner ring (PETRIE 1934: pl. XLVII: 17V12)20 and a dipper juglet (51P8). This juglet aids in determining the date of the tomb. 90. Ajjul - Tomb 1926 (PETRIE 1934: pl. LXIV) A double pit tomb in the Lower Cemetery, several dozen meters south of Tombs 1925 and 1928, and adjacent to Tomb 1927. In addition to the Type 68A5 gray juglet found in the tomb was a jar with two handles (PETRIE 1934: pl. LII: 43Cº). This jar may date from the end of the Middle Bronze Age or the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. Also found with the tomb was a juglet imported from the Lebanese coast (PETRIE 1934: pl. LIV: 52R2’). These juglets were found in contexts that date to the 15th–14th centuries BCE (YANNAI, GORZALCZANY and PEILSTÖKER: forthcoming). 91. Ajjul - Tomb 1927 (PETRIE 1934: pl. LXVIII: 68A3) A pit tomb in the Lower Cemetery (PETRIE 1934: pl. LXIV) next to Tomb 1926. A bowl (PETRIE 1934: pl. XLVII) and a jug (Type 34Y6’) that was not found in the catalogue were discovered together with the Type 68A3 juglet.
This bowl does not appear in the list of finds published by Petrie.
308 Eli Yannai 92. Ajull - Tomb 1928 A pit tomb in the Lower Cemetery (PETRIE 1934: pl. LXIV) slightly south of Tomb 1925, presented above. A carinated bowl (Type 16B3) was found together with the juglet (Type 68A5). This bowl may date to the end of the Middle Bronze Age or the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (PETRIE 1934: pl. XLVII:16B3). 93. Tell Farcah (South) - Tomb 611 (DUNCAN 1930: 68A5) A pit tomb in the southern group of Cemetery 600, west of the tell (PETRIE 1930: pls. LI, LXVII) and next to Tombs 612, 613,624 and 657. Two jugjars (DUNCAN 1930: 38C2, 38H2) were found in it. 94. Tell Farcah (South) - Tomb 612 (DUNCAN 1930: 68A4) A pit tomb in the southern group of Cemetery 600, west of the tell (PETRIE 1930: pls. LI, LXVII). The juglet was found together with a White Painted V teapot (DUNCAN 1930: 64F1) decorated with a horizontal stripe painted around the middle of the body and painted vertical stripes. Teapots decorated with this pattern are found in assemblages from the 15th century BCE in the Land of Israel and to the best of our knowledge do not exist in the 16th century BCE. An early type of monochrome juglet (DUNCAN 1930: 19C) and a jar-jug were (DUNCAN 1930: 38C4) found. 95. Tell Farcah (South) - Tomb 624 (DUNCAN 1930: 68A3) A pit tomb in the southern group of Cemetery 600, west of the tell (PETRIE 1930: pls. LI, LXVII). No other vessels besides the juglet were found in the tomb.
21
22
23
A group of grey black juglets of this type was found in a tomb at Dominus Flevit on Mount Zion in Jerusalem (SALLER 1964: fig. 36: 2, 5). In my estimation, some of the juglets that were published in figure 36 do not belong to this type ware and therefore we are cautious in attributing them to any particular group. Celia Bergoffen published a gray juglet from Tomb 1154 (BERGOFFEN 2001: fig. 4) but in the list of finds from the tomb published by PETRIE (1932: pl. LVIII) the vessel that appears in Bergoffen’s article does not appear. The tomb at Jalame was excavated by Karen CovellParan of the Antiquities Authority. The tomb dates to
96. Tell Farcah (South) - Tomb 657 (DUNCAN 1930: 68A5) A pit tomb in the southern group of Cemetery 600, west of the tell (PETRIE 1930: pls. LI, LXVII). The juglet was found together with a jug (DUNCAN 1930: 68H2) and a Type 43C2 jar. The two vessels are of no value in determining the chronology of the tomb. The Type 2 Juglets – Conclusion 21 35 Type 2a grey juglets were found in different assemblages.22 In Tomb 902, in Tombs 251, 2106 and 3004 at Megiddo, in Stratum XXIIa at Ashdod, in Tomb 1 at Tell Beit Mirsim and in Tomb 62 at Pella. These tombs and strata date to the end of the MB2B. In the tomb at Yiftach’el and in Tomb 902 at Kabri the Type 2a juglet was found along side Type 1 juglets. About half of the Type 2a juglets were found in assemblages that are firmly dated to the LB1A, before the start of the BR I imports or when the manufacture and marketing of the BR I vessels first began. Based on these findings, it seems that the beginning of the production and marketing of the Type 2a Cypriot juglets began at the end of the MB2, parallel to the Type 1 juglets. According to the findings in the strata and the tombs from the end of the MB2 (Stratum XXIIa at Ashdod, the tombs at Jalame,23 Tomb 42 at Bet Shean and perhaps Tomb 62 at Pella), the Type 2a juglets were found in assemblages that predate the first importation of Base Ring ware to the Land of Israel.24 Only two BLwmw juglets were found with the earliest BR I types. One in tomb 1031 at Ajjul and one in tomb No. 1 at Yeftachel. The Type 2b juglets were found together with very early types
24
the Middle Bronze Age 2B and four BLWMW juglets were found in it. We wish to thank Ms. Paran for her permission to mention this within the framework of this study. These finds match for example the finds in Tomb 32 at Enkomi where a typical Type 2a juglet was found (COURTOIS 1981: fig. 17:8) together with Tell el-Yahudiyeh, Red on Black, and Black Slip juglets and other typical vessels of the Middle Bronze Age on the Syrian coast and from the Middle Cypriot period (COURTOIS 1981: fig. 17: 2, 5, 7, 9, 10). No Base Ring vessels were found in Tomb 32.
New Typology and Chronology of the Grey Lustrous Wheel Made Ware in Israel 309
of BR I vessels. 25 If our assumption is correct, Group 2a is earlier than Group 2b. It can reasonably be assumed that the transition from Type 2a which is earlier than Type 2b, was gradual and ongoing. The difference between the two groups is more apparent in the earliest Type 2a juglets and in the latest Type 2b juglets. Juglets that were made during the transformation process between the two groups will be difficult to ascribe to either of the groups. If this division is correct, it will also aid in defining and dating of the earliest types of BR I vessels in the country. Most of the juglets that were found in the tomb assemblages are Type 2b. Their production and the marketing of them began during the LB1A and ceased during the LB1B. In the LB2 juglets whose form was inspired by that of the Cypriot juglets were made in the Land of Israel and along the Syrian/Lebanese coast (AMIRAN 1969: 146). BLWMW Type 2b juglets were found with BR I–II vessels side by side with Mycenean LHIIIA:2 (in tomb 241 for example) and dated the end of type 2b juglets manufacture until the early 14th century B.C.E. Type 3: (Fig. 1:10) (Catalogue Nos. 97–100). These vessels are characterized by a flat base that is slightly curved, the upper part of the body is hemispherical and the lower part is almost straight, a long neck that is equal in length to the height of the body, flared rim and a handle that extends from the upper part of the body and is connected the entire length of the neck. The juglet is black and the surface is matte, smooth and was left unburnished.
