The Enigma of the Hyksos: Changing Clusters and Migration in the Near Eastern Bronze Age; Collected Papers of a Workshop Held in Vienna 4th-6th of ... of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant, 12) [4] 3447117370, 9783447117371

Table of contents :
01 Titelei CAENL 12
02 Vorspann CAENL 12
03 Preface CAENL 12
04 Frangipane CAENL 12
05 D’Andrea CAENL 12
06 Koliński CAENL 12
07 Tunca, Léon CAENL 12
08 Bietak CAENL 12
09 Heinz, Catanzariti CAENL 12
10 Charaf CAENL 12
11 Doumet-Serhal, Boschloos CAENL 12
12 Ben-Tor CAENL 12
13 Ahrens, Kopetzky CAENL 12
14 Vilain CAENL 12
15 Marcus CAENL 12
16 Ksiezak CAENL 12
17 Sala CAENL 12
18 Gómez-Senovilla 12
19 Prell,Rahmstorf, Ialongo CAENL 12
20 Mourad CAENL 12
21 Kharobi, Maaranen, Stantis, Zakrzewski, Schutkowski CAENL 12
22 Wilhelm CAENL 12
23 Richter CAENL 12
24 Bietak Prell CAENL 12

Citation preview

CAENL Manfred Bietak and Silvia Prell (Eds.)

The Enigma of the Hyksos VOLUME IV Changing Clusters and Migration in the Near Eastern Bronze Age

Harrassowitz

12

The Enigma of the Hyksos Volume IV

© by the author This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc by 4.0 license DOI: 10.13173/9783447117371.001

Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant CAENL Edited by Manfred Bietak, Rahim Shayegan and Willeke Wendrich Volume 12

2021

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden

The Enigma of the Hyksos Volume IV Changing Clusters and Migration in the Near Eastern Bronze Age Collected Papers of a Workshop held in Vienna 4th−6th of December 2019 Edited by Manfred Bietak and Silvia Prell

2021

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden

Cover illustration: Silvia Prell. Publication of this book was supported by a grant of Fritz Thyssen Stiftung für Wissenschaftsförderung. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 668640).

This publication has undergone the process of international blind peer review. Open Access: Wo nicht anders festgehalten, ist diese Publikation lizenziert unter der Creative Commons Lizenz Namensnennung 4.0 Open access: Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This publication is licensed under the Creative Commons licence CC BY 4.0. Further information: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources (identified by a source citation) such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at https://www.dnb.de/. For further information about our publishing program consult our website https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de/ © by the authors. Published by Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2021

ISSN 2627-8022 eISSN 2701-5831 DOI series 10.13173/2627-8022

ISBN 978-3-447-11332-8 Ebook ISBN 978-3-447-39226-6 DOI 10.13173/9783447117371

55

In Memory of Jochen Holger Schutkowski (1956–2020)

© by the author This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc by 4.0 license DOI: 10.13173/9783447117371.005

6

5

Table of Contents Preface ................................................................................................................................................... 9 by Manfred Bietak and Silvia Prell Inter-cultural Connections and Changing Relations from the Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age in Eastern Anatolia..................................................................................................13 by Marcella Frangipane Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE.......... 31 by Marta D’Andrea Changing Clusters and Migrations in the Central Jezirah Region (NE Syria).....................................83 by Rafał Koliński About a Particular Type of Tomb in the Syrian Jezirah and at Tell el-Dab‘a in Egypt....................... 107 by Önhan Tunca and Sophie Léon The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analysis of their Sacred Architecture, Part II.............. 121 by Manfred Bietak The Role of Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa‘a Plain of Lebanon in the History of Avaris or Did the Hinterland of the Northern Levant Have Any Bearing on the Delta Affairs?................... 149 by Marlies Heinz and Antonietta Catanzariti Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon: Preliminary Observations.................................................................................................................... 175 by Hanan Charaf Sidon and Tell Dab‘a – an Example of Levantine/Egyptian Commercial and Cultural Relations: A Step Towards the Understanding of the Hyksos Phenomenon........................................................223 by Claude Doumet-Serhal and Vanessa Boschloos Egyptian-Levantine Relations in the Hyksos Period: The Southern Levant vs. the Northern Levant....................................................................................243 by Daphna Ben-Tor Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions: The Diffusion of Looted Middle Kingdom Objects Found in the Northern Levant, Egypt and Nubia................................................................................ 253 by Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky A Crisis? What Crisis? Challenging Times at Tell el-Dab‘a during the Second Intermediate Period...................................... 315 by Sarah Vilain The Functional and Social Role of the Levantine Painted Ware at Middle Bronze Age Tel Ifshar ......................................................................................................... 333 by Ezra S. Marcus

6

The Middle Bronze Age Settlement Pattern in the Wadi Tumilat (Eastern Nile Delta)..................... 365 by Aleksandra E. Ksiezak Clusters of Asiatics in the Nile Delta in the Early 2nd Millennium BCE: A View from the Wadi Tumilat........................................................................................................... 395 by Maura Sala Duration or Cessation? Dealing with Temporal Uncertainty in the Study of Ancient Settlements.... 417 by Silvia Gómez-Senovilla Weights and Weight Systems in Tell el-Dab‘a in the Middle and Late Bronze Age........................... 437 by Silvia Prell, Lorenz Rahmstorf and Nicola Ialongo Transforming Egypt into the New Kingdom: The Movement of Ideas and Technology across Geopolitical, Cultural and Social Borders........................................................................................... 457 by Anna-Latifa Mourad Contribution of Bioanthropology to Defining the Tell el-Dab‛a Population in the Eastern Delta: Preliminary Findings........................................................................................................................... 477 by Arwa Kharobi, Nina Maaranen, Chris Stantis, Sonia Zakrzewski and Holger Schutkowski Hurrians and the Hurrian Language – Migration or the Diffusion of a Language?........................... 491 by Gernot Wilhelm Hurrian and Hurrians in the Southwest. Cuneiform Evidence for the Middle and Late Bronze Ages............................................................... 503 by Thomas Richter Concluding Remarks............................................................................................................................ 545 by Manfred Bietak and Silvia Prell ..........................................................................................................

Einleitung

9

Preface This volume comprises the collected papers of a workshop organised by the ERC Advanced Grant‚ The Enigma of the Hyksos‘ (grant agreement no. 668640) under the direction of Manfred Bietak (Austrian Academy of Sciences) held in Vienna from the 4th – 6th of December 2019. The workshop, an integral component of the scientific networking of multidisciplinary specialists, was highly relevant to the project. Initiated in 2016, the innovative character of this project was its interdisciplinary focus, by bringing together archaeological, historical, theoretical and analytical approaches, to clarify, for the first time in its recorded history, how rulers of foreign origin gained control over ancient Egypt. The aim of the workshop, titled Changing Clusters and Migration in the Near Eastern Bronze Age, was to bring together international researchers dealing with the general concept of migration, but also related material culture, textual sources and bioarchaeological approaches. The topic dealt in particular with the historical and socio-cultural situation in Egypt, the eastern Mediterranean and Mesopotamia in the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE. In a time where, due to the pandemic, workshops and conferences had to be cancelled, postponed or held online, we are especially grateful that we still had the opportunity to meet with participating colleagues and an interested audience, in person. We are grateful to all participants, who, because of their expertise, made this workshop a valuable event, in pursuing the question of the origins of the so-called Hyksos and their predecessors settling in Egypt’s Eastern Delta from the Middle Kingdom onwards. This workshop followed two earlier ones held during the ASOR Conference 2017 in Boston and the ICAANE Conference taking place in Munich in 2018. The collected papers of those workshops are published in the series Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant 9 (Wiesbaden 2019). Although the focus of the workshop centred on the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE, Marcella Frangipane’s (La Sapienza Università di Roma) contribution, using Arslantepe as an example, demonstrates the fact that migration was already a concept one had to deal with in earlier times. Eastern Anatolia and the Upper Euphrates and Tigris region have always been a political and cultural border, and an arena for the movement of peoples, changing clusters and the continuous formation of new hybrid cultures since the Neolithic. Therefore, comparisons can be drawn by examining these earlier movements, to better understand what happened in the Near East at the end of the Early and, respectively, the start of the Middle Bronze Age.

Marta D’Andrea (La Sapienza Università di Roma) analyses the archaeological record for the time-span between c. 2600 and c. 1900 BCE and isolates at least three stages when clusters of material culture changed in the Levant in response to socio-political and/or socio-economic re-configuration. Transformations can be recognised in the transition from Early Bronze III to Early Bronze IV, between ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ Early Bronze IV phases, and during the transition from the Early to the Middle Bronze Age. She shows how sub-regional areas changed differentially during those periods along with macrolocal transformations, suggesting the importance of re-examining meso- and micro-local trajectories for a better interpretation of inter-regional dynamics and how the study of these processes in a long durée perspective may prove useful to research into the later Middle Bronze Age phases. Rafał Koliński’s contribution (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań) also illuminates the transition from Early to Middle Bronze Age, especially focusing on the Ḫabur region. Here, a radical change occurred in the funerary customs at the turn of the Early to the Middle Bronze Age. Pit graves often containing disarticulated human remains were replaced by various types of chamber and shaft graves, often accommodating more than one burial. In addition, animal offerings now appeared in and around graves, and also the deposited funerary equipment was subject to change. Graves were now also installed in houses or in close proximity. Finally, at the beginning of 2nd millennium BCE a new painted pottery decoration style, the so-called Ḫabur Ware appeared and together with attested personal names this points to a significant change in the population of this region at the turn of the 3rd millennium BCE. Staying in the Ḫabur region, Önhan Tunca (University of Liège) and Sophie Léon (University of Lille) show a striking similarity between a particular method of tomb roofing in Chagar Bazar, Tell Beydar and Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris. These similarities are puzzling. First, because there is a huge geographical distance between the two sites in the Ḫabur and Tell el-Dab‘a in Egypt. And second, there is also quite a large chronological gap, with the tombs in the Ḫabur dating to the Early Bronze Age and the tombs at Tell el-Dab‘a to the Middle Bronze Age. Nevertheless, one may consider a possible ‘ethnic’ connection, although such an assumption has to remain hypothetical. In an earlier contribution, Manfred Bietak (Austrian Academy of Sciences) demonstrated that, in the Middle Bronze Age, the best parallels to the major broad-room temple at Tell el-Dab‘a (Temple III) seemed to have a northernmost Syrian origin. Here, however, he shows that the tripartite bent-axis temple at Tell el-

© by the author This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc by 4.0 license DOI: 10.13173/9783447117371.009

10

Kapitel 1

Dab‘a (Temple II) has its best parallels approximately in the same region, but reaches out to Mesopotamia as far as Assur. Taking the most similar temples into account, it is again the region of northernmost Syria and northern Mesopotamia where one has to look for the spiritual breeding ground of, at least, part of the elite of Avaris in the period just preceding the Hyksos dynasty, as both temples were constructed in the 14th Dynasty (c. late 18th and first half of the 17th century BCE). Obviously, the spiritual background of the 14th Dynasty decision makers can be found in northernmost Syria and northern Mesopotamia – a region which was the home of both Western Semiticspeaking peoples and the Hurrians who played an important part in this region. One should, therefore, not exclude the possibility that the Hurrians took part in the establishment of the pre-Hyksos elites in Avaris. Further south, in modern Lebanon, Marlies Heinz (Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg) and Antonietta Catanzariti (Smithsonian Institution), in a keynote lecture, address the question: to which extent did Kamid el-Loz, a settlement with a history spanning over two millennia, participate in local, regional and supra regional political and economic events, and explore possible ties to Egypt during the Middle Bronze Age. Hanan Charaf (Lebanese University, Beirut) aims to better define the existing cultural borders, during the Middle Bronze Age, in modern Lebanon. Here, the Middle Bronze Age cultural appearance depended heavily on Egyptian and Canaanite cultural interference, a dependency, which aggravated any discussion on the indigenous features of the Middle Bronze Age in the country for a long time, as new excavations were scarce during the civil war and / or were not published comprehensively. As of 1993, however, relative stability has encouraged the initiation or resumption of fieldwork, allowing new evidential records for the Middle Bronze Age to emerge. This new, and welcome data, facilitates attempts to identify regionalism in Lebanon by specifying architectural and material cultural markers. Staying in Lebanon, Claude Doumet-Serhal (British Museum London) and Vanessa Boschloos (Metropolitan Museum of Art New York) demonstrate once again the close ties between Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a which can be assessed by the exchange of artefacts, existing commercial ties, and the transmission of ideas, beliefs and concepts. Besides similarities in material culture, circulation of pottery and architectural concepts, burial customs also display certain commonalities. In Sidon (College Site) the evolution from MB IIA to MB IIB manifested itself in a kind of correlation of human interments with surrounding architecture, in what appear to indicate cultic functions. Similar arrangements, with a separate area for the dead, are also found in Tell Dab‘a. During the 14th Dynasty, chambers were often added on the western side of the

house, which served for the burial of deceased family members. Further proof of the relationship between the two sites manifests itself because this kind of spatial organisation ended in both places at the same time (Sidon, stratum 6, Tell el-Dab‘a, stratum E/2–1). The nature of Egyptian-Levantine relationships during the Hyksos period and the scholarly controversy over some key issues is the subject of Daphna Ben-Tor’s paper (The Israel Museum Jerusalem). As the commercial and cultural relations with the Levant shifted during the Hyksos Period (however, on a much smaller scale), to the southern Levant, Ben-Tor proposes that the evidence from Egypt and the Levant, especially the picture provided by the development and distribution of scarabs, points to Palestine as the most likely place of origin of the foreign settlers at Tell el-Dab‘a during the Second Intermediate Period. Alexander Ahrens (German Archaeological Institute) and Karin Kopetzky (Austrian Academy of Sciences) address the issues behind the fact that Egyptian prestige objects, dating to the Middle Kingdom, appear in find contexts in the northern Levant and Nubia. They show that, with the decline of the Middle Kingdom administration, the reuse of funerary and temple goods began at the same time as the phenomenon of tomb robbing, especially in the Memphite/Fayyum region. The inhabitants of Avaris appear to have been involved in this venture, to compensate for losses which stemmed from disturbed trade relations with the south. They conclude that most of the Middle Kingdom objects found in the Levant, among them royal objects made of precious materials, were, most likely, traded during the Second Intermediate Period. It seems probable that Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris had a pivotal function in the distribution of these looted objects. Sarah Vilain’s paper (The Hyksos Enigma Project) deals with pottery. By investigating materials originating from the settlement, from tombs and from imported ceramics in Tell el-Dab‘a, she assesses the various developments throughout its stratigraphy. Hyksos rule led to significant shifts in the function of spaces and to a densification of the occupation. Concomitant evolutions in the funerary record suggest the occurrence of deep social and economic changes. Imported Levantine and Cypriot ceramics and the circulation of Egyptian Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglets, in the Eastern Mediterranean, show the instability of the site’s foreign connections at that time. The imports from the Levant dramatically fell while imports from Cyprus rose to some extent but seem not to have compensated the losses. This economic demise probably contributed to the fall of the 15th Dynasty. Ezra Marcus (University of Haifa) focuses on a particular class of painted jugs and juglets which belong to the class labelled Levantine Painted Ware (LPW). This pottery appeared at the beginning of the

Einleitung

Middle Bronze Age in the Levant and spread from there to Egypt. It can be considered one of the hallmarks of the period. Monochrome LPW is known from ‘Ezbet Rushdi (the older and originally Egyptian part of Tell el-Dab‘a), while the later fancy bichrome LPW jugs first appear in Tell el-Dab‘a in Area F/I (both phase H = stratum d/2). The latter has a wider functional and cultural role and shows that the carriers of the Middle Bronze Age Levantine culture brought with them, or imported, a wider range of bichrome LPW forms, possibly indicating elite drinking practices. This early example of Levantine Painted Ware, in Tell el-Dab‘a, may indicate that elite drinking traditions were introduced, by the Western Asiatic predecessors of the Hyksos, into the Egyptian Delta. Aleksandra E. Ksiezak’s paper (University of Toronto) summarises the results of a re-evaluation of the collected data for both the settlement and the entire site system of Tell el-Maskhuta in the Wadi Tumilat. This has resulted in a better understanding of the site’s function and development in the Middle Bronze Age. Contrary to previously accepted theories, evidence shows that Tell el-Maskhuta (and the entire settlement pattern within the Wadi Tumilat) was involved in long-distance, over-land trade with both the southern and the northern Levant, with Tell el-Dab‘a as a pivotal point. Therefore, the Wadi Tumilat, and its settlements, must be considered as a significant southern corridor leading in and out of Egypt, via a southern desert trade route traversing the Sinai Peninsula towards the Negev Desert and the Jordan Valley. By means of Nearest Neighbor Analysis (NNA), Site Territorial Analysis (STA), Site Catchment Analysis (SCA), and the application of the Exploitable Threshold Model (ETM) it becomes clear that Tell el-Maskhuta acted as a gateway settlement in the context of long-distance overland trade. Maura Sala (Facoltà di Teologia di Lugano) discusses the issue that Western Asiatic people, who arrived by land in the Wadi Tumilat from the desert areas beyond Egypt’s eastern border, originated from a different background and different socio-economic networks than the population in the harbour town of Tell el-Dab‘a. Identifying the geographical affiliation of these groups remains complicated, but microregional specificities in the Wadi Tumilat material culture, and the distinctive features of their funerary practices, daily-life equipment and general lifestyle, allows us to trace – albeit in a preliminary way – connections to specific sub-regions and socioeconomic networks, which point to an origin, at least for some of those settlers, in the southern Levant. Staying with modern tools within archaeology, Silvia Gómez-Senovilla (The Hyksos Enigma Project) presents her preliminary results of the distribution of certain house-types in the areas of Mesopotamia and the Levant. This is achieved by applying map distributions, using ArcGIS, which covers a span from 2500 BCE to 1500 BCE. The

11

study of habitation patterns in antiquity faces many challenges, but numerous advances in settlement and landscape archaeology, in recent years, have produced an ever-growing field of applications whose full potential is not realised at the moment. The aim of this paper is to start a critical discussion about visualisation techniques and traditional methods of study, as well as to introduce a new methodology which could be applied to the analysis of domestic spaces, in the future, by employing methods like Aoristic Weighting or three-dimensional GIS. The contribution by Silvia Prell (The Hyksos Enigma Project), Lorenz Rahmstorf and Nicola Ialongo (both Georg-August-University Göttingen) deals with weights from the Middle Kingdom, the Second Intermediate Period and the New Kingdom found at Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris. The collected data is a rare example of stratified sets of weights from an urban context in Ancient Egypt. As they cover a time-span of over six centuries, the possibility arose to investigate the changes in material, in shape and in metrology. The accessible weights from the site were tested using Cosine Quantogram Analysis and Frequency Distribution Analysis and compared to weight sets from Middle Bronze Age Western Asia and the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean. Based on the available data, the system represented by the ‘sphendonoid’ weights of Tell el-Dab‘a, comprising iron-rich sedimentary rock (hydrohematite), was compatible with both the ‘Mesopotamian’ (c. 8.3 g) and the ‘Ugaritic’ (c. 9.4 g) shekel. The adoption and use of weights with a specific morphology, material and metrology used in Syria and Mesopotamia since the Early Bronze Age, suggest that, by the advanced Middle Bronze Age, the Egyptian Eastern Delta was much more incorporated in international trade than it had been before. Anna-Latifa Mourad’s (The Hyksos Enigma Project) paper summarises the mechanisms which may have contributed to the movement of ‘foreign’ Near Eastern ideas and technology into Egypt via intensified Middle Bronze Age relations, as Egypt witnessed significant political, cultural and social transformations between the Middle and New Kingdoms. Like the change of the weight system discussed in the contribution above, the Hyksos have been typically associated with the introduction of a host of ideas and entities from the Near East, including the horse, the chariot, as well as a number of weapons and even musical instruments. Summarising the appearance of these objects in Egypt, it is generally observed that most of the known, concrete, wellprovenanced and published attestations initially either occur well before, or only after the Second Intermediate Period. The paper presented by Arwa Kharobi, Nina Maaranen, Chris Stantis (all Hyksos Enigma Project), Sonia Zakrzewski (University of Southampton) and Holger Schutkowski (Hyksos Enigma Project)

12

Kapitel 1

highlights: the potential of bioarchaeological investigations using an integrated suite of osteological analyses in an archaeological framework, offers an overview of the field of bioarchaeology, and presents some preliminary findings obtained from non-destructive macroscopic (dental nonmetric trait and palaeopathological) analysis and biochemical (aDNA, stable isotope) analysis. Thomas Richter (Goethe-University Frankfurt) and Gernot Wilhelm (Julius-Maximilians-University Würzburg) address the question of the origins of the Hyksos from a linguistic/onomastic point of view. The highlight evidence derived from material culture, burial customs and architectural remains which point to a possible origin, of part of Hyksos elite, in the northern Levant. Theoretically, the Hurrians are also back in the game as a part of the carriers of Hyksos rule. Thomas Richter is compiling all known (actual or presumed) Hurrian language remains from the southern Levant as far as they date to the Middle and Late Bronze Age, but the evidence is scarce. A look at Egyptian sources and local Iron Age traditions shows, however, that the Hurrian language must have played a not insignificant role; which is at least true

for the Late Bronze Age as discussed in more detail in Gernot Wilhelm’s keynote lecture. Finally, we would like to thank the European Research Council and the Austrian Academy of Sciences with special thanks to its research grant office. We also want to express our sincerest gratitude to the ‘Fritz Thyssen Stiftung’ for funding the workshop and this publication. We are grateful to all colleagues for participating in the workshops and contributing to the proceedings. Our thanks also go to our colleagues, who helped with their expertise, and our special gratitude to the colleagues peer reviewing this volume. For technical support, we want to thank Kim-Denise Uhe, Rosa Matic, Mouna Mounayer, Dominik Fill and Patrick Aprent. This volume is dedicated to the memory of Holger Schutkowski, Professor of Bio-Archaeology at Bournemouth University, UK, who headed the bioarchaeological team of the Hyksos Enigma at his Alma Mater. From the very beginning his contributions to the ERC project were invaluable, and he also encouraged us with his great enthusiasm and cheerfulness. It saddens us that he did not live to see the final results of our joint endeavours.