25
26
These finds match the finds in Tomb 12 in the cemetery at Stephania in Cyprus, where a group of Type 2b juglets was found (HENNESSY pl. L:3) together with early types of Base Ring I juglets (HENNESSY pl. L:7), proto Base Ring (HENNESSY pl. 1:5), Black Slip (HENNESSY pl. L:13, 14) and early types of White Slip II (HENNESSY pl. LI:12). Another juglet was found in Tomb7 but the finds in this tomb are mixed and it is difficult to draw chronological conclusions from them. According to Hennessy’s chronology, Tomb 12 is from the Late Cypriot 1A period (LC1A). The juglet was found in the study collection of the
THE TYPE 3 JUGLETS 97. Jatt - Tomb 7 (YANNAI 2000: fig. 70) This tomb was discussed in the context of the Type 2 juglets. 98. Bahan - Tomb The juglet was never published.26 99. Lachish - Tomb 1555 In the cemetery (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 77:773;27 OREN 1969: fig. 3b, p. 135). Tomb 1555 and the parallels associated with it have already been discussed above. Tufnell’s definition of the grey juglet with a flat base as Type 3 is based on the shape of the neck and rim that are unique to the group of grey black juglets (OREN 1969: fig. 3 left). The finds from the excavations at Lachish were processed by Tufnell in the 1940’s and her correct definition of the juglet seems to be ground-breaking. After the excavation of the tomb at Jatt and defining the Type 3 juglet as a Cypriot import, Tufnell’s definition was corroborated. 100. Ajjul - Tomb 1024 (PETRIE 1932: pl. LII:68G8) A small cist grave in the cemetery dating to the time of the XVIII Dynasty (PETRIE 1932: pl. LII). A small dipper juglet (31L3) was found in the tomb (PETRIE 1932: pl. XXXIV:53B2). The juglet is of no help in determining the chronology of the tomb. Type 3 Juglets - Summary The tombs in which the Type 3 juglets were found are parallel to the time of the Type 2b juglets. The flat base juglets that originated in Cyprus is completely different than the two early types discussed
27
Institute of Archaeology of the Tel Aviv University and its provenance is probably in a tomb that was excavated by Ram Gophna. Over the years of teaching in the Tel Aviv University I have had an opportunity to examine the juglet and in my estimation it is imported from Cyprus. Unfortunately, the petrographic examination conducted are not available for scientific study. The juglet was identified in a photograph from Oren’s article (OREN 1969: fig. 3b, second from left). We are uncertain whether the identity of the juglet in the photograph matches Oren’s reference.
310 Eli Yannai above. The flat broad base is very different than the globular body that characterizes the Cypriot pottery. The globular body is characteristic of Types 1 and 2. The grey shade of the Type 3 juglets is similar to the color of juglets with piriform (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 77:747) and cylindrical bodies (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 77:760) that were produced in Lachish during the Middle Bronze Age (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 77:759). The Type 3 juglets resemble the juglets with a cylindrical body, which have a long tradition in Canaanite pottery, and begins already in the MB2A and they are not at all connected with the juglets whose production was inspired by the juglets that were imported from Cyprus. GROUP TWO: BLACK JUGLETS IMPORTED FROM THE SYRIAN/LEBANESE COAST Type 4: (Fig. 1:11, 12) (Catalogue Nos. 101–104) These juglets are characterized by a flat base, the lower part of the body is hemispherical and the upper part is slightly squat, the neck is somewhat conical and the rim is candlestick-like. A curved handle extends from the shoulder the length of the neck, sometimes from the bottom of the candlestick-like rim and sometimes from the middle of the neck. The juglets range from dark grey to black in color. The clay contains a large amount of brown, red and black temper and the surface of the vessel is smoothed and unburnished. Yuval Goren performed the petrographic analysis on the juglets. Four juglets were examined; of them, three juglets are black and one is not. The excavators believe that the form of black juglets provided the inspiration with which the fourth juglet was produced (EISENSTADT, ARABAS and ABLAS 2004: 82). 101. cAra - Tomb 1 (ILAN, GADOT and YANNAI forthcoming) Tel cAra is located in Wadi cAra, c. 6 kilometers west of Tel Megiddo. It was excavated in a salvage excavation in which hundreds of vessels and unstratified finds dating from the Middle Bronze Age 2a to the Late Bronze Age 2b were found. 102. Zawata - Tomb (EISENSTADT, ARABAS and ABLAS 2004: pl. 7:17) The juglet was found together with Type 8 grey black juglets and two juglets of undefined typolo-
28
We wish to thank Irina Eisenstadt for the information.