Vienna, 15th of September 2021 Manfred Bietak

Silvia Prell

Inter-cultural Connections and Changing Relations

13

Inter-cultural Connections and Changing Relations from the Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age in Eastern Anatolia by Marcella Frangipane 1

Abstract

Eastern Anatolia and the Upper Euphrates and Upper Tigris regions have always been a cultural and political border and the arena of population movements, interaction-integration processes, and changing clusters since the Neolithic. These relations changed in type and nature in the course of time in connection with the formation of new political entities and centralised systems, increasingly tending to define their territories. The first significant change occurred with the birth of Early State societies in the 4th millennium BCE, when the vast Greater Mesopotamian area – gradually built up since the Neolithic through constant, intense, multidirectional, and varying relations – reached its full consolidation with the so-called Uruk expansion phenomenon. The emergence of economic centralisation of staple products and labour also started to demand for embryonic political boundaries, albeit approximate, creating new types of relation networks. The Upper Euphrates region, in the 4th and early 3rd millennia BCE, was a hub of contacts and relations linking the northern areas of Greater Mesopotamia to Central Anatolia first, and to the Kura-Araxes groups of south Caucasus slightly later. An important role in these new networks was played by pastoral groups, which were moving along the mountains of northern / north-eastern Anatolia and Caucasus, all rich in metal ores, and were also soon attracted by the emerging centres on the Upper Euphrates valley that opened for them the way towards Mesopotamia and the Levant. These changing cultural and political boundaries in the course of time linked the various regions of the Near East in a multiplicity of ways, forming a sort of ‘cultural region’ with several political entities and multiple identities at different levels (local, regional, and interregional on a wider scale), which was the theatre of movements, migrations and continuous formation of new hybrid cultures. Arslantepe, on the crossroad of these encounters, is presented here as an ideal testimony of the complexity of these interactions and events, which are all reflected in its millenarian history. The article is mainly focused on the rich evidences from Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age periods, also highlighting at the end the role the site and the entire Anatolian Euphrates valley played as a new ‘frontier’ between the emerging and expanding Middle Assyrian and Hittite Kingdoms and empires.

Sapienza Università di Roma; marcella.frangipane@

1

fondazione.uniroma1.it.

Some Preliminary Reflections

The Upper Euphrates valley in Eastern Anatolia has always been – and still is – a cultural and political border between different civilisations and, together with the Upper Tigris region, had been an arena of population movements and changing clusters since the Neolithic (Fig. 1). The connection networks established in the course of the Late Chalcolithic and Bronze Age were, to some extent, partly the legacy of the earlier long lasting interregional relations that had linked the Taurus region to the northern Levant, the Northern Zagros – Southern Caucasus mountains, the Central Anatolia plateau, and finally Upper Mesopotamia, in the course of Neolithic developments. Recent multidisciplinary analyses of the ancient DNA from 110 individuals from Anatolia, Southern Caucasus and the Levant, carried out by an international team coordinated and led by the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, have evidenced a shared mixed ancestry between Anatolian and Caucasian populations dating back to the Neolithic and continuing up to the Bronze Age.2 This may have been the result of widespread mobility involving intensive multidirectional relationships between communities over a very wide area, which perhaps also included Northern Mesopotamia.3 The large-scale inter-cultural connections following the so-called ‘Neolithisation’ phenomenon and the spread of the new food-producing economy and village life probably made the Near East the theatre of movements, migrations, and various types of interactions (inter-community marriages, alliances between villages, large-scale kinship relations, periodical meetings, etc.) all over the vast area involved in the ‘Neolithic Revolution’ (the socalled Fertile Crescent and Central Anatolia) and beyond. This broad system of dispersed interactions at various levels appears to have produced cultural dissemination and hybridisation, also fostering the formation of changing cultural and socio-political boundaries in the course of time. Perhaps the selfperception of cultural identities by the different populations living in this multifarious area, and their sense of belonging to and their ties to their group and territory may have been established at various levels: local identities (clan, tribe, village), regional identities (broader alliances or sodalities between communities), supraregional identities (cultural and 2 3

Skourtanioti et al. 2020. Frangipane 2015.

© by the author This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc by 4.0 license DOI: 10.13173/9783447117371.013

14

Marcella Frangipane

political links on a larger scale, which may have been ideologically identified – as observed in some ethnographic cases – with a common ancestry). Many of these relations have unfortunately not left any unequivocal archaeological evidence, except for shared sets of material culture, and are therefore difficult to prove, especially for the pre- and protohistoric times. It is a pity, for example, that we cannot know, among other things, the languages spoken by those ancient populations and hence the linguistic links between the different groups, which would have shed more light on the history of those groups and their possible multi-level identities, as has been interestingly shown in a noteworthy ethnological study carried out in Burkina Faso.4 The ability of groups of people of different dimensions to move relatively freely and for different reasons, sometimes even over very large distances, in the Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic, was, in my opinion, mainly due to the absence of real ‘political borders’ in pre-state societies, before any solid and stable links had been established between central political institutions and the population of a territory in terms of controlled and regulated flows of goods and services.5 The economic central management of Early States created the need to define a political domain within which (a) the requests from central institutions to the people could be legitimately addressed, and (b) their duties of protection and coordination on behalf of that same population had to be ensured. It is even more difficult to recognise ‘borders’ archaeologically, especially when describing preand proto-historic societies, because this raises the problem of correctly defining ‘material’ or ‘archaeological cultures’6 and understanding the relationship between these recognised, or assumed, cultural entities and the potentially corresponding ethnic and political entities. For archaeologicallydefined cultural assemblages are not monolithic blocks but often refer to overlapping networks of related and dynamically changing cultural cores, which are the outcomes of intense inter-community relationships established over wide areas for millennia, especially during the pre-state phases. 4

5 6

Liberski-Bagnoud 2002. This study has offered very

interesting insights on this subject: in the so-called Kasena territory, different population components lived in different villages or groups of villages, maintaining their own specific identity and language. However, at the same time, they shared a common cultural identity at a broader level, which was perceived as deriving from a common origin, and was reinforced through marriage alliances and the use of a shared second language, which made them bilingual. Frangipane 2021, in press. Childe 1956; Graves-Brown 2007; Roberts and Vander Linden 2011; Robb 2015.

This does not mean, of course, that there were no clear group identities in prehistoric times. On the contrary, the wide spread of Neolithic ways of life in the 7th and 6th millennia BCE, from the mountainous areas of Eastern Anatolia and the Zagros mountains, where the ‘Neolithisation’ processes had begun, to the vast territories of Mesopotamia, accompanied the formation of clearly-defined cultural identities, expressed in many aspects of the ‘material culture’, among which specific elaborated pottery styles, and decorated, often painted ceramics in particular.7 Each of these ‘styles’, even without knowing how far they coincided with homogeneous and self-conscious population groups, certainly characterised specific geographic areas of different dimensions, but whose borders were elusive and continuously intersecting each other. The fact that the dissemination of pottery types and styles over vast areas mostly concerned bowls and open consumption vessels may suggest that this was not the result of trade, but rather of sharing habits and symbols, probably as the effect of people moving in various directions and engaging in social transactions intended to establish and consolidate solidarity, alliances and peaceful relations on a vast scale.8 It was with the emergence of the first hierarchical societies with a tendency to centralise community governance in the 5th and, above all, 4th millennium BCE that a profound transformation took place in the way people and things were moving. While the interactions between the Anatolian and Mesopotamian communities did not decrease, nevertheless they changed in form and nature. There seems to have been a decline in free multidirectional movements of people, which were probably an intrinsic part of their everyday life, in favour of more oriented movements driven by new needs connected with new socio-political conditions (the desire of the ruling elites to expand their power and influence, political conflicts generating pressures on certain groups to migrate, the need to establish solid relationships with other groups, perhaps in order to politically control them and/or exchange goods and resources, etc.). In other words, as societies became increasingly differentiated in economic, social and political terms, their relations began to become more unequal, with certain groups that were probably stronger than others, or perceived as such, playing a ‘leading’ or in some way 7

8

Pottery is the most abundant and well-preserved

archaeological material that has remained us, though certainly many other things may have reflected and displayed these identities. Balossi R estelli 2006; Özdoğan, Başgelen and Kuniholm (eds.) 2011–2014; Tekin 2011; Niewenhuyse, Bernbeck, A kkermans and Rogasch (eds.) 2013. Akkermans 1993, 280–287; Niewenhuyse 2007.

Inter-cultural Connections and Changing Relations

15

Fig. 1 Location of Arslantepe in relation to the main geographical and cultural areas of the Near East prominent role, disseminating their social, political, and economic models. In the wider Mesopotamian world, this role was originally and mainly played by southern societies, although other regions and organisational models at a certain point also began to dominate the scene (among them, the urbanised sites in the Khabour area9). The hierarchical and centralised model had been first established in Southern Mesopotamia from the Ubaid period and spread to the vast neighbouring regions, including not only the northern Mesopotamian plains but also the entire range of mountains and piedmont valleys surrounding them.10 And, I believe that this dense network was made possible by the earlier longlasting and wide-ranging interconnections from the Neolithic period. The links between all these regions (mountains, valleys, and plains) were consolidated on a new basis, while continuing to generate deep hybridisation processes to such an extent that, from Late Ubaid onwards, the whole area may rightly be called ‘Greater Mesopotamia’.11

9 10

11

Oates et al. 2007; McMahon 2020. Stein and Özbal 2007; Carter and Philip (eds.) 2010;

Frangipane 2007; 2018; Peyronel and Vacca 2015; Iamoni (ed.) 2016; Gophnic et al. 2016; Vallet et al. 2019. This term was most used in the past and today is partly abandoned, although it is, in my opinion, very effective.

Sharing common features and behaviours was no longer primarily aimed at reinforcing kinship or solidarity links, eliminating or narrowing differences, solving contentions and conflicts, and promoting peaceful coexistence. And, the new system of relations between politically betterdefined societies probably had the effect of creating a common world, which consolidated the economic and political links between partners/competitors sharing the same, or similar, socio-economic structures. I believe that the phenomenon of the socalled ‘Late Uruk expansion’ in the second half of the 4th millennium was indicative of this new way in which different economic and political entities interacted.12 It is, however, still difficult to recognise any clearly-defined territorial cores with precise borders in the ‘globalised’ system of relations in the Uruk period, although clear traditional regional differences can obviously be identified. On the other hand, the development of an economic system based on the centralisation of primary resources (land, livestock, labour) must have increasingly required a more precise definition of the ‘territories’ 12

For a debate on this topic see Pollock 1992; Algaze

1993; 2001; 2018; Stein 1999; Frangipane and A lgaze 2001; Rothman (ed.) 2001; Butterlin 2003; Frangipane 2009; 2018.

16

Marcella Frangipane

from which these resources could be legitimately extracted. The 4th millennium, in the Mesopotamian environment and in the Near East more generally, was therefore a dynamic ‘transitional period’ between two eras, during which new societies were emerging marking a radical change from the earlier world, with the appearance of unprecedented political and social categories, and forms of civic life.13 These societies were certainly hierarchical and unequal in their internal social structure, but they do not yet appear, in my opinion, to have been closed and monolithic territorially-based political entities. They rather seem to have been very open organisms, inclined to interact – as in the past, though on a new basis – with other communities on a wide geographic scale, but without possessing sufficient power and organisational ability to establish rigidly structured top-down or ‘domination’ interregional policies. If my interpretation is correct, this fostered the creation of a global world in which all communities were able to recognise themselves, while maintaining their own identities, and thereby making it possible to continue interacting widely, perhaps with the idea of mutual benefit, and according to what was still a welcoming capacity, inherited from that old world which was disappearing. This seems to have made these societies rather unstable and prone either to change and develop into something new (as mainly occurred in the more solid urbanised areas) or to collapse. I am addressing these preliminary reflections before presenting the case of Arslantepe and the Upper Euphrates region, firstly, in order to emphasise the substantial differences in the nature and patterns of inter-regional clusters before and after the 3rd millennium BCE – namely, when more mature territorial states were emerging –, and secondly, to show how deeply the long-lasting and multi-directional modes of interaction in the early periods laid the foundations for the construction of that vast geographical and cultural area which, not by chance, we call ‘the Near East’, and by so doing paved the way to establish new types of interregional relations in the Bronze Age.

Arslantepe and the Upper Euphrates Region in the 4th Millennium BCE

In this crucial transition in the second half of the 4th millennium, Arslantepe, in Eastern Anatolia, was one of the powerful emerging political centres in the vast Greater Mesopotamian region, and the northernmost one. The site and the whole Upper Euphrates valley were located in a border zone between different worlds and civilisations (Fig. 1), and the powerful central institutions of period VIA (3400–3200 BCE, Late Chalcolithic 5 in the Greater Mesopotamian chronology14), housed in a huge palatial complex, established intensive relations with different communities from different and distant worlds, attracting various groups living, moving and operating in the region and the surrounding areas within its sphere of political and economic action, systematically interrelating with them and not mainly through trading relations alone.15 The main site’s connections in the 4th millennium BCE were with the Uruk world, on which Arslantepe certainly drew for inspiration, and with which it probably interacted on a continuous basis. Arslantepe was not a ‘colony’, and was not dominated by foreign elites. There is clear evidence of the basically local roots of the growth of centralisation and elite power on the site, but at the same time there is unequivocal evidence of the Mesopotamian origin of the system.16 Its political and economic organisation, revolving around the accumulation and redistribution of staple products, that were continuously put back into circulation to feed a production circuit based on the control of the labour force, was certainly inspired by the Mesopotamian model from its beginnings in the first half of the 4th and perhaps even in the 5th millennia BCE, as evidenced by the site of Degirmentepe in the same Malatya plain.17 But the basic autonomy of this experimental Early State formation is demonstrated not only by the many features of the material culture, but also by the emergence of a very early and peculiar public Palace and by the precocious secularisation it reveals18 (Fig. 2). The data obtained through many decades of systematic excavations at the site suggest that the relationship between the power institutions and the population was based on a bi-polar social structure, quite different from the more complex and multi-stratified composition of the contemporary Mesopotamian communities. Archaeological investigations have shown a strong top-down power, which, precisely because it was not rooted in an ancestral hierarchical social structure, was also 14 15 16

13

Algaze 2013.

17 18

Rothman (ed.) 2001. Frangipane 2016; 2019. Frangipane and Algaze 2001; Rothman (ed.) 2001; Frangipane 2009; 2018.

Esin 1989; Gurdil 2010. Frangipane 2016; 2018; 2019.

Inter-cultural Connections and Changing Relations

Fig. 2 Arslantepe. The period VIA Palace (3400–3200 BCE); a: The ‘Audience Building’ from the south; b: 3D drawing of the Palace complex (by C. Alvaro); c–d: Drawings of two of the most frequently used seals in the Palace

17

18

Marcella Frangipane

paradoxically intrinsically weak, as its rapid collapse demonstrates. The widening in many and different directions of Arslantepe’s external relations in period VIA, when the local rulers were expanding their power and experimenting with their own way to centralisation, while they were apparently not yet able to effectively govern the territory and fully control these many components, was perhaps one of the factors of this weakness. During the Late Chalcolithic period the material culture of Arslantepe and other sites in the Upper Euphrates region, such as Tepecik19 in the Altınova plain, shows that although the primary connections were to the south with the Mesopotamian Late Uruk world 20 (Fig. 3b, d–e, g–h) there were evident signs of increasing interactions with the contemporary cultures of Central and North-Central Anatolia.21 A new class of handmade Red-Black burnished ware that had appeared for the first time at the end of Period VII at Arslantepe developed significantly in period VIA (Fig. 3c). Its pastes, manufacturing techniques, shapes, and general taste reveal close links with the contemporary Central Anatolian production.22 The repertoire of shapes – which include the so-called fruitstands – the firing technique, and the aesthetic taste of two-colour chromatism, evidently comes from Alisar and Alaca models, although with a number of distinctive traits.23 These vessels, in contrast with the main pottery production of the period, were all handmade, and the archaeometric analyses conducted by Pamela Fragnoli at the Austrian Archaeological Institute in Vienna have shown that these wares were made of clay sourced from the same Malatya region, but unlike the clays used to make other ceramic categories, indicating that they were probably the output of different potters.24 These vessels also display a strict selection in terms of the forms and functional categories related to special uses, such as drinking and cult performances. The fruitstands, in particular, have often been found, together with wheel-made examples inspired by them (Fig. 3i), in temples and ceremonial places in the Arslantepe Palace. This pottery, which appeared as early as the end of the previous Period VII25 became fully part, albeit as a minority, of the Arslantepe period VIA repertoire, maintaining its specialised use and function. It may have been brought by groups of non-sedentary peoples moving from the regions surrounding the Malatya plain

Esin 1982. Frangipane 2002. 21 Ökse 2007; Palumbi 2008. 22 Orthmann 1963; Schoop 2005; Steadman et al. 2008. 23 Frangipane and Palmieri 1983, 354–361; Palumbi 19

20

2008a+b; Çalışkan A kgül 2012.

Fragnoli 2018. 25 Balossi R estelli 2019. 24

to the northern and central Anatolian environment, who were included in the life of the Palace as a regularly interacting component, in some way incorporated into the centralised economic system governed by the Arslantepe rulers. Relations with these groups may have created a privileged route linking the mountain ranges south of the Black Sea coast and the Euphrates Valley (Fig. 4). The evidence gathered at Arslantepe suggests that these foreign groups were deeply involved in the economic, political, and perhaps ceremonial life of the Palace. They probably lived for a while in the region, producing their pottery, participating in the redistribution practices and ceremonial activities taking place in the public complex, bringing their products, offering their services and, at the same time, benefiting from their encounters with other groups and the opening up of new routes for their exchanges and their movements.26 Animal-rearing practices underwent a radical change at Arslantepe in this period with an extraordinary increase in sheep and goats to reach 82% of the total domestic fauna, with a marked prevalence of sheep over goats.27 The development of this form of specialised pastoralism focused on sheep may reflect possible central intervention that directed the animal breeding patterns to meet the new needs and the demand for dairy products and perhaps wool, by the central institutions. But, it may have also been the outcome of the integration of these nomadic pastoralist groups in the centralised economic system of the Arslantepe Palace.28 One class of products that these mobile groups may have brought from the northern Anatolian regions south of the Black Sea coast, with its great wealth of metal ores, to the Upper Euphrates valley were metals, either in the form of ores, or metal ingots, and/or as finished objects.29 For there is evidence of sophisticated metallurgy existing at Arslantepe in the Late Chalcolithic, particularly in the Palace period (period VIA), as the well-known arsenical copper weapons, together with other objects made of silver, gold, and copper alloys of various types, indicate (Fig. 8a).30 Such a hypothesis is supported by the spread of similar arsenical copper technology, metal composition and types of metal objects in both Northern and North-eastern Anatolia and Southern Caucasus, as the chemical and lead isotope analyses carried out on the Arslantepe metal objects have shown, suggesting both a northern and northeastern provenance of the metal ore used.31 This

Frangipane 2017; D’Anna and Palumbi 2017. Bartosiewicz 2010. 28 Palumbi 2010. 29 Frangipane 2017. 30 Frangipane and Palmieri 1983, 394–407; Palmieri et al. 26 27

1999; H auptmann and Palmieri 2000.

31

Hauptmann et al. 2002.

Inter-cultural Connections and Changing Relations

19

Fig. 3 Arslantepe, period VIA materials; a–b: Seal designs in local and Uruk style respectively; c: Hand-made Central Anatolian-related Red-Black pottery; d–e: Rare examples of vessels in actual Uruk style; f: examples of the three main Period VIA pottery styles; g–i: Wheel-made or finished Uruk-influenced local pottery

20

Marcella Frangipane

Fig. 4 Arslantepe interregional interactions in the second half of the 4th millennium BCE (Late Chalcolithic 5) kind of copper composition has been also found at other sites in the Turkish Euphrates valley, as far as Hacinebi, suggesting that these connections with the metalliferous mountains of Northern and Eastern Anatolia possibly extended up to the more southern stretches of the Turkish Middle Euphrates, perhaps reaching the northern Levant (at least as far as the Amuq region), giving a nuanced picture of a possible regional network, perhaps ruled by Arslantepe. Relations with the mobile northern Anatolian components therefore appear to have significantly extended Arslantepe’s sphere of influence beyond its own region, and the site must have interacted over a very wide and variable area, even though the territory it actually dominated in the Late Chalcolithic appears to have been relatively small and poorly defined. The capacity of territorial control by the Late Chalcolithic centres in general must still have been poor, but it was definitely more limited in the absence of any real urbanisation. The urbanisation phenomenon indeed creates a strong and structural link between cities and their hinterlands, stimulating the formation of organically related territories. While undoubtedly being a powerful Early State centre that had developed very effective control over staple production and the labour-force by employing an advanced administrative system,32 Arslantepe did

32

Frangipane et al. 2007; Frangipane (ed.) 2010.

not attract people to live on the site, but, if anything, quite the opposite: the settlement actually shrank in size, and appears to have been mainly occupied by the elites and their activities, while the life of the population around the site basically remained relatively independent rural and village communities.33 In this context, the pastoralist groups moving in the mountain ranges around the Malatya plain and systematically interacting with the Palace institutions, probably supplying milk, dairy products, wool, and metals, also seem to have retained their autonomy (as is shown, among other things, by the fact that they very likely made their own pottery on the spot),34 and in the long run they may have eventually contributed to instability and disruption, thereby helping to foment the profound crisis that began to undermine the central institutions. The connecting routes established through interaction with these groups were not broken off with the end of the palatial system at Arslantepe, but rather expanded to the East/North-East involving new pastoral-oriented communities linked to the South Caucasian KuraAraxes culture network, and new ‘avenues’ were also opened up towards the south-west (Middle Euphrates and Northern Levant)35 and, from the Caucasus, to the south-east (Zagros and Iran). 33 34 35

Di Nocera 2008. Fragnoli 2018. Greenberg and Palumbi 2015, 120–125.

Inter-cultural Connections and Changing Relations

The ‘Crisis’ of the End of the 4th Millennium BCE (Early Bronze I)

At the very end of the 4th millennium BCE, after a huge fire had destroyed the Palace definitively ending that innovative experience and the powerful system of political and economic centralisation, nomadic groups seasonally settled at Arslantepe on the ruins of the Palace for relatively short periods of time. We do not know who these groups might have been, since their hand-made Red-Black pottery (almost the only ware used at the site in that period) changed in terms of the shapes and the repertoire from the previous period, very closely resembling Kura-Araxes materials, while conversely showing a remarkable continuity in the manufacture technique, the aesthetic taste in colour patterns and the use of local clay sources.36 These new groups may have been somehow related, at least in terms of possible long-lasting mutual connections, with the previous Late Chalcolithic groups bearing Red-Black pottery during the Palace era, but relations with the Arslantepe rulers and the sedentary population in the Malatya plain may well have changed from being cooperative, as is the case of different components involved in the same system, to become competitive and hostile. Between 3200 and 3100 BCE (Period VIB1), these new settlers occupied the mound in small groups, probably bringing with them many head of livestock, as suggested by the few scattered wattle-and-daub huts and the long rows of post-holes delimiting broad spaces, probably for fences to stable the livestock (Fig. 5a). A kind of chief hut surrounded by a palisade (Fig. 5b) and an imposing mud-brick public or communal building (Building 36) with a long reception hall and two storage rooms have been found in the upper part of the mound 37 (Fig. 5c, f) suggesting that, even when occupied by an ephemeral and probably seasonal settlement, Arslantepe may have remained a landmark for the groups living in the region. Even though the wattle and daub huts of the VIB1 period at Arslantepe are entirely different from the traditional mud-brick architecture usually attested on the site, they had some peculiarities in comparison with the typical Kura-Araxes huts, maintaining or adopting some traditional local features, such as the round fireplace with a central depression, typical of the Turkish Euphrates region and the Amuq (Fig. 5e). Also the pottery was not entirely Kura-Araxes, although its typology very closely resembles at least part of the South-Caucasian and North-Eastern Anatolian repertoire38 (Fig. 6c–l). It is, moreover, made using local clay sources from the Malatya 36 37 38

Palumbi 2008b; Fragnoli 2018. Frangipane 2014; Palumbi et al. 2017. Palumbi 2008b; 2012.

21

plain.39 Considering all these aspects, together with Palumbi, we may suggest that these mobile groups were living and moving not far from the site and the Upper Euphrates region, even though they seem to have been closely related to the Kura-Araxes interaction circuit and were therefore probably fully part of their wide cultural sphere. The presence of these groups in the Malatya region was probably a key factor in the connection with the south-west (the regions west to the Euphrates valley and the Amuq plain), towards which the Kura-Araxes components were pressing to expand their ties, as they were also doing towards the south-east (Fig. 7).40 Very sporadic examples of wheel-made light coloured pottery in the post-Uruk tradition and two seals, one of which was a baked clay cylinder seal, have been found in the community building and the area surrounding the chief’s hut, associated with the dominant Kura-Araxes-like pottery (Fig. 6a–b). This is another element that suggests that the leaders of this very different mobile society may have retained some, albeit sporadic, relations with the local sedentary population of the Malatya plain, which in turn had ties with the post-Uruk communities of the Middle and Upper Euphrates valley, and, through them, with the Mesopotamian world (Fig. 7). One of the main purposes of the communal social practices performed by the period VIB1 leaders in Building 36 may also have been to create opportunities for maintaining peaceful contacts with the local population, smoothing out potential conflicts. One interesting link with the metallurgical production of the previous VIA period was the finding of two tripartite copper spearheads in the main storeroom of the communal Building 36 (Fig. 8b) referring to a tradition in the manufacture of this type of weapon which became well-established at Arslantepe itself, as shown by the findings in the famous Royal Tomb of the end of this period (Fig. 8c), and in the Anatolian Upper and Middle Euphrates region, as well as in the mountains and foothills of the Turkish Upper Tigris valley surrounding the Upper Mesopotamian plains. The recent extraordinary findings in a number of cist graves at Başur Höyük, in the Sirt region in Eastern Turkey, are the most striking examples of the spread of this tradition, and also clearly show the cultural links between the peoples in the mountains and Upper Mesopotamian centres (Fig. 7).41 The continuity in metallurgical technology and tradition from the Early State society of the 4th millennium, linked to the Mesopotamian world,

39 40 41

Fragnoli 2018. Palumbi 2012; Greenberg and Palumbi 2015. Sağlamtimur and Massimino 2015; Hasset and Sağlamtimur 2018.

22

Marcella Frangipane

Fig. 5 Arslantepe, period VIB1 (early phase of Early Bronze I, 3200–3100 BCE); a: Plan of the main phase of the seasonal settlement by pastoral groups; b: The ‘chief’s hut’ on the top of the mound; c–f: The communal Building 36; d: spearheads in situ in the communal Building 36; e: typical local fireplace with central depression

Inter-cultural Connections and Changing Relations

Fig. 6 Arslantepe. In situ materials from period VIB1

23

24

Marcella Frangipane

Fig. 7 Arslantepe, Upper Euphrates, and Kura-Araxes interregional relations in Early Bronze I to the new non-centralised Anatolian/Caucasianrelated communities of the beginning of the Early Bronze Age at Arslantepe further demonstrates the links that may have already existed between the emerging northern centres of the Late Uruk period (LC5) and the populations of northern and northeastern Anatolia. We may convincingly hypothesise that the Upper Euphrates valley, and probably also the Upper Tigris, were connecting points where multi-directional relations between the people of the mountains (to the north) and people of the plains (to the south) took more consistent shape through the mediation of the main Early State centres in the second half of the 4th millennium BCE. These connections appear to have remained alive, although with substantial changes in their modes and management, after both the collapse of those centres in the Euphrates region (see the case of Arslantepe) and the possible transformation of the territorial policies of the highly urbanised centres of Upper Mesopotamia. The outcomes of these changes were very different in the urbanised territories of Jezirah/Khabour and in the Anatolian Euphrates

Valley, where there was no urbanisation and very radical social and political changes occurred in the transition from Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age 42. Whereas Arslantepe underwent a radical crisis, after the destruction of the Palace, followed by a period of conflict and contention over the site by different mobile and sedentary groups, less dramatic and radical but anyhow profound changes are also evidenced on the sites in the Middle Euphrates valley, where every trace of true centralisation seems to have disappeared and a new type of society, probably based on differences in rank, gave rise to a new trajectory towards so-called social ‘complexity’. For a while the Upper Euphrates region became even closer than before to the Middle Euphrates, and may have been a crucial junction between the northern/ north-eastern Anatolian communities and those to the west and south-west of the river valley as far as the Amuq plain, creating the conditions for opening up new connecting routes towards the northern Levant, based on the cultural corridor linking the Malatya and Amuq plains at least from the Late Chalcolithic.43 42 43

Finkbeiner et al. (eds.) 2015; Rova (ed.) 2019. Greenberg and Palumbi 2015.

Inter-cultural Connections and Changing Relations

Fig. 8 Metallurgical production from Late Chalcolithic 5 and Early Bronze I at Arslantepe

25

26

Marcella Frangipane

Fig. 9 The Arslantepe and Upper Euphrates cultural provinces and their interregional connections in Early Bronze III (a) and Late Bronze II (b)

Inter-cultural Connections and Changing Relations

The Persisting Frontier Role of the Upper Euphrates Region in the Changing Systems of ‘International’ Relations in the Late Early, Middle and Late Bronze Ages

The Upper Euphrates valley continued to play the role of a varying and flexible frontier between different cultural worlds even in the following late Early, Middle and Late Bronze Ages, from time to time attracted to, or marginalised by the new emerging political systems that were imposing themselves in the Near East, and in turn attracting them as a strategic border area, acting as a bridge and a connection and transmission point between different cultural environments and political worlds. This region became progressively detached from the Syro-Mesopotamian world in the course of Early Bronze II and III (2700–2000 BCE) to be transformed into a small cultural province comprising the Malatya and Elazig regions, which was more projected, if at all, towards its Eastern Anatolian environs (Fig. 9a).44 In this period, Arslantepe was one of the micropolities formed in this area, and while maintaining the position of the largest site in the Malatya plain,45 there is no evidence to show that it was a dominant ‘political centre’ governing its landscape, as may have perhaps been the case of Norşuntepe in the Altınova plain.46 In contrast to the emergence of larger and more mature expansionist states in the Mesopotamian environment,

Conti and Persiani 1993. Di Nocera 2008. 46 H auptmann 1976. 44 45

27

the Upper Euphrates region experienced a period of apparently relative segregation. This was not however real isolation, since there is evidence of new, albeit sporadic contacts with Central Anatolia (with the site of Kültepe, for instance), preparing the ground for the future inclusion of the site and its region into a new network and sphere of political interactions during the Late Bronze Age, centred around Anatolia and headed by the emerging and expanding Hittite state. The new small Eastern Anatolian polities of the end of the 3rd millennium, which were certainly less powerful and externally projected than the earlier 4th millennium Early State centres, were perhaps the embryonic cores of the new 2nd millennium, more solidly structured political and territorial entities. These new polities looked at Central Anatolia, establishing different types of less pervasive and less visible connections with the nascent powerful political organisms there, perhaps based on more clearly planned trade and politically oriented relations. This brought about new forms of interactions, generating dominance and dependence. Arslantepe, which remained outside the Old-Assyrian trade routes, was later closely involved in the eastward expansion of the cultural and political influence of the Hittite State in the Late Bronze Age, once again becoming a sort of frontier site on the Euphrates between the Hittite and the Assyrian worlds (Fig. 9b).

28

Marcella Frangipane

Bibliography A lgaze, G. 1993 The Uruk World System, Chicago. 2001 Initial Social Complexity in Southwestern Asia: The Mesopotamian Advantage, Current Anthropology 42, 199–233. 2013 The End of Prehistory and the Uruk Period, in: H. Crawford (ed.), The Sumerian World, London, 68–94. 2018 The Tyranny of Friction, Origini 42, 73–92. A kkermans, P.M.M.G. 1993 Villages in the Steppe. Late Neolithic Settlement and Subsistence in the Balikh Valley, Northern Syria, Ann Arbor. Balossi R estelli, F. 2006 The Development of ‘Cultural Regions’ in the Neolithic of the Near East. The ‘Dark Faced Burnished Ware Horizon’, BAR International Series 1482, Oxford. 2019 Arslantepe Period VII. The Development of a Ceremonial/Political Centre in the First Half of the Fourth Millennium BCE (Late Chalcolithic 3–4), Arslantepe Series 2, Rome. Bartosiewicz, L. 2010 Herding in Period VI A. Development and Changes from Period VII, in: M. Frangipane (ed.), Economic Centralisation in Formative States. The Archaeological Reconstruction of the Economic System in 4th Millennium Arslantepe, Studi di Preistoria Orientale 3, Rome, 119–148. Butterlin, P. 2003 Les Temps Proto-Urbains de Mésopotamie, Paris. Carter, R.A. and Philip G. (eds.) 2010 Beyond the Ubaid, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63, Chicago. Çalışkan A kgül, H. 2012 Looking to the West: The Late Chalcolithic RedBlack Ware of the Upper Euphrates Region, Origini 34, 97–109. Childe, V.G. 1956 Piecing Together the Past. The Interpretation of Archaeological Data, London. Conti, A.M. and Persiani, C. 1993 When Worlds Collide. Cultural Developments in Eastern Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age, in: M. Frangipane, H. H auptmann, M. Liverani, P. M atthiae and M. Mellink (eds.), Between the Rivers and over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, Rome, 361–413. D’Anna, M.B. and Palumbi, G. 2017 Uruk, Pastoralism and Secondary Products: Was it a Revolution? A View from the Anatolian Highlands, in: P.W. Stockhammer and J. M aran (eds.), Appropriating Innovations. Entangled Knowledge in

Eurasia, 5000–1500 BCE, Oxford and Philadelphia, 29–39. Di Nocera, G.M. 2008 Settlements, Population and Landscape on the Upper Euphrates Between V and II Millennium BC. Results of the Archaeological Survey Project 2003–2005 in the Malatya Plain, in: J. Córdoba, M. Molist, C. Pérez, I. Rubio and S. M artínez (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 1, Madrid, 633–645. Esin, U. 1982 Tepecik Excavations, 1974, Keban Project 1974 Activities, METU, Ankara, 95–118, pls. 53–78. 1989 An Early Trading Center in Eastern Anatolia, in: K. Emre, B. Hrouda, M. Mellink and N. Özgüç (eds.), Anatolia and the Ancient Near East, Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, 135–138. Fragnoli P. 2018 Pottery Production in Pastoral Communities: Archaeometric Analysis on the LC3–EBA1 Handmade Burnished Ware from Arslantepe (in the Anatolian Upper Euphrates), Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 18, 318–332. Finkbeiner, U., Novak, M., Sakal, F. Sconzo, P. (eds.) 2015 Associated Regional Chronologies for the

Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (ARCANE), vol. 4: Middle Euphrates. Brepols.

Frangipane M. 2002 “Non-Uruk” Developments and Uruk-Linked Features on the Northern Borders of Greater Mesopotamia, in: S. Campbell and N.Postgate (eds.), Artefacts of Complexity. Tracking the Uruk in the Near East, Iraq Archaeological Reports 5, British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 123–148. 2007 Different Types of Egalitarian Societies and the Development of Inequality in Early Mesopotamia, World Archaeology 39.2, 151–176. 2009 Rise and Collapse of the Late Uruk Centres in Upper Mesopotamia and Eastern Anatolia, Scienze dell’Antichità 15, 15–31. 2014 After Collapse: Continuity and Disruption in the Settlement by Kura-Araxes-linked Pastoral Groups at Arslantepe-Malatya (Turkey). New Data, Paléorient 40.2, 169–184. 2015 Different Types of “Multiethnic” Societies and Different Patterns of Development and Change in Prehistoric Near East, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112.30, 9182–9189. 2016 The Development of Centralised Societies in Greater Mesopotamia and the Foundation of Economic Inequality, in: H. Meller, H.P. H ahn, R. Jung and R. R isch (eds.), Arm und Reich/Rich and Poor – Competing for Resources in Prehistoric Societies, Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 14/II, Halle, 469–489.

Inter-cultural Connections and Changing Relations 2017 The Role of Metal Procurement in the Wide Interregional Connections of Arslantepe during the Late 4th –Early 3rd Millennia BC, in: Ç. M aner, M.T. Horowitz and A.S. Gilbert (eds.), Overturning Certainties in Near Eastern Archaeology. A Festschrift in Honor of K. Aslıhan Yener, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 90, Leiden and Boston, 186–210. 2018 Different Trajectories in State Formation in Greater Mesopotamia: A View from Arslantepe (Turkey), Journal of Archaeological Research, 26.1, 3–63. 2019 The Secularization of Power: A Precocious Birth and Collapse of a Palatial System at Arslantepe (Malatya, Turkey) in the 4th Millennium BC, in: D. Wicke (ed.), Der Palast im antiken und islam-ischen Orient, Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 9, Wiesbaden, 57–75. 2021 Are “Borders” a Useful Concept in Pre- and Pro in press to-Historic Times? A Long History of Interaction between Upper Euphrates Societies and Northern Anatolian Communities in the 4th and Early 3rd Millennia BCE, in: L. D’A lfonso and K. Rubinson (eds.), Borders in Archaeology: Ana tolia and the South Caucasus ca. 3500–500 BCE, Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series 58, Peeters, 51–71. Frangipane, M. (ed.) 2010 Economic Centralisation in Formative States. The Archaeological Reconstruction of the Economic System in 4th Millennium Arslantepe, Studi di Preistoria Orientale 3, Rome. Frangipane, M. and A lgaze, G. 2001 On Models and Data in Mesopotamia, Current Anthropology 42.3, 415–417. Frangipane, M., Ferioli, P., Fiandra, E., Laurito, R. and Pittman, H. 2007 Arslantepe Cretulae. An Early Centralised Administrative System Before Writing, Arslantepe Series 5, Rome. Frangipane M. and Palmieri A. 1983 A Protourban Centre of the Late Uruk Period, Origini 12.2, 287–454. Gopnik, H., R eichel, C., Minc, L. and Elendari, R. 2016 A View from the East: The Godin VI Oval and the Uruk Sphere, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 7, 835–848. Graves-Brown, P. 2007 Of Tribes and Territories, Archaeological Dialogues 14.2, 138–142. DOI:10.1017/S1380203807002292 (last accessed January 2021). Greenberg, R. and Palumbi, G. 2015 Corridors and Colonies: Comparing Fourth–Third Millennia BC Interactions in Southeast Anatolia and the Levant, in: A.B. K napp and P. van Dommelen (eds.), The Cambridge Prehistory of the Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean, Cambridge Histories Online, Cambridge, 111–138. http://dx.doi. org/10.1017/CHO9781139028387.011 (last accessed January 2021).

29

Gurdil, B. 2010 Exploring Social Organizational Aspects of the Ubaid Communities: A Case Study of Değirmentepe in Eastern Turkey, in: R.A. Carter and G. Philip (eds.), Beyond the Ubaid, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63, Chicago, 361–375. H assett, B.R. and Sağlamtimur, H. 2018 Radical ‘Royals’? New Evidence from Başur Höyük for Radical Burial Practices in the Transition to Early States in Mesopotamia, Antiquity 92, 640–654. H auptmann, H. 1976 Norşun Tepe Kazıları, 1972. Die Grabungen auf dem Norşun-Tepe, Keban Project 1972 Activities, Middle East Technical University, Keban Project Publications Series I n.5, Ankara, 41–100, pls. 29–66. H auptmann, A. and Palmieri, A.M. 2000 Metal Production in the Eastern Mediterranean during the 4th/3rd Millennium: Case Studies from Arslantepe, in: Ü. Yalçın (ed.), Anatolian Metal I, Der Anschnitt 13, Bochum, 75–82. H auptmann, A., Schmitt-Strecker, S., Begemann, F. and Palmieri, A.M. 2002 Chemical Composition and Lead Isotopy of Metal Objects from the Royal Tomb and Other Related Finds at Arslantepe, Eastern Anatolia, Paléorient 28.2, 43–70. Iamoni, M. (ed.) 2016 Trajectories of Complexity. Socio-Economic Dynamics in Upper Mesopotamia in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods, Studia Chaburensia 6, Wiesbaden. Liberski-Bagnoud, D. 2002 Les Dieux du Territoire, Paris. McM ahon, A. 2020 Early Urbanism in Northern Mesopotamia, Journal of Archaeological Research 28, 289–337. Nieuwenhuyse, O. 2007 Plain and Painted Pottery. The Rise of Neolithic Ceramic Styles on the Syrian and Northern Mesopotamian Plains, Turnhout. Nieuwenhuyse, O., Bernbeck, R., A kkermans, P.M.M.G. and Rogasch, J. (eds.) 2013 Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia, Turnhout. Oates, J., McMahon, A., Karsgaard, P., Al-Quntar, S. and Ur, J. 2007 Early Mesopotamian Urbanism: A new View from the North, Antiquity 81.313, 585–600. Ökse, T.A. 2007 Ancient Mountain Routes Connecting Central Anatolia to the Upper Euphrates Region, Anatolian Studies 57, 35–45. Orthmann, W. 1963 Die Keramik der frühen Bronzezeit aus Inneranatolien, Istanbuler Forschungen 24, Berlin.

30

Marcella Frangipane

Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N. and Kuniholm, P. (eds.) 2011– The Neolithic in Turkey, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınl 2014 arı (Archaeology and Art Publications), Istanbul. Palmieri, A.M., Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, A. and Hess, K. 1999 Early Metallurgy at Arslantepe during the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age IA–IB Periods, Der Anschnitt 9, 141–148. Palumbi, G. 2008a Mid-Fourth Millennium Red-Black Burnished Wares from Anatolia: A Cross Comparison, in: K.S. Rubinson and A. Sagona (eds.), Ceramics in Transitions. Chalcolithic through Iron Age in the Highlands of the Southern Caucasus and Anatolia, Leuven, 39–58. 2008b The Red and Black. Social and Cultural Interaction between the Upper Euphrates and Southern Caucasus Communities in the Fourth and Third Millennium BC, Studi di Preistoria Orientale 2, Rome. 2010 Pastoral Models and Centralised Animal Husbandry. The Case of Arslantepe, in: M. Frangipane (ed.), Economic Centralisation in Formative States. The Archaeological Reconstruction of the Economic System in 4th Millennium Arslantepe, Studi di Preistoria Orientale 3, Rome, 149–163. 2012 Bridging the Frontiers. Pastoral Groups in the Upper Euphrates Region in the Early Third Millennium BCE, Origini 34, 261–278. Palumbi, G., A lvaro, C., Grifoni, C. and Frangipane, M. 2017 A “Communal” Building of the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age at Arslantepe-Malatya. SpatioFunctional Analysis and Interpretation of the Archaeological Context (with contributions by C. Vignola and F. Terrasi), Paléorient 43.1, 89–123. Peyronel, L. and Vacca, A. 2015 Northern Ubaid and Late Chalcolithic 1–3 Periods in the Erbil Plain. New Insights from Recent Researches at Helawa, Iraqi Kurdistan, Origini 37.1, 89–127. Pollock, S. 1992 Bureaucrats and Managers, Peasants and Pastoralists, Imperialists and Traders: Research on the Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods in Mesopotamia, Journal of World Prehistory 6.3, 297–336. Robb, J. 2015 What do Things Want? Object Design as a Middle Range Theory of Material Culture, Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 26, 166–180. Roberts, B.W. and Vander Linden, M. (eds.) 2011 Investigating Archaeological Cultures: Material Culture, Variability, and Transmission, Springer Science+Business Media. DOI 10.1007/978-1-44196970-5_1 (last accessed January 2021). Rothman, M.S. (ed.) 2001 Uruk Mesopotamia and its Neighbors. Cross-cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation, Santa Fe.

Rova, E. (ed.) 2019 Associated Regional Chronologies for the

Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (ARCANE), vol. 5: Tigridian Region.

Brepols.

Sağlamtimur, H. and M assimino, M.G.M. 2015 Wealth Sacrifice and Legitimacy: the Case of the Early Bronze Age Başur Höyük Cemetery (South-Eastern Turkey), in: B. Horejs, Ch. Schwall, V. Müller, M. Luciani, M. R itter, M. Guidetti, R.B. Salisbury, F. Höflmayer and T. Bürge (eds.), Proceedings of the International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 10th ICAANE, 2016, University of Vienna, Vol. 1, Wiesbaden, 329–342. Schoop, U.D. 2005 Das anatolische Chalkolithikum, Rehmshalden. Skourtanioti, E., Erdal, Y. S., Frangipane, M., Balossi R estelli, F., Yener, K.A., Pinnock, F., M atthiae, P., Özbal, R., Schoop, U.D., Guliyev, F., A khundov, T., Lyonnet, B., H ammer, E.L., Nugent, S.E., Burri, M., Neumann, G.U., Penske, S., Ingman, T., A kar, M., Shafiq, R., Palumbi, G., Eisenmann, S., D’Andrea, M., Rohrlach, A.B., Warinner, C., Jeong, C., Stockhammer, P.W., H aak, W. and K rause, J. 2020 Genomic History of Neolithic to Bronze Age Anatolia, Northern Levant, and Southern Caucasus, Cell 181.5, May 2020, 1158–1175, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.044 (last accessed January 2021). Steadman, S., Ross, J.C., McM ahon, G. and Gorny R.L. 2008 Excavations on the North-Central Plateau: The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Occupation at Çadır Hüyük”, Anatolian Studies 58, 47–86. Stein, G. 1999 Rethinking World Systems: Diasporas, Colonies, and Interaction in Uruk Mesopotamia, Tucson. Stein, G. and Özbal, R. 2007 A Tale of Two Oikumenai: Variation in the Expansionary Dynamics of Ubaid and Uruk Mesopotamia”, in: E. Stone (ed.), Settlement and Society: Essays Dedicated to Robert McCormick Adams, Los Angeles and Chicago, 329–342. Tekin, H. 2011 Hakemi Use. A Newly Discovered Late Neolithic Site in Southeastern Anatolia, in: M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P.I. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 1, The Tigris Basin, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, Istanbul, 151–172. Vallet, R., Baldi, J.S., Zingarello, M., Sauvage, M., Naccaro, H., Paladre, C., Bridey, F., Padovani, C., R asheed, K.,R aeuf, K. and H alkawt, Q. 2019 The Emergence of Cultural Identities and Territorial Policies in the Longue Durée: A View from the Zagros Piedmont, Paléorient 45.2, 163–189.