gy. A number of Base Ring, Monochrome, White Shaved and RLWMW juglets were also found with it. The excavators are of the opinion that the tomb dates to the end of the MB2, to the LB1 and the beginning of the LB2 (EISENSTADT, ARABAS and ABLAS 2004: 83). 103. Zawata - Tomb (EISENSTADT, ARABAS and ABLES 2004: pl. 7:18) The rim of this juglet is more similar to a “candlestick” than that of Juglet 41. 104. Askar (East of Shechem) - Tomb 4 (MAGEN and EISENSTADT 2004: pl. 5:13) The juglet was found together with a locally produced Type 7 juglet. Most of the vessels in the tomb are from the Middle Bronze Age 2 and the Late Bronze Age 1. Type 4 Juglets - Summary Magen and Eisenstadt group the juglets from the tomb at Zawata that were imported from Lebanon together with the juglets from the tomb at Jatt that were imported from Cyprus (EISENSTADT, ARABAS and ABLAS 2004: 82). They did not distinguish between the Type 2 Cypriot imported juglets and lumped all the grey and black juglets into one group. Their approach ignores the fundamental typological differences between the different groups and is unacceptable in light of the petrographic results that corroborate the typological differences. One juglet (No. 104) with a candlestick-like rim was found in the tomb at Askar. The authors did not mention any details pertaining to its origins and it did not undergo petrographic analysis.28 The resemblance of the shape of this juglet to that of Juglet No. 102 and also Juglet 103 may indicate that juglets with a “candlestick” rim were made on the coast of Lebanon. The two juglets were found in two different tombs. Tomb 4 at Askar contained vessels from the MB2 and, in our opinion, perhaps also from the beginning of the LB1 (MAGEN and EISENSTADT 2004: 5) and the tomb at Zawata yielded vessels that date from the MB2 until the LB2 (EISENSTADT, ARABAS and ABLAS 2004: 82), among them also numerous vessels imported from Cyprus. One juglet from Tomb 4 at Askar was found in an unclear strategraphic context but the assem-
New Typology and Chronology of the Grey Lustrous Wheel Made Ware in Israel 311
blage of vessels that were found in the tomb date from the beginning of the Late Bronze Age and from the end of the MB2B. According to these finds, the Type 4 juglets were brought to the Land of Israel at the same time as the Type 1 and 2 juglets. The grey juglets that were produced on the Syrian/Lebanese coast were part of different groups of vessels from these sources that were exported to the Land of Israel. One of the most common groups in this commerce were juglets whose production was inspired by the Cypriot vessels and were mixed amongst in the massive importation of vessels from Cyprus to the Land of Israel (YANNAI, GORZALCZANY and PEILSTÖKER 2003). The group of juglets imported from the Syrian/Lebanese coast that was found in funerary assemblages in the Land of Israel also contains one juglet that is not grey, whose production was, without doubt, inspired by the Cypriot juglets. The juglet was found in Jerusalem and was published by Ruth Amiran (AMIRAN 1960: fig. 3:40; AMIRAN 1969: pl. 46:13). According to the petrographic examination the juglet was made on the Syrian/Lebanese coast and its fabrication was inspired by the shape of the Type 2b black grey juglets from Cyprus and it is decorated with a traditional Syrian/Lebanese decoration (YANNAI, GORZALCZANY and PEILSTÖKER 2003: 110–111). It is one of many other vessels from the Syrian/ Lebanese coast whose production was influenced by the Base Ring vessels from Cyprus and were imported into the Land of Israel. It reinforces the assumption that the Type 2b juglets coincided with the beginning of the production of the early Red Polished Base Ring juglets (VAUGHAN 1997:366) that are included in the group of vessels defined as BR I. The combination of the form of the BGLwmw together with the traditional Syrian decoration and its exportation to the Land of Israel shows that in the juglet industry technologies and styles from different countries mixed with each other and produced different and strange hybrid vessels. GROUP THREE: JUGLETS FROM THE LAND OF ISRAEL Based on the differences in form and technology, the locally produced grey/black juglets were made in different production centers that were far away from each other. Some of them are similar to the Type 2a Cypriot juglets and some of them are different than the Cypriot juglets. Except for some of the Type 5 grey juglets, the color of most of the locally produced juglets is
black. Not one of the locally produced juglets is treated with a quality dense burnish which is characteristic of the juglets imported from Cyprus. Some of the juglets are partially and carelessly burnished and most were left unburnished. Including the group of locally produced juglets in one type of ware together with the Cypriot imported juglets is uncertain and not selfevident. The Type 5 juglets (below) are similar to the Type 2b juglets and it is reasonable to assume that they were made as a local imitation of the Type 2b juglets or their production was directly inspired by the latter. The Type 6 grey juglets are less similar to the imported juglets. The main differences between the imported juglets and the Type 6 juglets are the shapes of the base, the form of the body, the conical shape of the neck and rim and the proportions between the height of the body to the length of the neck and especially the inferior quality of the treatment of the surface of the juglet. It is difficult to determine how many typological elements similar to those of the imported Cypriot grey juglets are needed to include the locally produced grey/black juglets in one of the wares with the imported Cypriot juglets. It is also difficult to determine whether in this generalization should relate to the similarity in form only or also to technological parameters and even petrographic parameters. Some of the local types are very different than the imported juglets and it is only their black or grey color that indicates the possible relationship between them and the groups of imported juglets. In light of the differences the question should be asked if each black or grey juglet that was made in this period is included in the group of grey juglets or it is necessary to separate juglets whose production was inspired by the imported juglets and grey/black juglets whose form differs from that of the Type 2b juglets. Within the framework of this article we have divided the juglets made in the country into two groups: those with a cylindrical neck and juglets with a conical shaped neck. Type 5: (Fig. 1:13) (Catalogue Nos. 105–109) The juglets are characterized by a flat or slightly curved base, an elliptical body the lower part of which is wider than upper part and a cylindrical neck that is taller than the body. The handle extends from the upper part of the body and connects to the upper part of the neck or is attached the length of the neck, from its top to its bottom.
312 Eli Yannai The juglets from Megiddo and cAra are fired grey and are vertically burnished and the black juglet from Jatt is not burnished. 105. Megiddo - Tomb 2031 on the tell (LOUD 1948: 26:12) This juglet was also found with a Type 2b juglet and a Cypriot Base Ring II juglet. The chronological problem with this tomb and the different opinions associated with its chronology were already discussed above (STEWART 1955:49; ÅSTRÖM 1957:214; AMIRAN 1960:30). OREN dated this tomb to Stratum VIII despite the fact that the excavators assigned it to Stratum XII in Megiddo (OREN 1969:30). Based on the Cypriot Base Ring II juglet, the locally produced juglet in Megiddo also dates to the Late Bronze Age 2. 106. Megiddo - Tomb 3018C in Stratum IX on the tell (LOUD 1948: pl. 51:2) This tomb was discussed above in the context of the Type 2b juglets (LOUD 1948: pl. 51:4). 107. Megiddo - Tomb 877c1 (GUY and ENGBERG 1938: pl. 14:15) The juglet was found together with a Bucchero jug imported from Cyprus (GUY and ENGBERG 1938: pl. 14:21), a locally produced jug whose form was inspired by the Bichrome ware (GUY and ENGBERG 1938: pl. 14:22) and other locally produced vessels that are similar to the vessels from Stratum VIII on the tell. 108. Ara – Tomb 1 The tomb at ‘Ara was mentioned in the discussion on Type 2b juglets.
where a local and unique type of grey juglet was made and that it was traded in the region of Megiddo and cAra. The Type 5 juglets were found in assemblages that are later than the assemblages in which the Type 1 and 2 juglets imported from Cyprus were found. They were found together with BRII jugs and juglets decorated with white on grey. Tomb 877c1 is dated to the 14th century BCE, Tomb 2031 is dated to the 13th century BCE and based on these two assemblages one can date the Type 5 juglets to the LB1B or 2A. Type 6: (Fig. 1:11) (Catalogue Nos. 110–162) These juglets are characterized by a flat base, slightly elongated elliptical body, cylindrical neck, straight rim with a sharp finish, without an everted fold. The handle extends from the upper part of the body to the upper part of the neck and descends along the neck, sometimes until the body. The juglets are fashioned from black matte fabric and are not burnished. 110–111. Jatt - Tomb 7 (YANNAI 2000: figs. 6:68, 69) The dating of the tomb was discussed above in context with Juglets 38–41, Type 2b in the catalogue. Juglet 110 is similar to the juglets from Megiddo and its body is slightly smaller. Juglet 111 is slightly curved and it has a flat base that is somewhat wider than that of the Type 2 juglets. 112. Askar - Cave 4 (MAGEN and EISENSTADT 2004: pl. 5:14) Cave 4 and its finds were discussed in the chapter dealing with the Type 4 juglets.
109. Jatt – Tomb 7 (YANNAI 2000: fig. 6:67)
113. Askar - Tomb 4 (MAGEN and EISENSTADT 2004: pl. 6:18)
The tomb was addressed in the discussion on the Type 2b juglets.
The juglet was found in Cave 5, all of whose finds, without exception are from the MB 2B.
Type 5 Juglets - Summary
114. Zawata - Tomb (EISENSTADT, ARABAS and ABLAS 2004: pl. 7:17)
The five juglets, Nos. 105–109 that were found at Megiddo, Ara and Jatt are very similar to each other and different than the juglets that were found at other sites. According to the petrographic examination that was conducted on the juglet from cAra, it was produced in the Land of Israel. It is reasonable to assume that it was produced at Megiddo or near the volcanic outcrops in the Carmel. The uniform shape of the juglets from cAra and Megiddo reinforces the possibility that a production center was located in Megiddo,
This cave was dealt with in the discussion on the Type 4 juglets from the Syrian/Lebanese coast and it dates from the end of the MB2B until the LB2. 115. Lachish - Tomb 564 (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 77:778) Along with this juglet, which was published, another 42 similar juglets were found in Tomb 4004. 116. Lachish – Tomb 555 in the cemetery (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 77:777) Two juglets were found in Tomb 555 in Lachish.
New Typology and Chronology of the Grey Lustrous Wheel Made Ware in Israel 313
The juglets were found together with a jug imported from the Syrian/Lebanese coast whose form was inspired by that of the RLWMW jugs from Cyprus (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 79:815; YANNAI, GORZALCZANY and PEILSTÖKER 2003: fig. 3:8). Also found together with the juglets and jug were several Base Ring vessels that definitely date to the 13th century BCE (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 80:839, 840) and Base Ring vessels that probably date to the 14th century BCE (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 80: 849, 857, 860). 117–161. Lachish - Tombs 4004, 4009 and 7011 Besides the two juglets that were found in Tomb 555, 17 juglets were found in Tomb 4004, seven juglets in Tomb 4009 and one juglet in Tomb 7011. Based on these quantities the Type 6 juglets were very popular. In light of the large number of Type 6 juglets in Tombs 555 and 564 and Tomb 4004, it is reasonable to assume that this juglet is a type that was made in Lachish. 162. Tell Beit Mirsim - Tomb 1 (BEN ARIEH 2004: fig. 2.69:45) See juglet No. 76 in the catalogue LOCAL GREY/BLACK JUGLETS FROM CANAANITE SITES WHOSE FORM WAS INSPIRED BY THAT OF
CYPRIOT IMPORTED JUGLETS Type 7: 163. Yiftach’el - Tomb 1 (BARDA and BRAUN 2003: fig. 4:24) This juglet is characterized by a curved base, asymmetric spherical body and a broad cylindrical neck that is shorter than the body. It is fashioned from very dark grey fabric. The surface is roughly knife pared and not burnished. Fourteen grey juglets were found in Tomb 1 in Yifach’el (BARDA and BRAUN 2003: 93). The excavators only published two of the juglets from this large group: one Type 2b juglet and one Type 7 juglet (BARDA and BRAUN 2003: fig. 4:24). The excavators did not distinguish between the two types 29 and only published one juglet of each type. Besides the juglets that were published, another eight Type 2b juglets and another Type 7 juglet were found in the tomb. Based on the
29
See above, note 5.
finds in Tomb 1 at Yiftach’el, the tomb was used for burials from the beginning of the MB2A until the end of the LB1. A single juglet of an early type of Base Ring ware that is slipped a lustrous red (BARDA and BRAUN 2003: fig. 9:4) dates the end of the burial to the end of the LB1A. Type 8: The juglet has an elongated piriform body, button base and a long narrow cylindrical neck the length of the body. The handle extends from the upper part of the body to the upper part of the neck; the shape of the rim is not known. 164. Lachish - Tomb 1555 in the cemetery (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 77:775) No parallels were found for the juglet with the piriform body. The body of this juglet is similar to the body of the piriform juglets from the Middle Bronze Age and we can assume that Tufnell based her definition of it as one of the grey juglets on the long neck that is unique to this family of juglets. This juglet was found in Tomb 1555 along with an early type of Base Ring Cypriot juglet (TUFNELL 1958: pl. 80:860) and a number of other vessels characteristic of the LB1. The sole parallel to this unique juglet was perhaps found at Aniba in southern Egypt (STEINDORFF 1937: figure - second juglet from the left). From the archaic photograph of the juglet from Aniba we are unable to determine if the juglet is similar to the Type 6 or Type 7 juglets or if it is a local Egyptian product without any relation to the juglets of the Land of Israel. Type 9: 165. Tell es-Sacidiyeh - Tomb 101 (PRITCHARD 1980: fig. 3:4) Tell e-Sa’aidiyah is located in the central Jordan Valley. Tomb 101 contains only five pottery vessels. The pottery vessels (two jars, two juglets and a pyxis) are not chronologically indicative. Bone artifacts and an impressive group of bronze objects were also found together with them in the tomb. In the opinion of the excavator, Tomb 101 dates to the 13th century BCE (PRITCHARD 1980: 29).
314 Eli Yannai
No.