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

31

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE by Marta D’Andrea1

Abstract

Transformations in the Levant between the late Early Bronze Age and the initial Middle Bronze Age are analysed in the article at different spatial scales and with a long durée perspective. It is suggested that in the archaeological record for the timespan between c. 2600 and c. 1900 BCE it is possible to isolate at least three stages when material culture clusters changed in the Levant, each time in response to sociopolitical and/or socio-economic re-configuration. These transformations took place respectively at the Early Bronze III/IV transition, between ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ Early Bronze IV phases, and at the Early Bronze/Middle Bronze transition and are examined in the article. It is proposed that, along with macrolocal transformations, sub-regional areas changed differentially during those periods, which suggests the importance of re-examining meso- and micro-local trajectories for a better interpretation of inter-regional dynamics. It is also discussed how the study of these processes in a long-term perspective may prove relevant to research into the later Middle Bronze Age phases.

Introduction

Between the late Early Bronze and the early Middle Bronze Ages the Levant (Fig. 1) saw socio-political, socioeconomic, and sociocultural changes at various times, mirrored by as many transformations in the material culture and the associated social practices. From c. 2600/2500 to c. 1900 BCE – that is from the Early Bronze III/IV transition to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age according to the most recent regional chronologies (Tab. I)2 – political vicissitudes in different periods prompted changes in inter-regional connections that influenced material culture patterning. Traditionally, scholars have identified the appearance of northern Levantine features related to consumption of food and drinks, and to funerary customs in the late 3rd and early 2nd millennium BCE dataset of the southern Levant and explained them as brought by migrations, generally of Amorites,3 although other groups have been proposed too,4 cultural transfer mediated by pastoralism,5 or, more rarely, trade.6 Even in more recent times, interpretive constructs for inter-regional contacts and changes in material culture in the timespan under review centre on pastoralism and cultural transfer for Early Bronze IV,7 and progressive acculturation brought by transregional and interregional migrations, and cultural homogenisation connected with the emergence of Amorite identities between the Early and Middle Bronze Ages.8 During the last decade, these phenomena have been reframed within a revised chronological backdrop. 2 For

3 4

5 6 7

1 Sapienza Università di Roma; [email protected].

8

the southern Levant, see R egev et al. 2012; 2014; Shai et al. 2014; Höflmayer 2017 (Early Bronze Age); M arcus 2010; 2013; Cohen 2017 (Middle Bronze I); northern Levant: Höflmayer et al. 2014; Schwartz 2017; Vacca and D’Andrea 2020 (Early Bronze Age); Morandi Bonacossi 2008; 2014; M atthiae 2020 (Early/Middle Bronze transition and Middle Bronze I). In this paper, for the southern Levant we follow the use of Early Bronze IV for the period from c. 2500–1950/1920 BCE and Middle Bronze I for the earliest Middle Bronze Age phase, which in the literature are also called, respectively, Intermediate Bronze Age and Middle Bronze IIA. Wright 1938, 4; A lbright 1961; K enyon 1966. Egyptians: M azar 1968; Callaway 1978, 55; Kurgan people: Lapp 1966, 110–111. See discussion in Palumbo 1990, 10–11. Prag 1974, 106–107; 2009, 86–87; 2011, 72; Dever 1980, 49–58. Palumbo 1990, 118–119. Bunimovitz and Greenberg 2004; 2006; Wilkinson et al. 2014, 90–92; K ennedy 2015a, 195–197; 2016, 17–18; Greenberg 2017; 2019, 136–179; Schloen 2017. Weiss 2014, 367–376; 2017, 145–146; Burke 2017.

© by the author This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc by 4.0 license DOI: 10.13173/9783447117371.031

32

Marta D’Andrea

Fig. 1 Map of the Near East with sites mentioned in the text (base map by M. Zingarello, edits by the author; map data: SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, NEBCO, Landsat, Copernicus through Google Earth Pro and Bing Maps Tile System, 2020) Traditional synchronisms between the later southern Levantine urban phase in Early Bronze III and the first half of the northern Levantine Early Bronze IV from c. 2500 to c. 2300 BCE, and between the nonurban Early Bronze IV in the south and the second half of the Early Bronze IV period in the north from c. 2300 to c. 2000 BCE (Tab. I) are considered no longer tenable due to both revised and fresh radiocarbon dating for the south.9 This has placed the Early Bronze III period in the southern Levant from c. 2850 to c. 2500 BCE and the Early Bronze IV period from c. 2500 to c. 1950/1920 BCE,10 that is, roughly in line with the same periods in the north, whose absolute chronology has remained basically unchanged thus far (Tab. I).11 The revised absolute chronology for the southern Levantine Early Bronze Age has been widely accepted by scholars, though with remarkable exceptions.12 On the one hand, the realignment of the northern and southern regional chronologies may 9 See,

recently, the contributions in R ichard (ed.) 2020. et al. 2012, 558–561; 2014, 259–260; Höflmayer 2017. 11 D’Andrea and Vacca 2020 (Syrian Early Bronze III); Höflmayer et al. 2014 (northern Lebanon, Early Bronze III/ IV transition); Schwartz 2017 (Syrian Early Bronze IV). 12 Nigro 2019; 2020; Nigro et al. 2019. 10 R egev

provide new and more differentiated readings of connections between those regions in the timespan considered in this article. On the other hand, the stratified evidence from the southern Levant is still too scarce to paint a regional picture for a five- or sixcentury long Early Bronze IV period, and there are gaps and uncertainties.13 In this article, building on previous works, we argue that, within these centuries, there were three major developments associated with changes in material culture clusters. To analyse these changes, we will summarise current issues in the study of material culture patterning in space and time and of human interactions mirrored by such modelling at a more general level and discuss case studies for the timespans under review to propose some hypotheses on why material culture clusters changed at these points in time in connection with developing interregional contacts. As is suggested in the conclusion, a better understanding of these earlier phenomena at a large geographical scale and within a long-term perspective may prove relevant also to research into the later Middle Bronze Age phases. 13 See,

most recently, D’Andrea 2019a; 2020a; Greenberg 2019, 139; Covello -Paran 2020, 392.

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

33

Tab. 1 Table with different scheme of archaeological periodization and terminology used for the northern and southern Levant and compared to ARCANE’s phasing and historical periodization for Mesopotamia. EB = Early Bronze; MB = Middle Bronze; ESL = Early Southern Levant; ENL = Early Northern Levant; ECL = Early Central Levant, the latter referring mainly to northern Lebanon

Methodological Issues in the Study of Archaeological Clusters

In the study of transformations in the archaeological record it may happen that it is not possible to apply unambiguously a single explanatory construct, and different readings are conceivable for the same set of data. Moreover, analysing material culture changes in the past it is often difficult to identify processes lying behind the spread of new traits,14 which may include trade and exchange, migration (at different scales), hybridization, movements of semi-nomads and pastoralists, cultural transfer, and techno-stylistic influence as either alternative or concurrent factors. Therefore, generalising labels applied to material culture traits distributed widely across space and long lasting in time – such as ‘Caliciform Culture’ and ‘Amorite koiné’ – might hinder multiple processes spatially and temporally differentiated.15 Recent scholarship has discussed the importance of developing a common vocabulary among geneticists and archaeologists to allow genomics to be effectively incorporated into archaeological data and vice versa.16 Clearly, the main limitation is the lack of a one-to-one correspondence between a given archaeological cultural designation and a genetic cluster17 and the risk of falling into the pitfalls of ‘pots and people’ paradigms. Moreover, even archaeologists define clusters from the 14 Burmeister

2016, 42. a review of the question of the ‘Caliciform culture’, see Cooper 2020, 111; for recent reconsiderations of the question of the ‘Amorite koiné’, see Homsher and Cradic 2017; 2018; D’Andrea 2019a. 16 Eisenmann et al. 2018; R iede, Hoggard and Shennan 2019. See remarks on the potential and limits of this cooperation in Samida and Fleuchter 2016. 17 Eisenmann et al. 2018, 2. 15 For

archaeological point of view in different ways. Several possible designations have been proposed that may be used as alternatives to ‘archaeological culture’ to label the spatial and temporal patterning of material culture traits, such as tradition, complex, techno-complex, facies, horizon, style zone, and phenomenon.18 Clearly, these terms may describe situations that can even be concurrent within the same geographic boundaries at the same point in time. Considering these shortcomings, Benjamin W. Roberts and Marc Vander Linden have suggested that “either a new device for grouping archaeological data needs to be found, or we must explore how patterns in the archaeological cultures are perceived, classified and accepted”.19 Moreover, it is acknowledged that to integrate social practices into interpretive models may tie material culture evidence to immaterial aspects in creative interpretations that include situated learning, transculturality, interculturality, entanglement, and even collective memory and may bring people and places into play in the archaeological discourse. In this regard it has been recalled that archaeology should engage not only hard science for data analysis but also social sciences for data interpretation, yet still always preserving its own methodological specifics, and, to say it with Susan Sherratt, without losing “confidence in its ability to create its own agendas”.20 Recently, scholarship centring on more traditional historical and archaeological approaches seems to be increasingly regarded as outdated even by archaeologists compared to more theoretically 18 Roberts

and Vander Linden 2011, 2; R iede, Hoggard and Shennan 2019, 2; Burmeister 2019, 34. 19 Roberts and Vander Linden 2011, 2. 20 Sherrat 2011, 18.

34

Marta D’Andrea

Fig. 2 Early Bronze III carinated platter-bowls in the northern Levant (nos. 1–6) after Vacca and D’Andrea 2020 with map of distribution on the right; no. 1: Qal‘at ar-Rus, level 8 (after Enrich 1939, tab. VIII, fig XI.8.12, redrawn); no. 2: Ras Shamra/Ugarit, level E (after Courtois 1962, fig. 44E, redrawn); no. 3: Tell Abu Danne, level VII (after Tefnin 1980, pl. XII, fig. 22.9, redrawn); no. 4: Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna, Operation J, level 41 (after Besana, Da Ros and Iamoni 2008, fig 1.1; redrawn); no. 5: Hama, level K1–2 (after Vacca and D’Andrea 2020, fig.7.8.9, redrawn); no. 6: Tell Mardikh/Ebla (after Vacca and D’Andrea 2020, fig. 7.8.11, redrawn, © Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria) concerned and technologically advanced studies, while these three aspects of research should go hand in hand. Even in the era of many revolutions that influenced positively archaeological research, traditional methods are still irreplaceable21 and, if rigorously applied to the study of datasets, may allow archaeology to give significant contributions to collaborative, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research. The elaboration of relative periodization and synchronization schemes based on a sound stratigraphic basis are the grids framing radiocarbon dating, the setting of sociological and anthropological interpretations, and the backdrop of DNA studies. If this backdrop is opaque, vague, or approximate, interpretations may be biased or to some extent speculative. In the last decade, work on periodization and synchronization has been done to better reconstruct regional developmental trajectories in the Levantine area in the Early and Middle Bronze Ages that may allow changes in patterns of inter-regional connectivity and, consequently, in material culture clusters to be reanalysed for those critical periods of the Levantine history.

21 D’A ndrea

2019a, 72–73; 2020a, 410.

Clusters Changing during the Early Bronze III/IV Transition

Core-periphery Interactions, Pastoralism, and Elite Emulation The spread of the so-called ‘Caliciform Ware’ or ‘Caliciform Culture’ across the Levant22 – the appearance of regional variants of vessels associated with the consumption of liquids, particularly cups, goblets, and the so-called ‘teapots’ – has been traditionally considered the hallmark of the Early Bronze IV period. The southern Levantine subsets of cups, goblets and teapots have been considered the material proof of a ‘Syrian connection’23 in this region in the local non-urban period, which during the last twenty years has been reinterpreted consistently as the result of local emulation of drinking behaviours of the northern Levantine urban elites. In the early 2000s, Shlomo Bunimovitz and Raphael Greenberg suggested that the adoption of drinking behaviours of Syrian urban elites in Early Bronze IV shown by the spread of different variants of goblets and teapots across the southern Levant 22 For

a recent treatment of this phenomenon, including questions of terminology, chronology, and regionalism, see Welton and Cooper 2014; Cooper 2018; 2020; D’Andrea and Vacca 2020. 23 The earliest uses of this term may be found in Dever 1980, 52; M azzoni 1985, 15; Palumbo 1990, 119.

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

35

Fig. 3 Development of goblets at Tell Mardikh/Ebla, Syria, from late Early Bronze III to final Early Bronze IVA (nos. 1–6) according to Vacca 2015, fig. 13 (with additional vessel drawings, no. 3 after Vacca 2015, fig.5.9 and no. 6 after Vacca and D’Andrea 2020, fig. 1.7, redrawn) and Early Bronze IVA pottery with goblets and teapot from Palace G at Tell Mardikh/Ebla (no. 7) (© Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria) was a response to rejection of local sets of symbols associated with the Early Bronze II–III social order represented, instead, in particular by the large carinated platter bowls, at the time of the demise of the fortified settlements of the previous period.24 These interactions would have been conducive to emulation of northern drinking behaviours and the associated equipment in the south, and the carriers of cultural and techno-stylistic information would have been semi-nomadic pastoralists “straddling the interface between Canaan and the urban centres of central Syria”.25 This theory is followed by Tony Wilkinson 24 Bunimovitz

and Greenberg 2004, 20–23, fig. 1. 25 Bunimovitz and Greenberg 2004, 27; 2006, 29.

et al., who besides drinking kits have included also the deployment of weapons and personal ornaments in burials as evidence for the introduction of Syrian status-marking practices in the south.26 They believe that the “apparent contradiction” between these new traits in the material culture of the southern Levant and some degree of continuity with the local Early Bronze III pottery tradition may be explained by seminomadic pastoralism as theorised by Bunimovitz and Greenberg and reported above.27 More recently, Greenberg has framed within this model and the higher absolute chronology for the 26 Wilkinson

2017. 27 Ibidem.

et al. 2014, 92. See also Bradbury and Philip

36

Marta D’Andrea

Fig. 4 Pottery from Palace G at Tell Mardikh/Ebla, Early Bronze IVA (© Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria) southern Levantine Early Bronze Age the theory of a gradual decline of fortified settlements in the region during the later Early Bronze III. This would have led the southern Levantine communities to convert intentionally to pastoralism as a winning economic option to overcome decline and engage in intensive animal herding connected with the nascent wool economy market controlled by the northern Levantine urban centres.28 The theory of a “transmutation” to pastoralism is largely based on his reading of the archaeological evidence from the Hula Valley, where he has identified a gradual abandonment of settlements and the re-emergence of megalithism during the later Early Bronze III.29 This hypothesis is endorsed by David Schloen, who also considers “adaptation” to pastoralism as a strategy to cope with the decline of the Early Bronze III “walled settlements” and the mechanism through which Syrian practices spread to the south.30 The Early Bronze III/IV Transition in the Northern Levant Recent works analysed the consequences of the realignment of regional periodization schemes for the northern and southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age not just from the standpoint of Early Bronze IV, but also of the preceding Early Bronze III that according to the revised interregional synchronisms 28 Greenberg

2017, 47–48 2019, 127–128. 29 Greenberg 2002, 77–81, figs. 4.4–4.5; 2003, 30–31, figs. 2–4 and 2–5. See also Greenberg 2019, 122-123. 30 Schloen 2017, 69.

was partly contemporary in the two regions from c. 2750 to c. 2500 BCE. Based on this new correlation it has been observed that the development of southern Levantine fortified settlements in Early Bronze III did not coincide with the advanced literate urban society portrayed by the Ebla archives for the northern Levant, but with a previous northern Levantine formative phase of urbanization.31 The latter stage is comparable to the southern Levantine Early Bronze III in terms of seeming absence of writing and complex administrative systems, and material correlates.32 Moreover, in the second quarter of the 3rd millennium BCE, Western Syria and Lebanon show multiple lines of connectivity with the southern Levant, including the spread of local variants of carinated platter-bowls (Fig. 2).33 Research has demonstrated that gradual changes in the typological array of the pottery assemblages of Syria and northern Lebanon can be observed during late Early Bronze III and towards the Early Bronze III/IV transition, a stage that we may place approximately between c. 2600 and c. 2500 BCE (Figs. 3, 5).34 Indication for increasing commercial contacts connecting the northern Levant to Mesopotamia on the one hand and to the Aegean world 31 Vacca

and D’Andrea 2020.

32 Wilkinson et al. 2014, 85–86; Vacca and D’A ndrea 2020,

131–132. and D’Andrea 2020, 133–137; see also D’Andrea 2018a, 82–83. 34 Vacca 2015, 11–16 and fig. 13; Vacca and D’A ndrea 2020, 123–124. 33 Vacca

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

Fig. 5 New vessel shapes in northern Lebanon from Early Bronze III to Early Bronze IV and their foreign prototypes and parallels; no. 1: Tell ‘Arqa (after Roux and Thalmann 2016, fig. 4.22, redrawn); no. 2: Tell ‘Arqa (after Thalmann 2006, pl. 56.24, redrawn); . no. 3: Tell Ta‘yinat (after Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, fig. 338.19, redrawn); no. 4: Tell Fadous-Kfarabida (after Genz and Sader. 2007, pl. 1.2); no. 5: Tell ‘Arqa (after Thalmann 2006, pl. 56.27, redrawn); no. 6: Tell Ta‘yinat (after Welton 2014, fig. 5.1, redrawn); nos. 7–8: Byblos (after Thalmann 2008, fig. 6.1–2, redrawn); no. 9: Tell ‘Arqa (after Thalmann 2006, pl. 57.24, redrawn); no. 10: Tell Ta‘yinat (after Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, fig. 338.17, redrawn); no. 11: Tell Fadous-Kfarabida (after Genz and Sader. 2007, pl. 1.1); no. 12: Tell ‘Arqa (after Roux and Thalmann 2016, fig. 4.25, redrawn); nos. 13–14: Troy (after Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 414.25–26, redrawn); no. 15: Mougharet al-Hourriye (after Beayno et al. 2002, pl. 1.3, redrawn); no. 16: ‘Amuq (after Welton 2014, fig. 4.7, redrawn); nos. 17–18: Troy (after Blegen et al. 1950, pl. 60.34.338 and pl. 59a.A 21 respectively, redrawn)

37

38

Marta D’Andrea

on the other starting already from the 26th century BCE were identified. This is suggested by the spatial distribution of artefacts, including bilateral imports of pottery (Syrian bottles in Anatolia, tankards and/ or depata in northern Syria and the Euphrates Valley, occasionally metalwork, and the incised bone-tubes) as well as by the evidence of shared weighting systems.35 It is believed that this might have been (one of) the mechanism(s) behind the appearance and success of the new drinking paraphernalia in different regions, such as the Euphrates River Valley, north-western Inland Syria, and northern Lebanon.36

Fig. 6 New vessel shapes in northern Lebanon during Early Bronze IV; nos. 1–2: Tell ‘Arqa (after Thalmann 2006, pls. 56.29, 57.5 redrawn); nos. 3–4: Byblos (after Thalmann 2008, fig. 6.3–4, redrawn); nos. 5–6: Tell ‘Arqa (after Roux and Thalmann 2016, fig. 4.38 and Thalmann 2008, fig. 6.31, redrawn); no. 7: Byblos (after Thalmann 2008, fig. 6.9, redrawn); no. 8: Tell ‘Arqa (after Thalmann 2008, fig. 6.29, redrawn); no. 9: Tell Fadous-Kfarabida (after Genz et al. 2010; pl. 1.2, redrawn) 35

Genz 2003; R ahmstorf 2006a, 30–38, figs. 7–8; 2006b;

M assa and Palmisano 2018; M azzoni 2020, 15–20 and figs. 13–14. See also the contribution by Prell, R ahmstorf and Ialongo in this volume. 36 D’A ndrea and Vacca 2020, 139; Vacca and D’A ndrea 2020, 122, 129–130.

In the pottery assemblages of Western Syria and the Middle Euphrates Valley goblets first appeared alongside local Early Bronze III types during the 26th century BCE (Fig. 3), coinciding with the flourishing phase of early urbanism and the development of more structured commercial interactions with the Mesopotamian world, requiring the incorporation and local adaptation of new sets of material culture to fuel those new crucial contacts (Fig. 4).37 Likewise, in northern Lebanon transformations in the local ceramic repertoire began during late Early Bronze III when new vessel shapes appeared, such as onehandled goblets and bowls with horizontal handles (Fig. 5).38 These vessel forms further developed through Early Bronze IV, when a variety of new drinking vessels appeared including bell-shaped cups, often with handles, cups with splaying rims and high loop handle, two-handled goblets, and a variety of footed and pedestalled bowls (Fig. 6).39 Clearly, as suggested earlier,40 in this case the new shapes point to connections to the north and west, to the ‘Amuq Plain, Cilicia, Western Anatolia and the Aegean (Figs 5, 7) that, in a time when metal trade and metallurgy had become key economic activities generating long-distance contacts,41 might have been prompted by the development of flourishing urbanization42 accompanied by intense metallurgical production in northern Lebanon.43 Actually, the period from c. 2500 to c. 2300 BCE, corresponding to the Early Bronze III/IV transition and to the first half of Early Bronze IV in the Levant, saw the establishment of the so-called ‘Anatolian Trade Network’ which would last until c. 2200 BCE.44 Although this route mainly connected western and central Anatolia to each other and to the eastern Aegean, the existence of a southern offshoot reaching northern Lebanon through Cilicia and the ‘Amuq might explain the incorporation of new

37 Vacca

2015, 14, fig. 13; Vacca and D’Andrea 2020, 123; see also Cooper 2020, 113; M azzoni 2020, 13. 38 Thalmann 2006, 112–113, fig. 40.a–b, pl. 47.11, 13–14; 2008, 72 and fig. 6.1–2 (Tell ‘Arqa), 23–24 (Byblos); 2016, 65, 68 and figs. 23.11–21, 24.1–5; Roux and Thalmann 2016, fig. 4.22–23, 25 (Tell ‘Arqa); Genz 2014, fig. 8.2 (Tell Fadous-Kfarabida). 39 Thalmann 2006, pls. 46.14, 17, 21–35, 47.12, 56–57; 2008, 70–72, fig. 6.3–22, 27–42; Roux and Thalmann 2016, fig. 4.33–42 (Tell ‘Arqa); Vacca and D’Andrea 2020, 82–83, figs. 3.5–8, 4.1–2, 12–13, 18. 40 D’A ndrea and Vacca 2020, 126–128 and figs. 3.1–12, 4; for Tell ‘Arqa, see Thalmann 2006, 120. 41 M azzoni 2020, 3. 42 Thalmann 2010; Genz et al. 2016. 43 Thalmann 2008, 72–76, figs. 8–9. 44 Şahoğlu 2005, 344–354, figs. 1a–2; 2019, 122–126; Efe 2007, 60–62 and figs. 17a–17b (calling it “the Great Caravan Route”); see M azzoni 2020, 16.