Type
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20–26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33–34 35 36 37 38 39 40–41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49–50 51 52 53 54–58 59–63 64 65–70 71 72 73–75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
1
Provenance Cyprus Israel Syria
MBIIb
LBIa
Kabri T. 902 Meg. T. 5040A Meg. T. 1100A Meg. T. 251 Beth Shan T. 42 Pella T. 62 Lachish T. 7011 Ajjul T. 301 Ajjul T. 364 Ajjul T. 1532 Yiftach’el T. 1 Kabri T. 902 Meg. T. 251 Meg. T. 2009 Meg. T. 2106 Meg. T. 3004 Pella T. 62 Beth Shan T. 27 'En Nasab Jallameh Ashdod XXIIa Ajjul T. 331 Ajjul L. GCC/2020 Ajjul L. GJJ/2119 Ajjul L. GHF/2100 Ajjul T. 394 Ajjul T. 397 Ajjul T. 402 Ajjul T. 404 Ajjul T. 1003 Ajjul T. 1031 Ajjul T. 1522 Ajjul T. 1539 Ajjul T. 1904 Ajjul T. 1905 Ajjul T. 1908 Fara’h (S) T. 613
2ª
2b
+
+
+
LBIb
LBIIa
+ No. 12 + No. 48 + No.13 + No. 64 + No.17
+ No. 1 + No. 4
+ No. 6
Hazor T. 8112 Meg. T. 258 Meg. T. 1100A Meg. T. 77 X 2 Meg. T. 1141 Meg. T. 3018C Meg. T. 2031 Ara T. 1 X 4 Ara T. 2 X 4 Beth Shan T.42 Jatt T. 7 X 4 Bahan Lachish T. 1555 Lachish Temple 1 Beit Mirsim T. 1 Ajjul T. 211 Ajjul T. 241 Ajjul T. 281 Ajjul T. 374 Ajjul T. 368 Ajjul T. 375 Ajjul T. 873
Table 1 The typological division of the GBLwmw juglets in the Land of Israel and their chronology
New Typology and Chronology of the Grey Lustrous Wheel Made Ware in Israel 315
No. 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117– 161 162 163 164 165
Type
Provenance Cyprus Israel Syria
MBIIb
LBIa
LBIb
LBIIa
Ajjul T. 1007 Ajjul T. 1008 Ajjul T. 1161 Ajull T. 1918 Ajull T. 1922 Ajull T. 1925 Ajull T. 1926 Ajull T. 1927 Ajull T. 1928 Fara’h (S) T. 611 Fara’h (S) T. 612 Fara’h (S) T. 624 Fara’h (S) T. 667 Bahan Jatt T. 7 Lachish Ajjul Meg. T. 2031 Zawata Zawata Askar Meg. T. 2031 Meg. T. 3018c Meg. T. 877c1 Ara T. 1 Jatt T. 7
3 +
4
5
+ + 6
Jatt T. 7 Jatt T. 7 Askar Cave 4 Askar Cave 4 Zawata Lachish T. 564 Lachish T. 555
+
Lachish T. 4004,4009, 7011 Beit Mirsim Yiftah'el T. 1 Lachish T. 1555 Tel Sa'idiyeh Tomb 101
7 8 9
Table 1 continued
DISCUSSION Technological Aspects The technology of producing grey and black vessels by reduction firing has a long history in both Cyprus and the Land of Israel. On the one hand there is the long tradition of producing grey and black juglets on a wheel during the Middle Bronze Age in the Land of Israel and on the other hand there is long tradition of producing hand made globular vessels in Cyprus. There is no way of knowing what motivated the Cypriot potters to produce the first juglets of this group. In our opinion, these are a mutation of the globular type of White Painted V and Red on Black juglets and not the successors of the Tell el
Yahudiyeh ware. Based on the typological classification, the juglets developed in a number of phases: the earliest juglets of this family were handmade at the end of the MC 3 with a globular body, a form well ingrained in the Cypriot pottery scene. It is reasonable to assume that the difficulty in producing a globular juglet without a base on a wheel compelled the Cypriot potters to produce a juglet in a form as close as possible to the globular body, which was rooted in their conscience and professional experience, while attempting to implement the new technology that they had adopted. Therefore in a very early phase the Cypriot potters abandoned the globular form, without the base, and produced a juglet with as narrow a base as possible and as globular a body
316 Eli Yannai as possible. The fusion of the new technological solution of use with the wheel with the traditional globular form produced the Type 2a juglet, which is typified by an almost globular body, short neck and flat base, with no visible separation between the body and the base. These changes were made at the same time as the end of the Middle Bronze Age in the Land of Israel, the beginning of the Late Cypriot period. In a later phase producing juglets on a fast wheel compelled the Cypriot potters to produce the juglet with the elliptical body and the tall Type 2b neck. Since the Type 2b juglets were very popular in the marketplaces of the Levant, the potters in the Land of Israel and along the Syrian/Lebanese coast began to produce juglets that are similar to them in form and fired them using the reduction technique that rendered them a black and grey hue. The Grey Black Juglets with the Cylindrical Body The juglets with a cylindrical body have an extremely long history in the pottery of the Land of Israel and they appear in the local repertoire already in the beginning of the MB2A. In the MB 2B, most of the juglets were fired with oxidizing firing and some of the juglets were fired with reduction firing and the surface of the juglet is black, brown or grey. Some of the grey juglets are decorated with perforations characteristic of the Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware and some are not decorated in this style. Most of the juglets with the cylindrical body that were found in the Land of Israel were made with a short neck, flared rim and double handle. From the standpoint of these elements there is no difference between the juglets with a cylindrical body and juglets with an elongated body from the MB 2B. The main difference between the grey black juglets imported from Cyprus and the locally manufactured juglets that were inspired by the form of the Cypriot juglets is the long neck and the open lotus-like rim that is unique to the Types 1 and 2 imported juglets. Various scholars define within the group of grey black juglets all of the black or grey juglets, and ignore the typological details that clearly differentiate the BGLwmw juglets from the other grey black juglets (FISCHER and SADEQ 2000: fig. 8:10). The distinction is important because the group of BGLwmw juglets are imported, whereas the other juglets (such as those published by Fischer and Sadeq from Tell Ajjul and mentioned above) were not made in Cyprus and they were
made in shapes and with technology that are ingrained in the pottery of the Land of Israel. The cylindrical body of the grey black juglets imported from Cyprus is not characteristic of the usual forms of Cypriot pottery which is usually typified by spherical forms. One can assume that the different shape of the juglets with a cylindrical body has its roots in Canaanite pottery and not the Cypriot pottery. These juglets probably were made in Cyprus and their production was likely inspired by the form of the juglets of the Land of Israel and Syria and they were exported from Cyprus to the Land of Israel as Cypriot imitation products of Canaanite pottery. If this assumption is correct then this is an exceptional case whereby the Cypriot pottery imitates the Canaanite pottery. If we correctly understand what motivated the Cypriot potters this is also an extremely rare instance in which the potters attempted to produce pottery vessels characteristic of the country to which the vessel was intended to be sent. A discussion about grey black juglets with cylindrical bodies from Cyprus can assist in defining the grey juglet with a cylindrical body that are decorated in the Tell el Yahudiyeh style, which were found in Tomb 7 at Jatt. The juglet is made of grey clay and is treated with a black slip that is flaking slightly. The upper part of the cylindrical body of the juglet is curved and its base is straight. Its form slightly resembles the Type 3 grey juglets and it is decorated with incising in the style of Tell el-Yahudiyeh (YANNAI 2000: 52–53). The two grooved circles in the upper part of the body and the step at the seam of the neck with the body are similar to the combination that is on the Cypriot BLWMW jug that was found at Jatt and Ugarit (YANNAI 2000: 53–55, fig. 6:62). The juglet from Jatt combines four features from the different groups in one vessel: in form it is a juglet with a cylindrical body that is typical of the Land of Israel. Its firing is that of a grey juglet. Its slip belongs to the Black Lustrous ware from Cyprus and in its decoration it is Tell elYahudiyeh ware from Egypt. In light of the combination of the form, decoration and technique the question arises: is this juglet link the Type 3 grey black juglets or the Black Slip juglets together with the juglets decorated in the Tell el Yahudiyeh style? The hypothesis that there is a possible connection between the Black Slip III ware and Tell el Yahudiyeh ware has already been discussed by scholars; however, no one supports this today.
New Typology and Chronology of the Grey Lustrous Wheel Made Ware in Israel 317
At this stage in the study I have not found a similar juglet and the juglet from Tomb 7 at Jatt is unique. The Type 3 juglets are also extremely rare and until today very few juglets of this type were found: one or possibly more were recovered at Bahan (not published), one at Jatt (No. 55), one or more at Shechem (KLAMER 1981: 33), one at Lachish (No. 56) and one at Ajjul (No. 57). While writing the article during the 1990’s I was uncertain in defining the production origin of the juglet but in light of the existing petrographic parallels we now have, there is almost no doubt that the juglet was produced in Cyprus. It is extremely ironic that this unique juglet is the only Tell el Yahudiyeh type juglet that was produced in Cyprus. Because of its Cypriot origin and despite the unique decoration, we have chosen to add the juglet to the Type 3 group of rare juglets. The Relation Between the Grey Black Juglets and the Tell el Yahudiyeh Juglets The group of Tell el Yahudiyeh juglets has been intensively studied. In the Land of Israel it is part of a large and diverse group of grey, black and red juglets that were not decorated in the special style of this ware. Several of the most common types of juglets decorated in the Tell el Yahudiyeh style are juglets with a piriform body and a button base. Tufnell felt that the grey juglets are from the last phase of the Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglets (TUFNELL 1958: 276). Oren is of the opinion that that the grey black juglets succeed the group of juglets from the Tell el-Yahudiyeh group (OREN 1969: 130). In the review of the assemblages presented in his article, OREN treats all the types of grey juglets as one group and the question arises: by treating each type separately will we draw different conclusions? This question should be asked in light of the petrographic data proving that the different types within each kind of ware were produced in different places. The production of the Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglets in the Land of Israel and in Egypt do not correspond with the production locations of the grey juglets in the Land of Israel and Cyprus. From a limited chronological viewpoint most of the grey juglets are later than most of the juglets decorated in the Tell el Yahudiyeh style but this does not necessarily indicate a direct continuation between these two groups. At Tell el Mashuta in Egypt black juglets with a globular body were found (HOLLADAY 1997: pl. 7.7:4) together with juglets with globular body that are perforated in the Tell el-Yahudiyeh style
(HOLLADAY 1997: pl. 7:23:E). These juglets are dated with certainty to the Middle Bronze Age and Second Intermediate period in Egypt. The neutron activation analysis that was conducted on the Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglets that were uncovered in Cyprus have shown that some of the juglets originated in Egypt and not in Cyprus and some even have their origins in the Land of Israel (ARTZY and ASARO 1979: 139). In the group of juglets that was checked were two juglets with a globular body that are decorated in the Tell el Yahudiyeh style (ARTZY and ASARO 1979: fig. 3: Cypr. 8, fig. 5: Cypr. 6). Laboratory examinations of the juglets decorated in the Tel el Yahudiyeh style have shown that all of the juglets with the globular body were made in Egypt (KAPLAN, HARBOTTLE and SAYRE 1984: 232). These laboratory findings directly contradict the fact that all of the Type 1 and 2 BLWMW juglets with globular bodies were made in Cyprus. Therefore, in our opinion from a methodological standpoint, it is difficult to define juglets that were made exclusively in Cyprus as the “successors” of juglets that were exclusively made in Egypt and the proposal to consider them as the “successors” of the Tell elYahudiyeh juglets is incorrect. The Regional Distribution of the Juglets Produced in the Land of Israel The grey black lustrous juglets made by local potters that were found in the country can be divided into two different types. The similarity of the lustrous grey juglets stems from their being an imitation of the imported Type 2b juglets or the juglets whose production was directly inspired by the technology and forms of the imported juglets. The extensive distribution of the Type 2b juglets is indicative of its great popularity and it should be assumed that the great demand for these juglets motivated or enticed the potters on the Syrian coast and in the Land of Israel to produce similar juglets. Traditionally, already from the fourth millennium BCE the local potters in the Land of Israel and on the Lebanese coast produced different vessels in each region of the country. Petrography is unable to define the origin of every juglet in a regional resolution that is necessary for an accurate study and therefore it is possible to locate the specific production places. The identification of the origin of these juglets is based on statistical considerations. Some of the juglets were found in several sites in large numbers (Type 5 in Megiddo
318 Eli Yannai and its environs) and of some of the types a single juglet was found in one site only and it is difficult to ascribe a unique juglet to a specific site. The Canaanite potters who produced the grey juglets wrestled with two conflicting incentives: on the one hand a quality, homogenous, dominant and imported source and on the other, the desire to express the local tradition accepted in the region or the settlement in which they produced the juglets. In the designing the local juglets and deciding on the quality of their finish the potters had to take into account their ability to market a product in lieu of a popular imported quality product. The evidence that most of the black grey juglets that have been uncovered to date were imported shows that the local potters did not reject the imports over the local product and were content to supplementing what was lacking in the great demand for these Cypriot juglets. The distribution of the juglets that were made in the Land of Israel according to their places of production shows that the imported juglets were mainly found in the large cities (Hazor, Kabri, Yiftach’el, Megiddo, Bet Shean, Pella, Jatt, Shechem, Lachish and Tell el Far’ah (South) and in harbors (Tell al Ajjul). On small tells, far from the central trade routes, more locally manufactured juglets were found, as well as juglets imported from the Lebanese coast (Ara, Zawata, Askar and Jerusalem). Were the GBLwmw Juglets Made in the Land of Israel as an Imitation of the Juglets Imported from Cyprus? The influence of the Cypriot pottery on the pottery of the Land of Israel is manifested in different ways. The Canaanite potters, who were experienced in producing pottery vessels on fast wheels, did not try to compete with the Cypriot technologies of the White Slip, Monochrome, Base Ring and other Cypriot wares. For example, the Canaanite potters in the Land of Israel who produced jugs inspired and influenced by the form of the Cypriot Base Ring jugs did not attempt to imitate the colors of this unique Cypriot pottery. Therefore their definition as imitation vessels, despite the fact that it is very popular and accepted by scholars (AMIRAN 1969: 182), is only based on the form of the vessels which is similar to the original Cypriot ware. This view is antiquated and in our opinion is incorrect. A discussion about grey juglets is different than a discussion about Base Ring ware and the two subjects are not
at all similar to each other. According to the division of the grey juglets to different types, the Type 5 juglets are similar to the imported Cypriot juglets whereas the Type 6 juglets are not. The Canaanite pottery did not have a tradition of producing spherical vessels and the Cypriot pottery did not have a tradition of producing vessels on a wheel. Therefore the meeting and combination of the technologies and forms of the traditional Cypriot pottery together with the Canaanite forms and technologies is neither obvious nor self-evident. In light of the long history of grey juglets in the Middle Bronze Age in the Land of Israel, the question arises whether Canaanite produced grey juglets were made inspired by the technology and form of the grey juglets imported from Cyprus or were they an independent type that evolved from within the grey juglets in the Land of Israel and only the long narrow neck is similar to that of the imported Cypriot juglets. If this indeed the case it may be that all of the grey/black juglets produced in the country should not be grouped together with the Cypriot BLwmw juglets. The grey black juglets, both in Canaan and in Cyprus, were made using similar technologies. On the one hand the Cypriot technology was influenced which adopted the production of black juglets on the wheel and on the other hand the Canaanite potters were influenced and began to produce similar juglets in the shape of the juglets imported from Cyprus. It seems that the use of the identical technology of reduction firing that was common on both sides of the sea, created an environment conducive for these mutual inspirations. In our opinion, the use of a wheel for producing BLWMW juglets in Cypriot pottery should not be considered as an imitation. Production on a wheel was the realm of several types of Cypriot ware that were made employing completely different colors and technology than those of the grey juglets, e.g. Bichrome vessels, RLWMW and Plain White WMW vessels. In light of the mutual influence from both sides of the Mediterranean Sea, the question should be asked, should the Types 5 and 6 black grey juglets that were made in the Land of Israel be considered imitation vessels of the Types 1 and 2 juglets that were imported from Cyprus. On the one hand the BLWMW was made utilizing a firing technique that was not foreign to the potters of the Land of Israel, and on the other
New Typology and Chronology of the Grey Lustrous Wheel Made Ware in Israel 319
hand their unique form is different than the traditional assemblage of Canaanite forms. Therefore, it seems to us that their manufacture was directly influenced by the imported Cypriot juglets. On the face of it, the fabrication of all of the juglets that were produced with a form similar to those of the Cypriot Base Ring juglets was inspired by the latter’s form. The difference between the Base Ring vessels and the BLWMW juglets is the use of the common technology of reduction firing. This essential difference is what differentiates between imitation vessels and imported vessels and between vessels whose manufacture was inspired by form alone. Therefore, in our opinion, one can define the grey black juglets in the Land of Israel as imitation vessels of the Cypriot juglets. CONCLUSION The earliest grey black juglets were made in Cyprus with spherical bodies. Their form was inspired by the WP V ware. The earliest Type 1 juglets – with the globular body – were found in the Land of Israel in assemblages from the MB2B. The latest BLwmw Type 1 juglet dated to the time of Amenhotep the 1st. Early in the 18th Egyptian Dynasty. One can assume that the production technique on the wheel made it difficult for the Cypriot potters to manufacture vessels without a base so they flattened the bottom part of the body and thereby created the Type 2a juglets. These juglets were found in assemblages from the MB2B and in assemblages from the beginning of the LB1A, before the start of the importation of BR I ware. In light of the chronology of the assemblages, it seems that the change from juglets with a globular body without a base to a globular body with a flat base transpired over a short period of time. During the transition from the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age in the Land of Israel, the Cypriot potters modified the form of
the juglets from those with an almost globular body to the Type 2b juglets that have a slightly elongated spherical body. This type was more suitable for production on a fast wheel. These juglets were found in assemblages from the Late Bronze Age, mainly in assemblages that predate the beginning of the importation of the Base Ring 1 ware. In only one instance was a BR I juglet found together with a Type 2b grey juglet. These two vessels indicate that the start of the importation of the BR I juglets coincided with the end of the importation of the grey juglets. This overlapping was apparently short-lived and it may assist us in understanding what were the earliest types of BR I ware that was imported into the Land of Israel from Cyprus. The trade in grey juglets waned at the same time as the trade in the BR I juglets commenced. It is reasonable to assume that the demand for quality BR I juglets resulted in the decline for the demand of the grey juglets and brought about the halt in the production and trade of the latter. The trade in quality juglets compelled potters on the Syrian/Lebanese coast, and even the potters in the Land of Israel, to produce similar juglets. In light of the finds it seems that the production and trade of local juglets was both marginal and minimal. The Type 2a–b juglets imported from Cyprus were very popular and they constituted at least 90% of all the grey juglets. The locally produced juglets were mainly distributed in sites in the mountainous regions of the Land of Israel and most of the imported juglets were found in port sites and on the large tells in the country. The latest Cypriot imported BLwmw juglets were fond side by side with LHIIIA:2 vessels in tombs at Tell el-Ajjul and can dated according to the Mycenean chronology. The last juglet inspired by the BLwmw shape were found in tomb 101 at the cemetery in Tell es-Sacidiyeh in the Jordan Valley (PRITCHARD 1980: fig. 3:4).
320 Eli Yannai Bibliography AMIRAN, R.
GRANT, E. and WRIGHT, G.E.
1960
1938
1969
A Late Bronze Age II Pottery Group from a Tomb in Jerusalem. Eretz-Israel 6:25*–37* (Hebrew); English Summary p. 27). Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem.
ARTZY, M. and ASARO, F. 1979
Origin of Tell el-Yahudiyah Ware found in Cyprus. RDAC :135–150.
ÅSTRÖM, P. 1957
The Middle Cypriote Bronze Age. Lund.
1972
The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Vol. IV: 1C, The Late Cypriote Bronze Age, Architecture and Pottery. Lund.
GUY, P.L.O. and ENGBERG, R.M. 1938
Tomb 1 of Second Millennum BCE at Yiftahcel. cAtiqot 44:67–95.
Megiddo Tombs, OIP 33, Chicago.
HENNESSY J.B. 1964
Stephania a Middle and Late Bronze Age Cemetery in Cyprus, London.
HOLLADAY, J.S. 1997
BARDA L. and BRAUN E. 2003
Ain Shams Excavations IV, Haverford.
The Eastern Delta During the Hyksos and PreHyksos Periods: Toward a Systemic/Socioeconomic Understanding, 184–252, in: E.D. OREN (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, Philadelphia.
ILAN, D., GADOT, Y. and YANNAI, E. forthc. Two Burial Caves at cAra – Israel. IAA Reports.
BEN ARIEH, S.
KAPLAN, F., HARBOTTLE, M.G. and SAYRE, E.
2004
1984
Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim, IAA Reports 23, Jerusalem.
BERGOFFEN, C. 2001
The Base Ring Pottery from Tel el-cAjjul, 31–50, in: P. ÅSTRÖM (ed.), The Chronology of Base Ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-made Ware. Stockholm.
Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware: A Re-Evaluation, in: P.M. RICE (ed.), Pots and Potters, Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology, Los Angeles.
KARAGEORGHIS V. 1965
Nouveaux documents pour l'étude du bronze récent à Chypre, Paris.
COURTOIS, J.-C.
KEMPINSKI, A., GERSHUNY, L. and SCHEFTELOWITZ, N.
1981
2002
Alashia II. Les tombes d’Enkomi, le mobilier funéraire (fouilles C. F.-A. Schaeffer 1947–1965), Paris.
DOTHAN, M. and PORATH, Y. 1993
Ashdod V, Excavations of Area G. The Forth-Sixth Seasons of Excavations 1968–1970, cAtiqot 23. Jerusalem.
DUNCAN, J.G. 1930
Corpus of Dated Palestinian Pottery. London.
EISENSTADT, I. ARABAS, K. and ABLAS, Z. 2004
A Late Bronze Age Burial Cave at Zawata, 77–16, in: H. HIZMI and A. DE- GROOT (eds.), Burial Caves and Sites in Judea and Samaria, from the Bronze and Iron Ages, JSP 4, Jerusalem.
Middle Bronze Age, 109–175, in: A. KEMPINSKI (ed.), Tel Kabri, The 1986–1993 Excavations Seasons. Tel Aviv.
KLAMER, C. 1981
A Late Bronze Age Burial Cave near Shechem, Qadmoniot 53–54:30–34 (Hebrew).
LEONARD, A. Jr. 1994
An Index to the Late Bronze Age Aegean Pottery from Syria-Palestine, Jonsered.
LOUD, G. 1948
Megiddo II, OIP 62, Chicago.
MACALISTER, R.A.S. 1912
The Excavations of Gezer III, London.
EPSTEIN, C.
MAGEN, Y. and EISENSTADT, I.
1966
2004
Palestinian Bichrom Ware, Leiden.
FISCHER, P.M. and SADEQ, M. 2000
Tell el-cAjjul 1999. A Joint Palestinian-Swedish Field Projects: First Season Preliminary Report, Ä&L10: 211–226.
Ancient Burial Caves in Samaria, 1–76, in: H. HIZMI and A. DE-GROOT (eds.), Burial Caves and Sites in Judea and Samaria, from the Bronze and Iron Ages, JSP 4, Jerusalem.
MACKEY, E.J.H. and MURRAY, M.A.
GERSHUNY, L.
1952
1991
OREN, E.D.
Zoomorphic Clay Vases and Ruyta in Israel of the Second Millennium BCE, Ph.D. Dissertation. Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Ancient Gaza V, London.
1969
Cypriot Imports in the Palestinian Late Bronze Age I Context, Opuscula Atheniensia 9:127–150.
forthc. Tombs at Bahan – Israel, cAtiqot.
1973
The Northern Cemetery of Beth Shan. Leiden.
GJERSTAD, E.
PETRIE, W.M.F.
1926
1898
Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus. Uppsala.
Deshasheh, London.
New Typology and Chronology of the Grey Lustrous Wheel Made Ware in Israel 321
1906
Hyksos and Israelite Cities, London.
STEWART, J.R.
1930
Beth-Pelet I, London.
1955
1931
Ancient Gaza I: Tell el Ajjul, London.
When did BR Ware First Occur in Palestine? BASOR 138:47–49.
1932
Ancient Gaza II: Tell el Ajjul, London.
TUFNELL, O., INGE, H.C., and HARDING, L.
1933
Ancient Gaza III: Tell el Ajjul, London.
1940
1934
Ancient Gaza IV: Tell el Ajjul, London.
TUFNELL O.
1952
City of Shepherd Kings, London.
1958
Lachish II. The Fosse Temple, London. Lachish IV. The Bronze Age, London.
PETRIE, W.M.F., and BRUNTON G.
VAUGHAN S. J.
1924
1997
Sedment II, London.
PETRIE, W.M.F, BRUNTON, G. and MURRAY, M.A. 1923
Lahun II, London.
PORATH, Y., DAR, S. and APPELBAUM, S. 1985. The History and Archaeology of Emek-Hefer, Tel Aviv. POTTS, T.F., COLLEDGE, S.M. and EDWARDS, P.C. 1985
Preliminary Report on a Sixth Season of Excavations by the University of Sydney at Pella in Jordan (1983/84), ADAJ 29: 181–210.
PRITCHARD, J.B. 1980
The Cemetery at Tell es-Sacidiyeh, Jordan. Philadelphia.
SALLER S. J. 1964
The Excavations at Dominus Flevit (Mount Olivet, Jerusalem) Part II. The Jebusite Burial Place, Jerusalem.
SCHAEFFER, C.F.A. 1949
Ugaritica II, Paris.
SHIPTON, G.M. 1939
Notes on the Megiddo Pottery of Strata VI–XX, Chicago.
SJÖQVIST, E. 1940
Problems of the Late Cypriote Bronze Age, Stockholm.
STEINDORFF, G. 1937
Aniba, Hamburg-New York.
Late Cypriot Base Ring Ware: Studies in Raw Materials and Technology, 337–368, in: A. MIDDLETON and I. FREESTONE (eds.), Recent Developments in Ceramic Petrology – British Museum Occasional Paper 81, London.
WRIGHT, G.E. 1961. The Archaeology of Palestine, 73–112, in: G.E. WRIGHT, The Bible and the Ancient Near East. YADIN, Y., AHARONI, Y., AMIRAN, R., DOTHAN, M., DUNAYEVSKI, E. and PERROT, J. 1960
Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations 1956, Jerusalem.
YADIN, Y., AHARONI Y., DOTHAN, T., DOTHAN, M., AMIRAN, R. and PERROT, J. 1961
Hazor III–IV (Plates), Jerusalem.
YANNAI, E. 2000
A Late Bronze Age Tomb at Jatt, cAtiqot 39:49–82.
2005
Late Bronze Age Pottery from Tombs 12 and 13 at Tell Jatt, Sharon Plain, cAtiqot 49:13–30.
YANNAI E. GORZALCZANY, A. and PEILSTÖKER, M. 2003
A Group of Vessels from the Syrian Coast Found in the Coastal Plain of Israel, Levant 35: 101–116.
forthc. Narrow Base Dipper Juglets Imported from the Syrian-Lebanese Coast.
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.
Band XXVII
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.
forthcoming
BETTINA BADER, Tell el-Dabca XIX. Auaris und Memphis im Mittleren Reich und in der Hyksoszeit. Vergleichsanalyse der materiellen Kultur.
forthcoming
KARIN KOPETZKY, Tell el-Dabca XX. Die Chronologie der Siedlungskeramik der Zweiten Zwischenzeit aus Tell el- Dabca. Teil I: Auswertung und Datierung; Teil II: Abbildungen und Tabellen.
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. Vienna 2007.
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.
forthcoming
PETER FISCHER, Abu al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley, Volume I: The Early Bronze Age.
forthcoming
CLAUS REINHOLDT, Der frühbronzezeitliche Schmuckhortfund. Ägina und die Ägäis im Goldzeitalter des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Mit einem Beitrag von A.G. Karydas und Ch. Zarkadas. Ägina Kolonna, Forschungen und Ergebnisse 2.
forthcoming
DAVID A. ASTON, Burial Assemblages of Dynasty 21–25. Chronology – Typology – Developments.
forthcoming
JÖRG WEILHARTNER, Testimonia. Die literarischen Zeugnisse über das antike Aigina von Homer bis in byzantinische Zeit. Ägina Kolonna, Forschungen und Ergebnisse 3.
VERLAG DER ÖSTERREICHISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN