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

39

Fig. 7 Map of the eastern Mediterranean and the Levantine coast showing regional variants of Early Bronze IV handled drinking vessels at a representative sample of sites (base map by M. Zingarello, edits by the author; map data: SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, NEBCO, Landsat, Copernicus through Google Earth Pro and Bing Maps Tile System, 2020). Vessels from Lerna after Rutter 1995, Ill. S-7.3, redrawn; vessels from Troy after Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 129.A 26, A 45; 1951, fig. 60.33.144, redrawn; vessels from Gözlü Kule/Tarsus after Goldman 1956, figs. 356.470–471, 484, 495, 357.468, redrawn; vessels from Tell Ta‘yinat after Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, fig. 338.14, 17, redrawn; vessels from Tell ‘Arqa after Thalmann 2006, pls. 56.27, 57.5, 24 and after Roux and Thalmann 2016, fig. 4.38, redrawn; vessel from Tell Fadous-Kfarabida after Genz et al. 2010, pl. 1.2, redrawn; vessels from Byblos after Thalmann 2008, fig. 6.4, 9, redrawn; vessels from Tell elMutesellim/Megiddo after Loud 1948, pls. 9.13, 16.13, redrawn; vessels from Tell es-Sultan/Jericho after K enyon and Holland 1983, fig. 67.3, redrawn; vessels from Tell ed-Duweir/Lachish after Tufnell 1958, pl. 66.416, redrawn; vessels from Beit Dajan/Bet Dagan after Yannai 2014, fig. 3.7.4, 7, redrawn. Vessel drawings not to scale material culture traits in the pottery assemblages of northern Lebanon. If this hypothesis is correct, this southern corridor might have been the path crossed by intermediaries, traders, merchants, and metalsmiths through which the new vessels and drinking behaviours reached northern Lebanon along with metals. Summarising from previous studies, we may say that more than a dismissal of local sets of symbols in the southern Levant around 2500 BCE, the archaeological evidence shows a gradual introduction of exotic behaviours and the associated material culture in the northern Levant and the Middle Euphrates Valley starting from late Early Bronze III, which only progressively and during quite a long time led to the replacement of local practices connected with commensality and their material correlates (including carinated platter bowls in the northern

Levant45; here see Fig. 5) with the foreign ones.46 It is difficult to assess whether this phenomenon began at the elite level in this early phase or not, but certainly the new vessel shapes and the associated social practices had diffused through all sectors of the society in the northern Levant since already the first Early Bronze IV phase (local Early Bronze IVA, c. 2500–2300 BCE),47 as well as by the time when the new vessel forms subsequently appeared also in some areas of the southern Levant.

45 Thalmann

2006, pl. 46.5–11; Roux and Thalmann 2016, fig. 4.6–8; Vacca and D’Andrea 2020, 134–137, fig. 7.8.5– 15; see also Kennedy 2020a, 37–38, fig. 2.7.1–6, 10–12. 46 Vacca and D’A ndrea 2020, 123–128. 47 M azzoni 2003, 185; 2020, 14; Welton and Cooper 2014; Cooper 2020, 117–118.

40

Marta D’Andrea

Fig. 8 Pottery of the earliest phases of Early Bronze IV in the southern Levant; nos. 1–4: Khirbet Kerak/Beth Yerah, Period E (after Greenberg and Eisenberg 2006, figs 5.96.2, 9, 5.97.1, 5.99.4, redrawn); nos. 5–7: Elevation Point-167 (after Bar 2020, fig. 19.16.1, 7–8, redrawn); nos. 8–9: Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, Phase 7 and 6 respectively (after Falconer and Fall 2019 figs 6.2 and 6.6, redrawn); nos. 10–11: Tell Umm Hammad, Stage 5 (after Helms 1986, figs. 17.1, 18,1, redrawn); nos. 12–13: Tell es-Sultan/Jericho, Sultan IIId1 (after Nigro 2003a, fig. 21.1 and Nigro 1999, fig. 4.1 respectively, redrawn); nos. 14–18: Khirbet Iskander, Area C, Phase 1 (after Richard et al. 2010, pls. 2.2–3, 11, 13.4, 14.18, redrawn)

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

The Early Bronze III/IV Transition in the Southern Levant

Stratified pottery assemblages of the initial non-urban Early Bronze IV period in the southern Levant show that goblets and cups were extremely rare in the latter region during this early phase.48 This might suggest either that, albeit infrequent, goblets were introduced early also in the south49 or that some very simple goblet and cup forms might just have been part and parcel of the local typological array already since this archaic period (as well as possibly earlier during Early Bronze III50) disconnectedly from the ‘Caliciform Ware’ phenomenon. I will return to the question of possible mechanisms of diffusion of new material culture traits in the southern Levant during ‘later’ Early Bronze IV phases in the following paragraphs and concentrate here on the hypothesis of a possible conversion to pastoralism in the latter region at the turn between Early Bronze III and IV. Actually, the theory of pastoralism as a carrier of cultural and techno-stylistic information is not entirely new in the research into the southern Levantine Early Bronze IV as it goes back to William G. Dever’s model of “pastoral nomadism” proposed in 1980.51 In contrast, Falconer and Fall on the one hand, and Richard and Long on the other, taking the view from northern and central Transjordan respectively, have argued for enduring ruralism connected with a strong sedentary base in some areas more than others.52 Subsequently, in consideration of such evidence for a stronger rural and sedentary component in the southern Levantine Early Bronze IV societies, Dever has turned to an “agropastoral model” including both semi-nomadic pastoralism and ruralism.53 In the north-eastern Jordan Valley at least two excavated sites yielded long Early Bronze IV sequences with evidence of occupation in the earliest phase of the period, Tell Abu en-Ni’aj, which had not been occupied before,54 and Tell Umm Hammad, which had not been settled since Early Bronze II (c. 3000–2850 BCE).55 At Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the south-western Jordan Valley occupation in the earlier phase of the Early Bronze IV period followed directly the destruction of the last Early Bronze III settlement, which might explain the shrinkage of the occupied sector of the tell, limited to the top of the 48 D’A ndrea

2014a, Vol. 1, 183–187 with references; see also K ennedy 2020b, 328. 49 See discussion in D’A ndrea and Vacca 2020, 125–126, 129–130. 50 R ichard and D’A ndrea 2016. 51 Dever 1980, 49–58. 52 Falconer, Fall and Jones 2007; R ichard and Long 2007a; 2007b, 2009; 2010; R ichard 2016; 2020. 53 Dever 1995; 2003; 2014, 235, fn. 6. 54 Phases 7–6: Falconer and Fall 2019, 42–45. 55 Stage 5: H elms 1986, 30–31, 42–49.

41

mound in this earlier stage.56 Evidence from these three main sites may suggest that the Jordan Valley offered a refugium to communities fleeing from the Early Bronze III fortified settlements in a time of crisis as well as that it was occupied by permanent settlements already in the initial phase of the Early Bronze IV period. The pottery horizon of these early phases (Fig. 8) is a blend of vestigial Early Bronze III traits and harbingers of the Early Bronze IV pottery tradition proper that suggests ‘transitional’ characteristics.57 A similar mixture of features can be noticed also in the pottery associated with the ‘posturban’ Period E at Khirbet Kerak/Beth Yerah58 on the southern shore of Lake Tiberias that precedes the abandonment of the site until later Middle Bronze I, and at Elevation Point-167 in eastern Samaria, which seems to have been a temporary site.59 Radiocarbon determinations in the 2-sigma range from the latter site point to average dates in the interval between 2480 and 2240 calBC.60 Likewise, the site of Khirbet el-’Alya Northeast in the Shephelah yielded ceramics that may be compared to those of the early EB IV phase at the above-mentioned sites,61 associated with radiocarbon determinations falling in the interval between 2570 and 2460 calBC in the 2-sigma range.62 Greater continuity of occupation between Early Bronze III and IV, though punctuated with discontinuities (destruction, abandonments, and shifts),63 has been traditionally recognised also for the eastern Dead Sea basin.64 A ‘transitional late EB III/ early EB IV’65 occupation associated with radiocarbon dates has been uncovered at Khirbet al-Minsahlat in the Kerak Plateau;66 as we noticed earlier, the pottery can be compared to that of the earliest Early Bronze IV phase attested at Khirbet Iskander (here see Fig. 8.12–18).67 Recent excavations at Khirbet Iskander showed that, after a major destruction at the end of Early Bronze IIIA, there was a continuous, 56 Sultan

IIId1: Nigro 2003a, 130–131; Montanari 2020, 137–139. 57 D’Andrea 2014a, Vol. 1, 59–73; 2019a, 64–65 and fig. 2. For the three sites, see, respectively, Helms 1986, 43; Falconer and Fall 2019, figs 6.1–6.6; Nigro 2003a, 133–134. 58 Greenberg and Eisenberg 2006, 151–157, figs. 5.96–5.99. 59 Bar 2020, 358–360 and fig. 19.10. 60 Bar 2020, 359 and tab. 19.1. 61 Lev et al. 2020, 1640, fig, 3. 62 Lev et al. 2020, 16422 tab. 1, 1643. 63 A dams 2006, 139; D’A ndrea 2012, 44–45; 2020a, 408. 64 See, e.g., earlier Dever 1973; 1980, 38–39 and, more recently, Schaub 2009, 108–109; Dever 2014, 234. 65 Chesson et al. 2005, 47. 66 Chesson et al. 2005, 19–20, 33–37 and figs. 10–11, 25–26; see pp. 36–37 for radiocarbon dates from the site: EGSAQ244: 2840–2500 calBC; ISGS-AG245: 2565–2460 calBC; ISGS-A0247: 2618–2471 calBC. 67 R ichard 2010, 105–106; D’A ndrea 2012, 20, 27–28, 36– 37 and fig. 9; 2014a, 134, 183; 2016a, 545; 2019a, 66–67, fig. 2.10–11; 2020a, 400.

42

Marta D’Andrea

multiphase occupation all through Early Bronze IIIB with no break observable also with the following Early Bronze IV period.68 In particular, on the southeast edge of the mound, the upper and latest Early Bronze III phase was directly covered by the walls and surfaces of the earliest Early Bronze IV phase.69 Like the other sites mentioned above, also at Khirbet Iskander the material culture of this initial Early Bronze IV phase is somewhat transitional, as noticed in several earlier works.70 This new evidence for the stratigraphic transition between Early Bronze III and IV framed within a continuous multiperiod sequence does not seem to support a local microregional narrative of conversion or adaptation to pastoralism, but, rather, evokes resilience and reorganisation that might have lasted through late Early Bronze III and initial Early Bronze IV. This might explain the seemingly more substantial nature of the settlement at Khirbet Iskander in the initial Early Bronze IV phase with its considerable stonewalls and thick plastered surfaces compared to other sites.71 As new evidence is becoming available from different sub-regional areas, we are increasingly able to distinguish this stage more clearly in terms of material culture not so much from Early Bronze III but above all from what is considered standard Early Bronze IV. Varying degrees of continuity with the Early Bronze III material culture may make it difficult to recognise it properly when it is not framed within continuous Early Bronze III–IV stratigraphic sequences, which, among the published sites cited above, is the case only for Jericho in Cisjordan and Khirbet Iskander in Transjordan, while at other sites, comparable evidence comes from either the last stage in a sequence (Khirbet Kerak/Bet Yerah and perhaps Khirbet al-Minsahlat), the initial part of a sequence (Tell Abu en-Ni’aj and Tell Umm Hammad) or one-phase settlements (Elevation Point-167 and Khirbet al-‘Alya Northeast). Therefore, it might even be possible that at some sites those local facies overlapped with the very end of Early Bronze III at other settlements. Tell Abu en-Ni’aj is thus far the only site where this initial stage is associated with radiocarbon determinations that place the starting boundary of the period in the interval from 2518–2483

68 R ichard, 69 Ibidem. 70 Long

Long and D’Andrea in press.

2010, 63; R ichard and Long 2010, 272–273; D’Andrea 2014a, 133; 2016a, 545; 2019a, 66; 2020a, 400; R ichard, Long and D’Andrea in press. 71 D’A ndrea, Long and R ichard in press.

calBC according to the latest published modelling.72 In the revised absolute chronology for the southern Levant this interval overlaps with the ranges for the end of Early Bronze III at several sites.73 This is a problem raised by the higher chronology for the southern Levant that we are not yet able to solve due to insufficient stratified data for the initial Early Bronze IV phase. This chronological issue is connected also with the understanding of patterns of settlement in the Central Negev and the Faynan between Early Bronze III and IV. It is acknowledged that an Early Bronze III phase (with red-slipped and burnished vessels) of settlement in those regions and of industrial metallurgical activities at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan in the Faynan, possibly coordinated by the fortified settlements of the eastern Dead Sea basin,74 was followed by an Early Bronze IV occupation at both places (with combed and ribbed vessels). While pottery parallels would put the latter phase in line with central-to-late Early Bronze IV in southern Palestine and central and southern Transjordan,75 recently it has been proposed that the major phase of occupation of the Central Negev, the ‘Arabah and the Faynan during the non-urban Early Bronze IV would have spanned the first half of the period, when metallurgical activities would have been managed by desert people.76 This is 72 Bayesian

modelling yielded dates at 2483–2452 calBC for Phase 7 and at 2452–2415 calBC for Phase 6: and modelled radiocarbon dates for the occupation following the two earliest stages at Tell Abu en-Ni’aj place the following five stratigraphic phases in the interval from c. 2415 to ca. 2266 calBC, therefore in the first half of the Early Bronze IV period: Falconer, Fall and Höflmayer 2021, 27, Tab. 5, 28–29 (see earlier Falconer and Fall 2019, tab. 5.2 with slightly different modelled dates: starting boundary of the period in te interval from 2553– 2479 calBC in the 1-sigma range with a median of 2524 calBC, 2524–2486 calBC for Phase 7 and at 2486–2457 calBC for Phase 6, and from 2457 to ca. 2250 calBC for the period corresponding to Phases 5–1). 73 R egev et al. 2012, 558–561; 2014, 259–261; Shai et al. 2014. 74 On the EB III phase: Levy et al. 2002; A dams 2006, 137– 138, 140; D’Andrea 2012, 36–40, figs. 13.1–11, 14.1–11, tab. 4; 2014a, 128–129; 2019a, 67–68, fig. 3; 2020a, 400–491; Ben-Yosef et al. 2016, 71, 80–82; Dunseth, Finklestein and Shahack-Gross 2018; Finkelstein et al. 2018; Friedman et al. 2020; Gidding and Levy 2020. 75 D’A ndrea 2014a, Vol. 1, 201, 205–206. See D’A ndrea 2012, 31, 33, 36, figs. 13.12–13, 14.12–15, tab. 4 for the pottery parallels; though discussed there still in the framework of traditional lower chronology for the southern Levantine Early Bronze IV the suggested parallels still work because based on comparative stratigraphy, independently from the absolute chronological systems. For a more recent discussion that considers the revised chronology, see D’Andrea 2019a, 67–68, fig. 3; 2020a, 400–401. Contra Dever 2014, 189– 190, fig. 11.59. 76 Finkelstein et al. 2018, 77.

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

maintained on the base of a new corpus of radiometric determinations that span the interval between late Early Bronze III and mid-Early Bronze IV according to the revised chronology and add to previous dates falling within similar ranges.77 However, no ceramics associated with the new radiocarbon dates have been published thus far, therefore it is not possible to evaluate independently whether the new pottery evidence would fit into an early phase of the Early Bronze IV period.78 The available radiocarbon dates with very broad intervals that would equally fit into the late Early Bronze III, the Early Bronze III/IV transition, and the first half of Early Bronze IV with no possibilities to fine-tune the chronological range are by no means conclusive with respect to the question of dating the settlements in the Central Negev and the Faynan region exclusively to the first half of the Early Bronze IV period. However, should our reading of the published pottery evidence be correct, seeming lack of permanent settlements during the initial or earlier Early Bronze IV phases would not per se mean that those desert areas were not crossed, frequented, and exploited also in this period. When the southern Levant transitioned from Early Bronze III to IV huge changes in the socio-political and socio-economic organization were taking place. Therefore, to better understand not just the chronology but also the ways those arid regions were occupied (including the role of desert nomads, as well as contacts with Egypt and perhaps with resilient sedentary settlements in the Dead Sea basin?) in this Early Bronze IV phase would be of the greatest importance also to reinvestigate how intense copper exploitation developed in the following phases of the period. Although the archaeological evidence available to investigate the Early Bronze III/IV transition and the initial Early Bronze IV phase in the southern Levant is still somewhat unclear and sparse, a universal model of general reversion to pastoralism and appearance of new shapes inspired by foreign prototypes and mirroring the introduction of nonlocal practices and behaviours in this early stage of the period seems unlikely. Across the region the material culture of the initial Early Bronze IV phase seems largely derived from the previous Early 77 Finkelstein

et al. 2018, 70–76; Gidding and Levy 2020, 320–321. 78 A short description of the pottery is provided by Dunseth, Finkelstein and Shahack-Gross (2018, 8), referring mainly to a few diagnostic and nondiagnostic red-slipped sherds normally ascribed to the earliest Transjordanian tradition. However, without drawings or photos it is impossible to determine the ceramic chronology independently – red-slipped lamps, bowls and cups can be found in central and southern Transjordan with different variants during Early Bronze III and during different Early Bronze IV phases.

43

Bronze III tradition.79 Settlement patterns mirror a variety of local responses including crisis, decline and discontinuities in some areas possibly entailing less permanent ways of settlement as noted by Greenberg for the Hula Valley,80 and resilience and reorganisation at other places as noted at several places in the Jordan Valley as well as at Khirbet Iskander, as discussed above. Certainly, pastoralism was part of the regional picture, but already in this early stage it might have been altogether not disconnected from a sedentary presence in the region, a rural and resilient component that certainly played a crucial role in regional reorganisation too and paved the way for a phase of regional growth during the following Early Bronze IV phases.81

Clusters Changing within Early Bronze IV and new Patterns of Interregional Connectivity Changes in the Northern Levant during Early Bronze IV

Research during the past fifteen years has revolutionised our understanding of the second half of Early Bronze IV in the northern Levant (locally called Early Bronze IVB, c. 2300–2000/1950 BCE), showing developments that were unexpected in the past. Still until the early 2000s, the last quarter of the 3rd millennium BCE was considered as a phase of decline also in the north, despite continuing urbanization, following the destruction of Ebla and the end of its mighty regional state.82 This regional narrative of crisis would have fit well into an inter-regional picture of regression, climatic deterioration and instability in the last quarter of the 3rd millennium BCE also in Mesopotamia during the post-Akkadian Period, in Egypt during the First Intermediate Period, and in the southern Levant in the non-urban period after the crisis of local fortified settlements.83 However, more recently it has become clear that the second half of the Early Bronze IV period in the northern Levant was not a period of

79 See

regional overviews in Palumbo 1990; 2001; 2008; D’Andrea 2012; 2014a; 2015; 2019a; 2020a; Cohen 2018. For the evidence from individual sites, see Helms 1986, 30–31, 42–49; Nigro 2003a; Greenberg and Eisenberg 2006, 151–157, figs. 5.96–5.99; R ichard 2010. Before multiphase sequences became available, strong continuity between the Early Bronze III and IV ceramic traditions had been demonstrated by Dever 1973; 1980 and R ichard 1980. 80 Greenberg 2002, 77–81, figs. 4.4–4.5; 2003, 30–31, figs. 2–4 and 2–5. 81 On this “rural complexity”, see R ichard 2016; 2020. 82 Radiocarbon dates obtained from the weighted average are 2458–2418 calBC (18.8%), 2408–2375 calBC (23.0%) 2367–2293 (calBC (53.6%) calBC in the 2-sigma range: Calcagnile, Quarta and D’Elia 2013, 454, fig. 27.5. 83 See the discussion in Höflmayer 2015.

44

Marta D’Andrea

recession but a time of change and realignment of economic and political balances.84 As noticed in several recent reviews of this period Ebla recovered gradually from the destruction and only after an initial phase of decline and shrinkage,85 while the region to the south between Qatna and Tell Nebi Mend developed continuously and flourished in Early Bronze IVB.86 It is acknowledged that the growth of sites in the central Syrian steppe might have been in part prompted by the decline of Ebla’s regional state87 that had controlled the area from Karkemish to around Hama directly,88 but had also defeated and subjugated the confederation of tribes settling the steppe east and south of Qatna,89 which, therefore, recovered political autonomy in the later Early Bronze IV phases.90 These tribes seem to have become organized as a socio-political entity already in the third quarter of the 3rd millennium BCE with the creation of an original version of urbanism reflecting a local imprint as well as multiple connections to the neighbouring regions. There are increasing hints that, after recovering political independence, during the second half of Early Bronze IV this entity might have achieved a leading role in driving intra and inter-regional economic connections thanks to the key position of its system of circular cities at the western edge of the central Syrian steppe, at the intersection between a path connecting the coast to the central Euphrates Valley through the Orontes Valley and a path leading northward to the Jabbul Lake and the Middle Euphrates Valley and southward to Damascus and thereafter to the Hula Valley and the Transjordanian plateau.91 Also the social structure of the tribal confederation settling the central Syrian steppe might have been key to achieving this new role in a time of economic and political redefinition at the regional level that will have a long-lasting impact on the socio-political configuration of the northern Levantine societies in the following Middle Bronze Age. It is well known that, in Syria, Amorite and non-Amorite people were part of an interwoven social fabric already since the mid-3rd millennium BCE and it seems that Amorite people were connected traditionally 84 Cooper

2012, 487–490; 2014; M azzoni 2013, 34–39; 2020, 14, 20–22; D’Andrea 2019b, 16–26; 2020b. 85 D’A ndrea 2014/2015; 2018b; 2018c; 2020b; M atthiae 2020. 86 K ennedy 2015a, 64; 2015b, 3; Mouamar 2016, 74–77, figs. 3, 6, 12. 87 Ascalone and D’A ndrea 2013, 225; K ennedy 2015a, 282–283, 316–317; 2016, 3; D’Andrea 2019b, 17–19; 2020b, 212–213. 88 On opposing theories considering Hama within or beyond the borders of the Ebla state, see Vacca et al. 2018, 19, with relative bibliography. 89 Catagnoti 1997; A rchi 2013, 83; Biga 2014, 201–205. 90 D’A ndrea 2020c, 136–137. 91 A l-M aqdissi 2010.

with economic activities entailing mobility and control of technology, such as metallurgy, crafts, and specialised animal herding. It seems that the socio-political entity settling the steppe of Central Syria during Early Bronze IV was ruled by Amorite leaders already during the first half of Early Bronze IV,92 and that after the transition from the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BCE Amorite groups came to power at other places, like Umm el-Marra in the Jabbul Plain.93 At Ebla the shift of supremacy to the hands of a local social component that was not in power at the time of the Ebla archives might have happened already during the late Early Bronze IVB period.94 Evidence of interactions between Ebla and the central Syrian steppe in the later part of Early Bronze IV is coming into focus in the material culture, suggested by both pottery evidence of contacts95 as well as similarities between the Early Bronze IVB religious complexes at Ebla and Al-Rawda,96 and might mirror relationships between the ‘new’ Ebla leaders and those of the cities in the steppe that were not as antagonistic as in Early Bronze IVA.97 Much stronger sociocultural similarity between the chiefs of the late Early Bronze IV communities at Ebla and in the steppe compared to the first half of the Early Bronze IV period might have been conducive to a resurgence of contacts between them during Early Bronze IVB. A tantalising hypothesis is that the possibility for the new Ebla leaders to progressively gain power might have been somehow facilitated by recovered political independence and increased economic importance of the cities in the steppe. The local social element responsible for the rejuvenation of urbanisation at Ebla during a late phase of the Early Bronze IV period might have been at the same time a segment of a larger component made of more flexible and mobile groups that were traditionally part and parcel of Syrian societies over a much broader geographical area from the Jezirah to the central Syrian steppe.98 In other words, although this needs further investigation and testing, it might not be farfetched to assume that the political and economic consolidation of the confederated tribal groups settling the expanding cities of the central Syrian steppe might have been a factor enabling the ascent of a similar though distinct and local sociocultural component in northwest inland Syria in a period of socio-political reorganisation, as the second half

92 See

Catagnoti 1997 on the Amorite linguistic substratum; see also Lafont 2010, 76. 93 Nichols and Weber 2006, 50–51. 94 D’A ndrea 2019b, 24, 26. 95 D’A ndrea 2020c, 153–154, fig. 1. 96 M atthiae 2007, 504–505; Castel 2010, 142. 97 D’A ndrea 2020c, 159. 98 M azzoni 2013, 34–37. See Porter 2019, 21.

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

45

Fig. 9 Map of distribution of copper ingots in the southern Levant during Early Bronze IV (base map by M. Zingarello, edits by the author; map data: SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, NEBCO, Landsat, Copernicus through Google Earth Pro and Bing Maps Tile System, 2020) of the Early Bronze IV period certainly was. With respect to this, it is worth noting that to the east, in the Middle Euphrates Valley, where the end of Early Bronze IVA was marked by violent destructions at several major sites, there is some evidence for important changes during Early Bronze IVB at Tell Bi‘a/Tuttul. At the latter site the palace built at the end of Early Bronze IVA (the Pillar Building) above

another destroyed Early Bronze IVA palace was reused during the first half of the Early Bronze IVB period (ARCANE’s Early Middle Euphrates 5 = EME 5).99 Moreover, a huge temple in antis, which remained in use all through the Early Bronze IV 99 Novák

2015, 68–69, fig. 24.

46

Marta D’Andrea

period and beyond, was dated to the same phase,100 and the Early Bronze IVA texts report that a regional sanctuary dedicated to the god Dagan existed already at that time101. It has been suggested that “the agro-pastoral communities of the zone of uncertainty during the later third millennium BCE put in place the foundations – economic, socio-political and symbolic – for the Amorite states that followed during the early second millennium”.102 Such a pattern of intra-regional connectivity might allow us to frame sociocultural transformations between the Early and Middle Bronze Ages within long durée processes, including some degree of population admixture across Syria.103 In my opinion, the latter phenomenon might be read as the result of mobility and even small-scale migrations related to increasing connectivity developing from economic interactions in a period of changes and renegotiation of economic and political balances104 rather than to migrations of climatic or political refugees in a time of crisis and uncertainty.105

Changes in the Southern Levant during Early Bronze IV

The chronological framework of the Early Bronze IV period in the southern Levant is less accurate than that of the northern Levant as we are not thus far able to determine how much time elapsed from the initial Early Bronze IV phase to the following phases of the period.106 Likewise, although there are some sites with long multiphase stratigraphic sequences where a ‘central’ and a ‘later’ Early Bronze IV horizon can be identified in terms of relative, stratigraphic phases, it is thus far impossible to define their duration. Despite the blurring absolute chronology, comparative stratigraphy may allow for the reconstruction of a landscape dotted with sedentary, permanent villages during the period following the initial phase of Early Bronze IV, although it is reasonable that not all of them were occupied at the same time and throughout the whole period.107 The archaeological evidence shows some complexity despite absence of urbanisation, intra-regional connectivity along eastwest and north-south axes, specialisation of various

Novák 2015, 66. A rchi 2016, 138–139. 102 Wilkinson et al. 2014, 96 also citing Fleming 2004 and Porter 2012. 103 Skourtanioti et al. 2020, 1168–1169. 104 D’A ndrea 2019b, 16–26; 2020b, 211–214. 105 E.g., Weiss 2014, 376–377; 2017, 145–146; Burke 2017, 276–295. 106 Greenberg 2019, 139. 107 See Greenberg 2019, 138 on “the tendence of IBA settlements to relocate every few decades” (though in connection with his view of this period as mainly characterised by seminomadic pastoralism). 100 101

sites and areas in different economic activities,108 and a synergetic relation between sedentary villages in some regions and less permanent occupation in other areas.109 As discussed above, recent research points to a date in the first half of the Early Bronze IV period for the occupation of the Central Negev sites based on radiocarbon dates that would situate the smelting and trade of copper parallel to the late Old Kingdom (that is before the First Intermediate Period) and would support the hypothesis that Egypt was the prime destination of the southern Levantine metal.110 However, the parallels for the thus far published Early Bronze IV pottery found in the Central Negev as well as at Site 149 (a smelter site) at Timna111 can be found in later stratified assemblages at sites in the eastern Dead Sea basin, which would fit well with radiocarbon determinations from ‘Ein Ziq and Har Dimon in the Central Negev respectively in the intervals between 2266 and 1951,112 and from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan in the Faynan between 2201 and 1884.113 Moreover, the suggestion that metallurgical activities on a grand scale were carried on during later Early Bronze IV phases is supported also by other radiocarbon dates available for the smelting site of ‘En Yahav in the ‘Arabah falling in the intervals 2030–1920 calBC (1-sigma) and 2140–1880 calBC (2-sigma).114 On the one hand, the available evidence suggests that the Negev complex was settled and exploited, and that copper from the ‘Arabah and the Faynan was extensively mined and traded at least also during later Early Bronze IV phases.115 Future research will hopefully clarify whether these patterns of settlement and landscape use in those arid regions developed continuously from the earlier Early Bronze IV phases but intensified in the later Early Bronze IV phase due to increasing internal and external demand, or if there was a new surge of industrial D’Andrea 2020a, 408–409; R ichard 2020, 436–438. Beside metallurgy (Yekutieli, Shalev and Shilstein 2005, 15–19; H aiman 2009; H auptmann et al. 2015), pottery and flint blade production (Falconer 1987; D’Andrea 2014a, Vol. 1, 247–249, 251–252; Covello Paran 2020, 385, 392), and olive oil production (Fraser and Cartwright 2018). 109 H aiman 1996; 2009; Dever 2014, 226–227. 110 Finkelstein et al. 2018; Gidding and Levy 2020. 111 Rothenberg 1999, 86. 112 Samples RT-2514 and RT-1558 respectively: Segal 1999. 113 Beta-143812: Levy et al. 2002. 114 Sample RTT-4683 (EY 17): Boaretto in: Yekutieli, Shalev and Shilstein 2006, 19–20. 115 Based on the archaeomagnetic study of slag deposits, Ben Yosef et al. (2016, 71, 80–82) suggested that copper production in the ‘Arabah Valley lasted from late Early Bronze III through the entire Early Bronze IV period, from c. 2600 BCE to c. 1950 BCE, but considered this activity limited in the latter period, based on a lower number of radiocarbon dates. 108

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

47

Fig. 10 Metal weapons in the southern Levant during Early Bronze IV (after D’Andrea 2013, fig. 1; 2014a, Vol. 1, fig 6.15, re-elaborated, here with corrected caption); no. 1: Tell es-Sultan/Jericho, Tomb A 95 (after K enyon 1960, fig. 70.4 redrawn); nos. 2–3: Tell el-‘Ajjul, Tombs 1526 and 1532 (after Petrie 1932, pl. X.47–48, redrawn); no. 4: Tell es-Sultan/Jericho, Tomb A 26 (after K enyon 1960, fig. 70.9, redrawn); no. 5: Tell el-‘Ajjul, Tomb 1534 (after Petrie 1932, pl. XIII.67, redrawn); no. 6: Nahf, Tomb 3 (after Getzov 1995, fig. 9.1, redrawn); no. 7: Ma’abarot, Tomb 12 (after Dar 1977, fig. 23.13, redrawn); no. 8: Tell ed-Duweir/Lachish, Tomb 2100 (after Tufnell 1958, pl. 22.3, redrawn); no. 9: Jebel Qa’aqir (after Dever 1972a, fig. on p. 233, the first item from the left, redrawn); no. 10: Tell ed-Duweir/Lachish, Tomb 2009 (after Tufnell 1958, pl. 22.9, redrawn); nos. 11–12: el-Jib/Gibeon, Tombs 50 and 52 (after Pritchard 1963, figs. 56.8, 58.7, redrawn); nos. 13–14: Ain Mallaha/Enan (after Eisenberg 1985, fig. 9.50–51); no. 15: Ma‘abarot, Tomb 6 (after Dar 1977, fig. 22.12, redrawn)

48

Marta D’Andrea

and commercial organization of copper production and distribution in the latter phase prompted under different circumstances by new inter-regional connections after a gap following late Early Bronze III or the Early Bronze III/IV transition. On the other hand, it has emerged clearly that Egypt might have been one destination of the copper traded from the southern Levant, if the Early Bronze IV campsites distributed along the Way of Horus116 and the temporary settlements scattered across the Negev and Sinai deserts117 with southern Levantine pottery are any indirect evidence of these contacts.118 However, bar ingots cast in the Faynan were distributed towards the north (Fig. 9) along different possible pathways considering that thus far they have been found (together with ‘later’ Early Bronze IV pottery) at sites in the Central Negev, the Shephelah, the Hebron Hills, at Jericho, and at Hazor.119 Interestingly, in the interregional scenario this phase would correspond to the decline of the Anatolian Trade Network from c. 2200 BCE,120 which might have provided an occasion for the southern Levant to meet inter-regional demand for copper in a time when other routes of interregional procurement seem to have not been at work. This might have been at least one possible factor drawing the southern Levant into interregional connections during the advanced phases of the Early Bronze IV period.

The ‘Syrian Connection’ and the Other Interregional Interactions: Evidence from Archaeological Clusters

The archaeological documentation for the phases following the initial Early Bronze IV phase in the southern Levant allows us to appreciate a variety of new elements emerging along with a progressive technological improvement noticeable in ceramics and metalwork and pointing to multiple lines of connectivity between the southern Levant and the surrounding regions.121

Oren and Yekutieli 1990; Yekutieli 2002, 425, 431. H aiman 1996; 2009. 118 See discussion in D’A ndrea 2018d. 119 Cohen 1999, fig. 115 and Dever 2014, fig. 11.64.4–5 (Be‛er Resisim, ‛Ein Ziq and Har Yeruham, Central Negev); Tufnell 1958, pl. 21.11–13 (Tell ed-Duweir/ Lachish); Dever and Tadmor 1976, 163–164, 168, fig. 1.71.77.230, 71.77.233, 71.77.237, 71.77.243, pl. 30.C–D (Hebron Hills); Yahalom-M ack et al. 2014, 19, fig. 3.1 and Bechar 2020, 372 (Hazor); Sellin and Watzinger 1913, fig. 104 and Nigro 2003a, 123, fig. 3; 2003b, 10–12, fig. 3 (Jericho); Philip 1988, 196–197 and H auptmann et al. 2015 for a comprehensive discussion. On the existence of a northern and a southern route of distribution, see also K aufman 2013, 279. 120 Şahoğlu 2019, 126–127. 121 Vacca and D’A ndrea 2015; D’A ndrea 2018a; Cooper 2020, 117–118. 116 117

Although for metal artefacts it is more difficult to pinpoint transformations in time because these are almost always found in tombs, the association with ‘later’ pottery might suggest that technological changes characterised the production of metalwork in the second half of Early Bronze IV. The older repertoire of daggers with simple blades deriving from the still little known local Early Bronze Age tradition (Fig. 10.1–3) was flanked by the spread of several new and more elaborated types with subregional distribution (Fig. 10.4–5), as well as by the introduction of new weapons, including various spear and javelin types (Fig. 10.8–12), arrows (Fig. 10.13–14), and the first fenestrated axes (Fig. 10.15).122 Metal weapons indicate multiple lines of development, some of which suggestive of a coastal and an inland routes with east-west connectors across the southern Levant. Ribbed daggers with triangular blade and butt (Fig. 10.5) that are common at sites on the southern Levantine coast, and the archaic fenestrated axes that appear at Enot Shuni in the Carmel Mountains and Ma’abarot in the Sharon Plain (Fig. 10.6), as well as at inland sites located at nodal points, such as Megiddo and Jericho, are suggestive of connections with the northern Lebanese coast, where these types of weapons appear around the Early/Middle Bronze transition and will be continuously produced during Middle Bronze I.123 On the other hand, the so-called poker-pike or javelin with rhomboid section (Fig. 10.11–12) that is frequently found in central and southern Cisjordan may be connected to prototypes attested in the 3rd millennium BCE tradition of the Middle Euphrates Valley and Mesopotamia.124 These developments were accompanied also by a growing presence of tin-bronze items that, although not yet replacing those made of arsenical copper, certainly attest for the inclusion of the southern Levant within paths of long-distance, interregional distribution of this metal too.125

D’Andrea 2013, 138, fig. 1; 2014a, Vol. 1, 237–239, fig. 6.5 citing earlier references. 123 For the chronology of finds in northern Lebanon see particularly Thalmann 2008, 72–76, figs. 8–9. For the analysis of regional and diachronic developments of fenestrated axe types see Philip 1989; Nigro 2003b, 10–26, figs. 3, 5–23; Gernez 2008, and the recent discussion in H ausleiter, D’Andrea and Zur 2018, 421–426 including a radiocarbon-dated specimen from a cemetery in the oasis of Tayma in Northwest Arabia (H ausleiter, D’Andrea and Zur 2018, 419). 124 Philip 1989, 73–74, fig. 14.136, type 9; D’A ndrea 2013, 138; Vacca and D’Andrea 2015, 50–51, fig. 7.11–15; Squadrone 2015, 309, pl. 6.4–7; Montanari 2020, 119– 120. 125 See, e.g, Philip 1991, 93, 100–101; R ichard 2006, 125– 126; K aufman 2013, 663–665, 668–669, 272, 278–279, 683–684, figs. 1–2; K aufman and Scott 2015, 1019–1021. 122

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

49

Fig. 11 The ‘grey wares’ in the Levant (1–15) and their distribution during the second half of Early Bronze IV, after D’A ndrea 2017, figs. 1 and 3 (re-elaborated); no. 1: Tell Nebi Mend (after K ennedy 2015a, fig. 69.18, redrawn); no. 2: Tell ‘Asharneh (after Cooper 2007, fig. 7: the first vessel from the top, redrawn); no. 3: Khirbet al-Umbashi (after Échallier and Braemer 2004, fig. 584.C.157, redrawn); nos. 4–5: Tell el-Waqqas/ Hazor (after Bechar 2015, fig. 5.9, 17, redrawn); nos. 6–7: Tell Sha‘īrat (redrawn after Mouamar 2016, fig. 8.8–9, redrawn); nos. 8–9: Tell Nebi Mend (after K ennedy 2015a, fig. 79.15, 21, redrawn); nos. 10–11: Moumassakhin (after A l-M aqdissi 1989, figs. 19.123, 37.130, redrawn; no. 12: Tell el-Mutesellim/Megiddo (after Guy 1938, pl. 11.27, redrawn); no. 13: Khirbet Qadish/Qedesh: Qedesh (after Tadmor 1978, fig. 8.70–229, redrawn); no. 14: Nahf (after Getzov 1995, fig. 8.1, redrawn; no. 15: as-Sanbariyya/Ma’ayan Barukh (after A miran 1961, fig. 6.7, redrawn) Compared to the earlier phase of this period, increasing use of a different, more advanced technology is noticeable also in the pottery of the later Early Bronze IV phases that attests for a skilled use of the slow wheel homogenously across the southern Levant (especially for the making of smaller openshaped vessels). While a clear technological change in the southern Levant during Early Bronze IV compared to Early Bronze III was identified early in the research into the local Early Bronze IV,126 only later scholarship has recognised this development as typical of more advanced Early Bronze IV phases thanks to the stratified evidence of multiphase sites.127 This technological development cuts across pottery regionalism in the southern Levant. The latter observation may support our hypothesis that technological transfer may have started from contacts 126 127

A lbright 1933, 64; K enyon 1970, 152. Helms 1986, 30–31, 42–49; Nigro 2003a, 131–134, 138– 139; D’Andrea 2012, 24–36 and tab. 1; 2014a, Vol. 1, 73–94; 2015, 32–34; 2016a, 542–545; 2020a, 398–400.

with the surrounding regional areas at nodal points within the southern Levant, but that subsequent capillary diffusion across the latter region might have been driven by strong intraregional connectivity. In contrast, new types of ware classes and vessel forms were introduced differentially in the various subregional areas of the southern Levant, mirroring differentiated local needs to elaborate means suitable to fuelling differential interactions with given external areas incorporating heterogenous exotic behaviours and their material correlates in the respective local subsets.128 The Black Wheel-made Ware found between the Galilee and the Jezreel Valley, with its characteristic grey goblets and teapots has been considered the hallmark of the ‘Syrian connection’ and of emulation of Syrian elites in the south. These vessels have been

128

D’Andrea 2014a, Vol. 1, 252–256, figs. 6.11–6.15; 2018a.

50

Marta D’Andrea

originally thought to be imported from the Orontes Valley,129 until petrography showed that they were at least partially produced with clays outcropping in the Anti-Lebanon Mountains.130 Moreover, it has been demonstrated that this ware class was present also in the Lebanese Beqa’a,131 but it is still under investigation if there were different independent workshops in the Lebanese Beqa’a and the Hula Valley that were clearly the heartlands of distribution of this particular ware class in the southern Levant, while further south this ware was imported. 132 In addition, connections with and differences from the various classes of socalled ‘grey wares’ distributed in Central Syria have come into sharper focus in terms of shapes, styles, and petrography.133 It seems increasingly accepted that the spread of this techno-stylistic phenomenon – of which the Black-Wheelmade Ware vessels of the Beqa’a and the Hula Valley, produced locally, were part – in a region stretching from Central Syria to the northernmost areas of the southern Levant may have been limited to the second half of Early Bronze IV (Fig. 11). However, these later regional variants of grey wares seem to have derived from ware classes originally elaborated during the first half of the period apparently only in the Central and Upper Orontes Valley.134 Therefore, we may reconsider the paradigm of elite emulation and retain that of the ‘Syrian connection’, although with a different meaning compared to the first uses of the term that were mainly connected with trade.135 While we have no data on the occupation of the Beqa’a during Early Bronze IV,136 it seems that in the Upper Galilee, following a drop in permanent settlements at the beginning of Early Bronze IV,137 sedentary settlements were re-established during later Early Bronze IV phases, including a developed

Guy 1938, 148–149; Dever 1980, 50; M azzoni 1985, 15; Palumbo 1990, 118–119. 130 Greenberg et al. 1998, 23; Greenberg 2002, 53–54; Bunimovitz and Greenberg 2004, 23. 131 Genz and Sader 2008, 187, pl. 1.2–3, 4, 7; Genz 2010, 209–211, figs. 2–4. 132 To the references cited at fn. 130, must be added Bechar 2015; 2017, 173–178, figs. 6.12.5–11, 6.16.8, 6.18.8–9, 6.20.4, 6.21.9–12; 2020; Cohen-Weinberger 2016 for the Hula Valley and Genz, Badreshany and Jean in press for the Beqa‘a. 133 See D’A ndrea 2017, with references. Recently: K ennedy, Badreshany and Philip 2018; Boileau 2018, 1, 5–6, 10; Cooper 2018, 194–195, figs. 11–12; Mouamar 2018, 6–8, figs. 7, 9: Group B; Vacca et al. 2018, 28–34, figs. 7–8. 134 D’A ndrea 2014a, Vol. 1, 2014b, 203–206; 2017, 178–180, fig. 3; 2020b, 20, fig. 3; 2020c, 154; Welton and Cooper 2014, 335–336; Bechar 2015, 51; 2020, 366; K ennedy 2020b, 336. 135 Dever 1980, 52; M azzoni 1985, 15; Palumbo 1990, 119. 136 Genz 2010, 208–210. 137 D’A ndrea 2014a, Vol. 1, 117–120, tab. 6; 2020a, 402–405; 2020b, 213–215; Greenberg 2019, 141; Bechar 2020, 369. 129

permanent village at Hazor.138 The ambition of economic interactions with the flourishing neighbours in Central Syria during the second half of Early Bronze IV (of which we have discussed before in connection with their possible key role in interregional interactions during this phase) might have been a catalyst for the communities at the northern fringes of the southern Levant to get reorganized in permanent villages.139 The regional variants of ‘grey wares’ with their immediately recognizable common visual properties (Fig. 12.1– 15) might have provided an efficient tool for discrete communities – each represented by otherwise different pottery traditions, oriented towards the northern Levant in Central Syria140 and towards the southern Levant in the Lebanese Beqa’a and the Hula Valley141 – to affirm their participation in a broader network, while still differentiating themselves from one another with minor variations in shapes and styles.142 The fact that the material assemblage capable of fuelling these interactions was chosen among prototypes derived from central Syria with a long tradition and elaboration behind them might be suggestive of the role played by this region not only in transferring techno-stylistic information, but also in interactions that may have contributed to prompt a socioeconomic reorganization during later Early Bronze IV in their closest neighbouring areas located at the northern fringes of the southern Levant.143 This seems another case where the archaeological evidence suggests that some aspects of the interregional socio-political, socioeconomic and sociocultural configuration of the Middle Bronze Age – when Qatna, Tell Nebi Mend, Damascus and Hazor will be important regional centres – might have been in embryo already in the later Early Bronze IV phases. If and to which extent also the Lebanese Beqa’a was part of these processes will be determined only when more data on the Early Bronze IV occupation in the latter region will become available. Beside this phenomenon of ‘true’ ‘Syrian connection’ limited to the areas located at the interface between the northern and southern Levant, a variety of different exotic elements emerged and developed Bechar 2013; 2020, 372–374. D’Andrea 2020b, 213; 2020d, 135–137. 140 Mouamar 2016, 82–84; 2018; K ennedy 2019. 141 Genz 2010, 209–212; D’A ndrea 2014a, Vol. 1, 192–194; 2014b, 209–210. 142 D’A ndrea 2020d, 136–138. Bechar (2020) recently rediscussed the evidence from Hazor, and provided an interpretation of the Black Wheel-made Ware moving from visual aspects of a connection to Syria. However, her own theory centres on local appropriation of visual means associated with Syrian urban palaces as an exclusionary strategy to construct local elites in the Hula Valley discriminating between elite consumers of grey ware and non-elite consumers of plain ware respectively. 143 D’A ndrea and Vacca 2015, 49. 138 139

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

51

Fig. 12 New vessel shapes in the southern Levant during Early Bronze IV; no 1: Tell el-Mutesellim/Megiddo (after Loud 1948, pl. 9.13, redrawn); no. 2: Khirbet Kirmil (after Dever 1975, fig. 5.18–19, redrawn); no. 3: Jebel Qa’aqir (after Dever 2014, fig. 2.93.9, redrawn); no. 4: Tell Beit Mirsim (after Dever 2003, fig. 1.5, redrawn); no. 5: Tell el-Mutesellim/Megiddo (after Loud 1948, pl. 16.13, redrawn); no. 6: Tell ed-Duweir/Lachish (after Tufnell 1958, pl. 66.416, redrawn); no. 7: Tell Beit Mirsim (after Dever 2003, fig. 1.4, redrawn); no. 8: Tell ed-Duweir/Lachish (after Tufnell 1958, pl. 66.403, redrawn); no. 9: Tell es-Sultan/Jericho (after K enyon and Holland 1983, fig. 67.3, redrawn); no. 10: ‘Ain Samiya (after Dever 1972b, fig. 3.10, redrawn); nos. 11–12: Beit Dajan/Bet Dagan, Tombs 767 and 773 (after Yannai 2014, 3.7.4, 7, redrawn); no. 13: Nahal Rimmonim (after Covello -Paran 2008, fig. 6.2, redrawn); no. 14: Tell el-Waqqas/Hazor (after Yadin et al. 1961, pl. CLVI.12, redrawn); no. 15: Tell Mardikh/ Ebla (after D’A ndrea 2018b, fig. 8.6, © Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria); no. 16: Tell Mastuma (after Wakita 2009, fig. 3.8.26); no. 17: Tell Meskene/Emar (after Sconzo 2015, pl. 26.7, redrawn)

52

Marta D’Andrea

Fig. 13 Tomb N8 in the Early Bronze IV cemetery at Tiwal esh-Sharqi, Jordan (after Tubb 1990, fig. 11, redrawn) across different parts of the southern Levant. Firstly, goblets and cups with several sub-regional variants144 were numerically important in the assemblages of the more advanced phases only in few subregions within the southern Levant, all located along important intra-regional intersections (that might have been also crossed by inter-regional paths).145 Secondly, along the coast of the southern Levant and its hinterland in the Shephelah (and only more rarely inland though always at nodal points along communication routes, 144

145

For a more recent attempt of regional typological classification, see D’Andrea 2014a, Vol. 2, 188–193, pls. XVII–XXVIII; see, earlier, the analysis of Dever 1980, 38, 48 and figs. 2.14, 3.3, 14, 4.7, 13, 15–17 and Richard 1980, 18, fig. 3.5–12; see also Kennedy 2020b, 328, fig. 18.1. D’Andrea in press. At Tell Abu en-Ni’aj cups are attested from Phase 3, which is placed by modelled radiocarbon dates in the interval between 2373 and 2331 cal BC (according to the new model in Falconer, Fall and Höflmayer 2021, 27 Tab. 5; see also Falconer and Fall 2019, fig. 6.6 for the pottery, p. 72, tab. 5.2 for slightly different modelled radiocarbon dates in the interval between 2382 and 2335 calBC). At Tell Umm Hammad goblets appear later in the sequence too (K ennedy 2020b, 336).

e.g. at Megiddo and Jericho) beside goblets and cups it is possible to isolate handled cups and mugs (Fig. 12.1–12) that resemble those found in northern Lebanon (see Fig. 6).146 As suggested recently, the spatial distribution of these vessel forms might allow us to identify a general coastal ‘imprint’ shared among the eastern Aegean, western Anatolia, the ‘Amuq Plain, and northern Lebanon during the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE and marking the existence of a coastal ‘handled-cup area’ that might have extended its influence further south to the littoral of the southern Levant (see Fig. 7).147 As well known, not only very limited but tangible evidence in the material culture indicates contacts between the southern Levant and the Aegean,148 but also interactions between the northern coast of the southern Levant and northern Lebanon around the Early Bronze/Middle Bronze transition are suggested by the discovery of two identical archaic fenestrated axes with a decoration in the shape of D’Andrea 2014a, Vol. 1, 252–254, figs. 6.13–6.14; 2018a, 84, figs. 3–4. 147 D’A ndrea and Vacca 2020, figs. 126–130, figs. 3–4. 148 See Oren 2003; D’A ndrea 2018a, 84, with references. 146

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

a hunting dog evidently cast in the same mould at Byblos on the northern coast of Lebanon and in the cemetery at Enot Shuni at the southern piedmont of the Carmel Mountain.149 Moreover, exotic elements appearing in more conservative spheres, such as food habits and culinary preferences, and burial customs may adumbrate foreign behaviours. Examples recalled in previous studies are, respectively, the Cooking Ware bowls (Fig. 12.13–14) resembling those of the area comprised between northern inland Syria and the Euphrates River Valley (Fig. 12.15–17),150 and cist graves (Fig. 13) that are foreign to the southern Levant and contained inhumations accompanied by typically local material culture.151 Such evidence might suggest that non-local people lived side by side with the local communities, but this hypothesis has never been tested by means of bioarchaeological studies. While emulation of foreign elites’ behaviours might be one explanation behind changes in the material culture of the southern Levant, it seems clear that transformations did not stem from a single phenomenon. Long-distance and multi-directional mobility and small-scale migrations of non-local people connected with economic activities might be possible mechanisms lying behind material culture changes, requiring the renegotiation of social practices to fuel communication among people operating in an inter-regional milieu but belonging to different groups. The variety of the new elements emerging in the southern Levant during the advanced phases of the Early Bronze IV period are indirect but clear evidence of multiple and differentiated contacts, which might suggest that the region was part of general changes taking place at a greater level and connected with emerging large-scale economic activities in the Near East and the Aegean. In the northern Levant, changes might have started in advance because this region was integrated earlier into the new emerging inter-regional scenario, while it is reasonable that a certain time elapsed before the southern Levantine communities recovered from the collapse of the Early Bronze III urbanization and regained a role in inter-regional connections.

Byblos, Temple of the Obelisks: Dunand 1950, pl. CXIX.14434; Enot Shuni, Tomb 65: Caspi et al. 2009, fig. 6a. 150 D’A ndrea 2014a: Vol. 1: 262, fig. 6.16.4–5; Vol 2: 198, 201, 203, Types B1.1, 1.2C, B1.4; 2014d: 157, fig. 8.8–9; 2018a, 85. 151 Tubb 2009; Prag 2011; D’A ndrea 2014a, Vol. 1, 261, fig. 6.15; 2014d, 157, fig. 7.c; 2018a, 85–86; K ennedy 2015c; 2020, 328, 336–337 and fig. 18.2. 149

53

The Early/Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Levant: ‘Sloping Horizons’ or Changing Clusters?

The Northern Levant between the 3rd and 2nd Millennium BCE Material culture clusters changed once again in the Levant towards the end of Early Bronze IV. At several sites, such as Tell Mastuma, Ebla, Tell Afis, and Hama, harbingers of Middle Bronze I vessel shapes appeared in late Early Bronze IV contexts (Figs. 14–15).152 At some sites, this phenomenon was followed by transitional Early Bronze/Middle Bronze phases where the two cultural traditions coexisted side by side – like, for instance, at Tell Afis, Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and perhaps Tell Nebi Mend.153 At other sites, like Ebla, it is possible to isolate the final peak of Early Bronze IVB from the initial peak of Middle Bronze I.154 The definition of absolute chronology for the late Early Bronze IV stage and the Early/Middle Bronze tradition in western inland Syria is still fluid and radiometric evidence is rather limited. Tell Mastuma yielded radiocarbon dates for Early Bronze IVB layers roughly spanning the last two centuries of the 3rd millennium BCE,155 and determinations from Qatna place the Early/Middle Bronze transition at the site in the interval between 2040 and 1930 calBC. Two early Middle Bronze Age radiocarbon dates from Ebla, associated with archaic pottery from an initial phase, fall respectively in the intervals between 2140–1910 calBC and 1980–1740 calBC,156 but the archaeological context of the samples was a midden, therefore, all the material, including the very early Middle Bronze I pottery, was in secondary deposition.157 However, in terms of comparative stratigraphy and relative chronology, the position of the later Early Bronze IV phase with harbingers of the Middle Bronze Age attested at Ebla before the transitional Early Bronze/Middle Bronze phase identified at other sites seems secured by comparative stratigraphy.158 See D’Andrea 2014/2015, 146, fig. 12.12, 18–19, 22; 2018b, 228, figs. 10.18, 20–22, 25; 2018c, 14, figs. 17.14– 19, 19–20; 2019c, 269–270, figs. 1.12–15, 5.15, 17, 8.4–7. 153 Tell Afis: M azzoni and Felli 2007, 209–219; Felli and Merluzzi 2008, 98–102, fig. 6; Qatna: Morandi Bonacossi 2008, 132–135, figs. 15–18; Iamoni 2014; Tell Nebi Mend: K ennedy 2015a, 63. 154 D’A ndrea 2014/2015, 151–152; 2018b, 233; 2018c, 16, 23–24, figs. 17–19; 2019c, 268–270, figs. 5–10. 155 Layers d (UCIAMS-21675) and c (UCIAMS-21676) in Square 15Gc respectively in the intervals 2200–2130 calBC (1-sigma;) and 2210–2120 calBC (2-sigma), and 2130–2080 calBC (1-sigma) and 2140–2010 calBC (2-sigma): Nishiyama 2009, figs. 10.13–10.14. 156 Respectively, LTL-386A and LTL-386A: Fiorentino et al. 2008, tab. 2. 157 Peyronel 2019, 744–747, figs. 5–8. 158 D’A ndrea 2018c, 23–24, tabs. 2–3. 152

54

Marta D’Andrea

Fig. 14 Harbingers of Middle Bronze Age pottery types in late Early Bronze IVB contexts in northwestern inland Syria; no. 1: Hama, Level J1 (after Fugmann 1958, fig. 103.3C 52, redrawn); no. 2: Tell Mastuma, Stratum VIII (after Wakita 2009, fig. 3.7.17, redrawn); no. 3: Tell Mardikh/Ebla, late phase Mardikh IIB2 (after D’A ndrea 2018b, fig 10.22, © Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria; no. 4: Tell Mastuma (after Tsuneki 2009, fig. 3.19.13, redrawn); no. 5: Tell Afis, phase Afis IV–V (after Felli and M erluzzi 2008, fig. 5.9, redrawn); nos. 6–7: Tell Mardikh/Ebla, late phase Mardikh IIB2 (after D’A ndrea 2019c, figs. 5.17, 10.3, © Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria)

The difference between Ebla’s trajectory and the continuous evolution observable at other sites might be due to the destruction that hit the late Early Bronze IV period’s Ebla, though apparently did not stop its development as it had been the case for the destruction at the end of the first Early Bronze IV phase.159 Even at the latter site Early Bronze IV/ Middle Bronze I continuity is remarkable in many important material and immaterial aspects,160 and, as said above, this phenomenon may be due to the general renegotiation of economic and political power during the later Early Bronze IV in northern and central Syria, which would gradually shape the sociocultural transformations that characterized the social order of the Middle Bronze Age in these regions. In this regard, it is worth noting that striking continuity between Early Bronze IVB and Middle Bronze I is observable at other important sites in the region to the east, such as Tell Bi‘a/Tuttul. In fact, at the latter site not only a new palace (Palace A), resembling the roughly contemporary Shakkanakku period palace at Mari in its plan, was built during the later Early Bronze IVB phase (Ur III period) and used through Middle Bronze I,161 but there is also evidence for continuous use of the temple in antis (the Temple of Dagan) from Early Bronze IVB through Middle Bronze I.162 In fact, the site seems to have served as an interregional cultic centre all through these periods, which suggests some degree of continuity of social structures and interactions between the two periods that might be related also to the role played by Mari in the interregional scenario at the turn between the 3rd and the 2nd millennium BCE. The Southern Levant between the 3rd and 2nd Millennium BCE In the southern Levant material culture clusters and settlement patterns changed once again towards the end of the Early Bronze IV period too. Possibly except for Tell el-Hammam in the southern Jordan Valley,163 the main Early Bronze IV sites in central and southern Transjordan were deserted permanently towards the end of the period, as well as settlements in the Central Negev; likewise, the exploitation of the copper ores in the ‘Arabah and the Faynan seems to have ceased by that time. Conversely, an early Middle Bronze Age phase is attested thus far only at a few sites in the northern and coastal areas of the southern

D’Andrea 2019d, 19–26, figs. 4–15. On the EB IVB destruction see M atthiae 2020. 160 Pinnock 2009; D’A ndrea 2014/2015, 146–149; 2019b, 19–24, figs. 8–10, 13, 16–17; 2019c, 269–272, figs. 3–4. 161 Novák 2015, 72–73, fig. 28. 162 Novák 2015, 66. 163 Collins 2020, 282, fn. 5, 289. 159

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

55

Fig. 15 Late Early Bronze IVB pottery assemblage from Tell Mardikh/Ebla with bowl types pre-announcing the Middle Bronze Age tradition (© Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria) Levant.164 Moreover, not only at some Early Bronze IV sites transitional vessel forms appear that are harbingers of the Middle Bronze Age tradition, but above all there are striking similarities between pottery types attested in assemblages dating to the late Early Bronze IV phase in the eastern Dead Sea basin and to the initial Middle Bronze I (= Middle Bronze IIA) phase at sites in the northern and on the coastal areas of the southern Levant, among which, in particular close-shaped carinated bowls (Figs. 16.1– 7, 17.1–5, 7–8) and straight-sided cooking pots with unpierced steam holes (Figs. 16.8–9, 18.8) that are

considered typical of the Middle Bronze I pottery horizon (Fig. 16.11–17).165 The main open research question is whether this documentation reflects a shift in settlement patterns between two phases that followed one another in time or two different facies that were attested at the same point in time in different regions.166 This issue is currently unresolved because continuous Early Bronze IV– Middle Bronze I sequences with stratified evidence associated with radiometric determinations for each phase are lacking, and the available radiometric dates are related to either one-phase Early

D’Andrea 2014d, fig. 9; 2019a, 70–72, fig. 4; 2020a, 409, fig. 22.4. For the early Middle Bronze I close-shaped carinated bowls and straight-sided cooking pots see, respectively: Ilan and M arcus 2019, 12, pl. 1.2.6.1–7, 14, fig. 1.2.12.1–7. 166 Nigro 2003a, 139; 2007, 367; D’A ndrea 2014a, Vol. 1, 280; 2019a, 72; 2020a, 409–410; in press; Cohen 2017, 36–37, 39. 165

164 I lan

1995, 301–304; Cohen 2002, 54, 107–109, figs. 3a–3b, 12; 2017; M aeir 2010, 64, 136–139, figs. 8, 59; D’Andrea 2014a, Vol. 1, 281–282, fig. 6.4; 2014d, 154– 155, fig. 1; 2019a, 70–72, fig. 5.

56

Marta D’Andrea

Fig. 16 “Late” Early Bronze IV pottery types (nos. 1–9) from the southern Levant compared to initial Middle Bronze I shapes (nos. 10–16); no. 1: Bab edh-Dhra‘, Stratum I (after R ast and Schaub 2003, pl. 116.36, redrawn); no. 2: Khirbet Iskander, Tomb D2 (after Peterman and Richard 2010, fig. 10.3.2, redrawn); no. 3: Bab edh-Dhra‘, Tomb A 52 (after R ast and Schaub 2003, fig. 276.19, redrawn); no. 4: ‘Aro’er, Level VIa (after Olávarri 1969, fig. 4.17, redrawn); nos. 5–6: Bab edh-Dhra‘, Stratum I (after R ast and Schaub 2003, pl. 112.21, 23, redrawn); no. 7: Khirbet Ader, Phase B (after Cleveland 1960, fig. 14.13, redrawn); no. 8: Khirbet Iskander, Area C, Phase C (after R ichard et al. 2010, pl. 17.16, redrawn); no. 9: ‘Aro‘er, Level Via (after Olávarri 1960, fig. 5, no. 12, redrawn); nos. 10–11: Ras el-‘Ain/Aphek, Phase 1 (after Beck 1985, fig. 2.3–4, redrawn); no. 23: Tell el-Hayyat, Phase 5 (after Falconer and Fall 2006, fig. 4.2.h, redrawn); nos. 13–14: Gesher, Graves 19 and 9 (after Cohen and Bonfil 2007, figs. 5.9.5, 5.12.2, redrawn); nos. 15–16: Ras el-‘Ain/Aphek (after Ilan and Marcus 2019, pl. 1.2.12.7 and 3 respectively, redrawn)

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

57

Fig. 17 Close-shaped bowls with rounded carination (nos. 1–5, 6–7) and fragment of straight-sided cooking pots from Early Bronze IV assemblages of Khirbet Iskander (photo by the author, © Khirbat Iskandar Expedition) Bronze IV contexts (Bab edh-Dhra‘167) or to early Middle Bronze Age contexts which are not preceded by Early Bronze IV occupation, like Tell el-‘Ifshar/ Tel Hefer on the Sharon Plain168 and even Tell

el-Hayyat.169 Climate change and environmental degradation during the 20th century BCE are suggested by proxy data for the eastern Dead Sea basin and south-central Transjordan and have

R ast and Schaub 2003, 639–640: sample 134016: 2341– 2139 calBC (1-sigma), 2462–2128 calBC (2-sigma); sample 134017: 2145–2013 calBC (1-sigma), 2211–1915 calBC (2-sigma); P-2573: 2290–2131 calBC (1-sigma), 2351–2026 calBC (2-sigma); sample SI-2872, 2342– 2141 calBC (1-sigma), 2462–2128 calBC (2-sigma); sample SI-2875: 2039–1889 calBC (1-sigma), 2139–1753 calBC (2-sigma). 168 M arcus 2013, 185, tabs. 15.1–15.3, figs. 15.3–15.4, 15.6– 15.7: radiocarbon dates for the earliest Middle Bronze I phase at the site fall in the interval between 1942–1876 (1-sigma) and 1977–1767 (2-sigma); modelled dates are 1912–1842 1-sigma).

169 At

167

Tell el-Hayyat evidence of a late Early Bronze IV occupation has been identified in Phase 6, which is radiocarbon-dated to the interval between 1921 and 1887 (modelled dates after Falconer, Fall and Höflmayer 2021, 27, Tab. 5, in place of higher modelled dates between 1949 and 1907 calBC published in Falconer and Fall 2019, 72 and tab. 5.2. However, this occupation is thus far represented only by pottery sherds retrieved in a basal layer of sterile soil of “apparently reworked nature” connected with levelling and clearing at the time of the construction of the Phase 5 temple (Falconer and Fall 2006, 33), therefore, the radiocarbon dates cannot be used to date the terminal Early Bronze IV phase at the site.

58

Marta D’Andrea

Fig. 18 Temples in antis with antae moved toward the entrance to the cult room in the 3rd and 2 millennium BCE; nos. 1–2: Tell el-Hayyat, Phase 5 and Phase 4 temples, Middle Bronze I (after Falconer and Fall 2006, fig. 2.1.a–b, redrawn); nos. 3–5: Tabaqat Fahl/Pella, “Green Mudbrick Temple”, Phase 1, Stratum XI.3b, Middle Bronze I(=IIA) “Brown Mudbrick Temple”, Phase 2, Stratum XI.3a, Middle Bronze I(=IIA), and “Stone antentemple”, StratumXI.2, Middle Bronze II (=IIB) (after Bourke 2012 tab. 1, redrawn, not to scale); no. 6: Tell Halawa B, Bau I, Phase 1c–a (after Werner 1994, fig. on page 129, redrawn), Early Bronze II–III; no. 7: Tell Hariri/Mari, Temple Tour, Ville II, Early Bronze IVA (after Parrot 1974, fig. 38, redrawn); no. 8: Tell Mardikh/ Ebla, Shrine HH5, Early Bronze IVB (© Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria); no. 9: Tell Mardikh/Ebla, Shrine G3, Middle Bronze I-II (© Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria); no. 10: Tell Hariri/Mari, Temple of Ninhursag Ville III, late(?) Early Bronze IVB–early Middle Bronze II (after Parrot 1974, fig. 53, redrawn)

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

59

Fig. 19 Tell Mardikh/Ebla, Shrine G3; schematic plan (a) and general view, looking north (b) (© Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria)

Fig. 20 Tell Maridkh/Ebla, Shrine HH5, schematic plan of the religious complex with Temple HH4 and Shrine HH5 (a), and general view of Shrine HH5 looking north-east (b), Early Bronze IVB (© Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria)

been considered as possible factors diminishing the carrying capacities of sites and leading to their desertion at the end of Early Bronze IV.170 However, other factors may lie behind the end of permanent settlements in a region that had proved resilient to multifactorial crisis already in the 3rd millennium BCE, as discussed above. Considering that starting from early Middle Bronze I tell-sites in Transjordan seem located only in the Jordan Valley,171 the opening of new trade routes cutting central and southern Transjordan off from major commercial interactions

might be another possible or concomitant explanation for the abandonment of permanent settlements in the latter areas and in the Central Negev, as well as for the cessation of mining operations in the ‘Arabah and the Faynan with the advent of the Middle Bronze Age.172 Mining activities in southern Sinai favoured Levantine-Egyptian interactions in this region of the southern Levant during the Middle Bronze Age,173 starting from the early 12th Dynasty;174 likewise, evidence of Levantine-Egyptian interactions in the same period are traceable at sites on the southern

170 171

Finkelstein and Langgut 2014, 222–226, fig. 3. M aeir 2010, figs. 58–62.

172 173 174

Rosen 2016, 202, 217–218. Goldwasser 2013; Cohen 2019, 80–81. Rosen 2016, 217; Cohen 2019, 84.

60

Marta D’Andrea

Fig. 21 Tell Mardikh/Ebla, view of the main cult room of Shrine HH5 from the top, looking southwest, Early Bronze IVB (© Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria) Levantine littoral.175 Moreover, on a more general scale, from the mid-20 th century BCE a trade network between Anatolia, Syria, and Mesopotamia was revived with the establishment of the kārum system of contacts and the Assyrian Trade Colonies176 that might have changed once again inter-regional paths of procurement of raw materials, excluding some areas that had played a role in interregional distribution of copper before.177 In contrast, contacts between the Syro-Mesopotamian areas and the north-east Jordan Valley were still at work during the earliest Middle Bronze I phase. As the current author has suggested in previous works, this may be mirrored by the presence M arcus et al. 2008; M arcus, Porath and Paley 2008; Cohen 2015, 253–255; 2016, 46–47; 2019, 86. On maritime contacts, see also M arcus 2007. 176 See Barjamovic 2008; 2011; Kulakoğlu 2011. 177 Interestingly, metallographic analysis of metal weapons from Tell ‘Arqa and Byblos in northern Lebanon dating to Middle Bronze I have suggested that copper from Iran or Oman was used, probably reaching the coast through Mesopotamia and Syria (El Morr et al. 2013, 4300– 4303). Sidon yielded additional evidence for the use of Omani copper in Lebanon during the Middle Bronze Age (Véron et al. 2011/2012, 73). 175

of cult buildings that can be ascribed to foreign prototypes in the earliest Middle Bronze I phases at Tell el-Hayyat (Fig. 18.1–2), and Tabaqat Fahal/Pella (Fig. 18.3–4), where this temple layout will be used also for the Middle Bronze II (=IIB) temple (Fig. 18.5). The particular square buildings with two perpendicular antae framing the entrance to the cella documented at those two sites178 can be compared with Shrine G3 on the acropolis of Ebla used during Middle Bronze I–II (Figs. 18.9, 19) and to the Temple of Ninhursag at Tell Hariri/Mari used between the Shakkanakku and the Amorite periods (Fig. 18.10). While the resemblance of the early Middle Bronze I Transjordanian temples to Ebla’s shrine has been traditionally recognised, the connection to the Mari temple has been overlooked. An ancestry in the 3rd millennium BCE architectural tradition of the Euphrates Valley can be recognised for this type of 178

These earlier cult buildings appear at the beginning of a sequence that would culminate in the construction of massive Syrian-style temples at both sites, the one at Tell el-Hayyat being a temple in antis with long-room cella, the one at Pella an impressive tripartite migdol temple (see, respectively, Falconer and Fall 2006, 84–101 and fig. 6.2; Bourke 2012, 161–164, fig. 3, and 194–195, tab. 1).

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

61

Fig. 22 Maps of distribution of temples in antis with antae moved toward the entrance to the cult room during the 3rd (a) and 2nd (b) millennia BCE shown in Fig. 18 (base map by M. Zingarello, edits by the author. Map data: SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, NEBCO, Landsat, Copernicus through Google Earth Pro and Bing Maps Tile System, 2020). Plans of temples at Ebla © Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria; plans of temple at Tell Halawa after Werner 1994, fig. on page 129, redrawn; plans of temples at Tell Hariri/Mari after Parrot 1974, figs 38, 53, redrawn; plans of temples at Tabaqat Fahl/Pella after, Bourke 2012b, tab. 1, redrawn; plans of temples at Tell el-Hayyat after Falconer and Fall 2006, fig. 2.1.a–b, redrawn. All drawings not to scale

62

Marta D’Andrea

Fig. 23 Warrior burials in the Early Bronze IV and Middle Bronze I (=IIA) periods; a: Tomb A 41 at Dhahr Mirzbaneh (after Lapp 1966, pl. 9a [tomb plan], fig. 24.12–13 [weapons], redrawn), b: Tomb 2 from Tell es-Sarem/Tel Rehov (after Yogev 1985, fig. 4 [weapons], plan 3 [tomb plan], redrawn) cult buildings in the so-called Bau I at Halawa Tell B (Fig. 18.6) and in the Temple Tour at Mari (Fig. 18.7).179 However, the Ebla, Pella, and Tell elHayyat temples have a direct access to the cella according to the Levantine tradition, while the 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE temples in the Euphrates Valley mentioned above have a bent-axis approach that is a prototypical characteristic in the latter region since the earlier phase of the 3rd millennium BCE.180 However, as proposed by the present author, Shrine HH5 at Ebla (Figs. 18.8, 20–21), dating from the end of Early Bronze IV, might be an earlier Levantine antecedent with direct access, suggesting an earlier adoption of this temple type in the Levant.181 The peculiar square mudbrick temples of Middle Bronze I at Tell el-Hayyat and Pella are the earliest Middle Bronze Age temples attested in the southern M atthiae 2006, 224–225 = 2013, 329–330; D’Andrea 2014c, 46–49, figs. 6, 9; 2014d, 155, figs. 3–4, 6; 2016b, 190–192, 12, 14–17, with relative bibliography. 180 Novák 2015, 62, figs. 10.20. 181 D’A ndrea 2014c, 49–50, figs. 11–13; 2014d, 155, fig. 5; 2016b, 192, figs. 3a, 18–19. 179

Levant and their resemblance to foreign prototypes with a clear ancestry in a 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE architectural tradition of the Euphrates River Valley (Fig. 22) adapted locally to the Levantine cultic practice of temples with direct access needs to be explained too. This combination of exogenous and endogenous characteristics might indicate not just local awareness of foreign architectural traditions but adumbrate the possibility that those temples were used by people from different communities crossing the corridor that linked the Euphrates Valley and northern Transjordan since already the early 3rd millennium BCE.182 182

The current author has suggested that a similar phenomenon can be observed also at Early Bronze II– III religious complexes, as, for instance, at Khirbet ezZeraqon in the norther Transjordanian plateau, where the sacred area of the 29th century BCE included a circular platform, a temple with simple broad-room layout in the southern Levantine tradition of the Early Bronze Age, and two temples with the very same layout (but different cult orientation) of their contemporary Bau I at Halawa Tell B (D’Andrea 2020e, 11–13, figs. 11 and 13).

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

Interregional Connectivity and the Development of Intercultural Visual Codes

To complete this review of material culture clusters changing in the Levant in relation to inter-regional connections developing between c. 2600 and ca. 1900 BCE it will be worth revisiting once again briefly the emergence of the so-called ‘warrior burials’ between the Early and Middle Bronze Ages (Fig. 23).183 The notion that the burials with sets of weapons belonged to a class of warriors or mercenaries emerging in connection with a presumed period of insecurity between 2200–1900 BCE is still present in recent literature,184 although there is not enough evidence to connect unmistakably the individuals buried with weapons to such statuses or roles.185 Likewise, while the phenomenon of ‘warrior burials’ has been traditionally associated with the Amorites,186 interpretations connected more generally with the construction of social identities in terms of rank or role within given societies, independently from the sociocultural and/ or ethnic affiliation of the individuals buried with the weapons, have been elaborated more recently.187 My suggestion is that this phenomenon might be better understood in the context of gradual encryption of intercultural visual codes within the material culture connected with social identity construction in a context of interregional trade and long-distance mobility between the late 3rd and early 2nd millennium BCE.188 Metal statuettes from Byblos from deposits in the Temple of the Obelisks show sets comparable with both those found in the southern Levant during the later Early Bronze IV phases and those occurring on the Syro-Lebanese coast, in the Middle Orontes Valley, southern Syria, and the north-central Jordan

On the phenomenon of the ‘warrior burials’ see Oren 1971; Philip 1995; 2007; Nigro 2003b; Antonetti 2005; Garfinkel 2001; R hem 2003; Cohen 2012; D’Andrea 2013; Bradbury and Philip 2016, 314, 318; H ausleiter, D’Andrea and Zur 2018; Greenberg 2019, 197–200; Prell 2019; Montanari 2020. 184 K aufman 2013, 670; Burke 2019, 86; Bradbury and Philip 2017. Dealing with the Middle Bronze I (his Middle Bronze IIA) phenomenon of the ‘warrior burials’, Burke (2014a, 361) associates the individuals buried with weapons as (Amorite) mercenaries serving in the context of overland caravan trade flourishing during the Middle Bronze Age and, therefore, depicts them as “individuals employed in such a capacity, displaying no evidence of exposure to armed conflict but often possessing the trappings of merchants”. 185 D’A ndrea 2019b, 31. 186 See, e.g., Burke 2014a, 361; 2014b, 407; 2019, 83–88. 187 Homsher and Cradic 2018, 10–12; H ausleiter and Zur 2016, 155–158; Luciani 2016, 25–26; H ausleiter, D’Andrea and Zur 2018, 414; D’Andrea 2019b, 31. 188 D’A ndrea 2019b, 33, 35; see also H ausleiter, D’A ndrea and Zur 2018, 326–328.

63

Valley during Middle Bronze I.189 Looking at the spatial distribution of progressively codified sets of weapons, it seems that those sets spread along the Levantine coast and in the southern Levant (as well as in North-Western Arabia) between the late Early and the early Middle Bronze Ages.190 Later elements that may support the hypothesis that burials with codified sets of weapons might refer to individuals connected with technology, trade and mobility more than with warriors is offered by references to Asiatics in textual and pictorial Egyptian sources dating to the Middle Kingdom reexamined by Orly Goldwasser also in connection with

183

Fig. 24 The donkey rider iconography in Sinaitic stele dating from the Middle Kingdom: a) scene from Sinai stela 112 according to the new drawing proposed by Goldwasser 2013, fig. 2 , redrawn; b) scene from Sinai Stela 405, south-east face (after Gardiner, Peet and Černý 1955, 206, redrawn); c) scene from Sinai Stela 115, west face (after Gardiner, Peet and Černý 1952, pl. XXXIX, redrawn) Oren 1971, fig. 5; D’Andrea 2013, 140; D’Andrea and Vacca 2015, 51; H ausleiter, D’Andrea and Zur 2018, 427, fig. 11. 190 H ausleiter, D’A ndrea and Zur 2018. 189

64

Marta D’Andrea

the ‘warrior burials’ of Levantine tradition identified at Tell ed-Dab‘a, the capital city of the Hyksos in the Nile Delta. In the first place, Goldwasser recalls that in the inscription of Khnumotep at Dahshur it is clearly possible to make a distinction between the “Unfriendly Canaanite” “represented in the script system by the “Kneeling Captive” position”191 and the “Friendly Asiatic” or “Non-belligerent Canaanite” whose classifier is “a peacefully seated Canaanite holding a Canaanite ‘eye’ axe typical of the period of the early 12th Dynasty”.192 Secondly, Goldwasser elaborates on the possibility to identify “prototypical culturemes” in pictorial representations of Asiatics in connections with weapons and mobility that may be expressed also in the archaeological record from Tell el-Dab‘a. In fact, her review of the pictorial record available from the Sinaitic stele, dating mostly to the reigns of Amenemhet III and IV,193 connected with the exploitation of the Serabit el-Khadim mines in southern Sinai has allowed her to document a recurrent schema that she considers an “identity signifier” of “the Canaanite universe”. This schema (Fig. 24) consist of a main central male figure holding an axe and riding a donkey – the socalled ‘donkey-rider’ – framed within two individuals carrying a spear/javelin – the so-called ‘armed boy’ motif that appears also in the Beni Hasan painting, leading the procession of Asiatics.194 It is to this milieu of “desert experts, caravaneers and entrepreneurs ‘on the move’” emerging from Egyptian pictorial and textual documentation, rather than to warriors, that Goldwasser has connected the individuals inhumated with codified sets of Levantine weapons and bronze belts, and sometimes associated with equid burials in Middle Bronze Age Tell ed-Dab‘a at the end of the 12th Dynasty, further emphasising that it is likely that all such groups in the Near East were armed to some extent.195 This consideration fits well with our proposal that the burials with codified sets of weapons may have not been necessarily connected with a connotation of the buried individuals as ‘warriors’.196 During the last years, the presence of burials with sets of weapons of Levantine type has emerged conspicuously also in other areas outside the Levant, in particular Northwest Arabia, although in the latter case, such weaponries might occur in closer connection with a local element than is observed in Egypt where they appear associated rather unmistakably with a Levantine presence. In fact, at Tayma the Levantine weapons are found inside local types of constructed tombs, as analysed in depth Goldwasser 2013, 356, fn. 14. Goldwasser 2013, 355–356, fn. 14 and fig. 7, citing A llen 2008, 33; see also Cohen 2019, 82, fn. 10. 193 Cohen 2019, 84. 194 Goldwasser 2013, 358; see also Cohen 2019, 80–83. 195 Goldwasser 2013, 371. See also Prell 2020, 324. 196 D’A ndrea 2019b, 31.

by Arnulf Hausleiter and Alina Zur, who have also underlined that in the Tayma burials with weapons it is the local component – the tomb type – that is visible, while the non-local element – the sets of Levantine weapons – is concealed though intimately connected with the identity of the buried individuals.197 The diversity of the evidence from different regions might mirror a multiplicity of situations including non-local people buried according to the traditions of their places of origin or to customs that might reconnect with their place of origin (such as the cist graves at Tell ed-Dab‘a) and people buried according to the local traditions (such as the constructed graves at Tayma). Within such a diverse record, the different visual emphasis on funerary traditions and the sets of weapons observed by Hausleiter and Zur at Tayma is of the greatest interest. While the grave type may refer to the geographic origin of the individuals buried with the weapons and might have been used to characterize them conspicuously as local or nonlocal in the different cases that we have recalled above, the sets of weapons were not visible though their placement within the burials in close connection with the deceased denotes clearly their function as identity markers.198 However, during both the Early Bronze IV and the Middle Bronze Age, their codified assortment was a unifying trend among the different depositions that cut across all the possible differences in burial customs and grave/tomb types, suggesting a unique identity/rank/role of the people buried with the weapons overlapping with their individual ethnic or socio-cultural identities. This question could be better understood with a major contribution of bioarchaeology to the definition of the geographical origin(s) of the people inhumated with weapons at different places in the Levant and in the neighbouring areas. However, the evidence might support the hypothesis that the emergence of this phenomenon was related to increasing contacts developing from large-scale economic activities (such as metal trade and metallurgy, and textile production) that required long-distance mobility and interregional connectivity. These phenomena might have prompted the need for visual identity markers for individuals who travelled long distances in connection with commercial operations cutting across their possible different ethnicity, provenance, and socio-cultural affiliations.199

191

192

H ausleiter and Zur 2016, 154–157; 2018; H ausleiter, D’Andrea and Zur 2018, 427. 198 See fn. 196. 199 H ausleiter, D’A ndrea and Zur 2018, 421, 427; D’A ndrea 2019b, 33–35. 197

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

Conclusion: Material Clusters Changing, Expanding, and Overlapping in the Levant (and beyond) between the 3rd and 2nd Millennium BCE

During the last twenty years urban elites’ emulation has become the model par excellence for changes observable in the material culture of the southern Levant during the local non-urban Early Bronze IV period, particularly for the emergence and spread of new vessel shapes apparently associated with consumption of beverages and burial customs. Likewise, seminomadic pastoralism, climatic change and migrations of refugees have been considered prime factors to explain evidence for human mobility and changes in archaeological clusters across the Levant and the neighbouring regions in the centuries that led to the transition from the Early to the Middle Bronze Ages.200 Here we have proposed some reexamination of the archaeological evidence for transformations in the material culture that may mirror broader (socio-political, socioeconomic, or sociocultural) changes through the lens of higher chronological and spatial definition that are now possible thanks to a wider set of stratified data for both the northern and southern Levant. We by no means intend to rule out that in the timespan under review elite emulation, cultural and/ or technological transfer, movements of pastoralists and climatic change did not take place at all, and we have tried to include evidence for these phenomena when relevant to the above analysis and discussion of data. Rather, we wish to stress the importance of discriminating between micro-local responses and macro-local changes though retaining a large-scale spatial approach to get the big picture, as well as of considering the long-term perspective to better understand transformations mirrored by changes in material culture. The spatial distribution of material culture across the Levant between c. 2600 and c. 1900 BCE suggests that there are at least three stages when we can see archaeological clusters changing, respectively at the Early Bronze III/IV transition, within ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ Early Bronze IV, and at the Early Bronze IV/ Middle Bronze I nexus, each time in response to socio-political and socio-economic vicissitudes, and often accompanied by sociocultural transformations too. Mobility and migration that have been so much connected with material culture changes and transformations across the Levant in these periods have not yet been investigated systematically through the lens of bioarchaeology, which has just started to be applied to the Levantine datasets for the Early 200

The state of research on these issues in Levantine archaeology is discussed throughout the present paper, with literature; for an overview and examination of these matters from the point of view of Egyptology, see Priglinger 2018; 2019a; 2019b.

65

and Middle Bronze Ages.201 However, within this long timespan, even using more traditional methods different archaeological clusters can be identified that overlap differentially and reflect the diversity of phenomena taking place in those regions as well as different ways and scales of intra- and interregional connectivity. As discussed above, the realignment of the archaeological periodization for the 3rd millennium BCE in the northern and southern Levant brought by the higher absolute dates for the southern Levantine Early Bronze III and IV has some advantages, in particular the possibility to appreciate a comparable formative stage of urbanization taking place in the northern and southern Levant during Early Bronze III. Transformations during the late Early Bronze III and around the Early Bronze III/IV transition, took place progressively with a shift from a homogeneous formative phase of urbanisation to differentiated regional trajectories during Early Bronze IV (c. 2500–1950 BCE). Continuous urbanism, though with important internal changes, developed in the north, and a long non-urban period, though with internal developments, began in the south.202 However, at present we do not have enough stratified evidence to fill a longer Early Bronze IV period in the southern Levant; the definition of the initial Early Bronze IV in the latter region is still blurry and the duration of different local Early Bronze IV sub-phases is still unknown.203 However, it seems that from c. 2600/2500 BCE Syria and northern Lebanon transitioned to a flourishing and more developed phase of urbanism, accompanied by the adoption of new convivial practices and the associated sets of banqueting vessels inspired by different foreign prototypes that mirrored new interregional interactions. In contrast, the southern Levant experienced the crisis of local urbanization, with differentiated localised responses ranging from decline to resilience, still under investigation. This might have delayed the inclusion of the latter region in the scenario of increasing interregional connections between the northern Levant, Anatolia, the eastern Aegean, the Middle Euphrates, and Mesopotamia developing from the Early Bronze III/IV transition.204 The second change took place between the first and the second half of the Early Bronze IV period, when, despite the different regional developments, both the northern and southern Levant witnessed important internal re-configurations between ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ Early Bronze IV phases influencing the development of new connections and changes in material culture clusters that took place differentially at individual H aber et al. 2017; Agranat-Tamir et al. 2020; Skourtanioti et al. 2020; Stantis et al. 2020. 202 D’A ndrea 2019b. 203 Greenberg 2019, 138. 204 On these connections, see M azzoni 2020, 15–20. 201

66

Marta D’Andrea

sites and areas within those regions. In the northern Levant, the fall of Ebla’s territorial state that had been a major regional entity, prompted a renegotiation of economic and political power among different subregions as well as among different components of the local communities that would lay the foundations for the social order of the Middle Bronze Age, the time of the Amorite dynasties. As said above, this reconfiguration might have involved to some extent also the areas located at the northernmost fringes of the southern Levant, where local versions of the ‘grey wares’ typical of Central Syria were produced as a sign not just of interaction but also of major integration with sites in the latter region.205 In the southern Levant, a web of sedentary settlements was established and developed in the wake of recovery from crisis and new growth despite the continuing lack of urbanisation. The spatial distribution of the new techno-stylistic elements and classes of artefacts derived from exotic prototypes suggests multiple and differentiated contacts through major paths of connectivity, running northsouth along the coast and inland, through which each region within the southern Levant adopted and adapted different elements.206 Certainly, a major factor projecting the southern Levant into multidirectional interregional connectivity was copper mining and trading on a grand scale. While it is reasonable that mining activities in the ‘Arabah and the Faynan regions might have developed from exploitation during the first half of Early Bronze IV (though not thus far visible archaeologically), there is sufficient archaeological evidence that exploitation of local copper on a commercial scale took place in the later Early Bronze IV phase, when the disruption of the Anatolian Trade Network around c. 2200 BCE may have provided a chance for the southern Levant to satisfy interregional demand for copper. These processes on the one hand laid the foundation both for the adoption and adaptation of foreign sets of material attributes that would aptly fuel the new relations that individual subregions had with certain external areas. On the other hand, these contacts prompted technological transfer into the southern Levant from the neighbouring areas where more advanced technical knowledge in both pottery making and metallurgy had become established earlier, 207 but, along with this, intense intraregional connectivity might have been a concomitant mechanism of transmission of technological

information at a much more capillary level across the southern Levant. Finally, understanding the Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze I nexus in the Levant is still a critical issue and there were certainly substantial changes from one phase to the next and from one tradition to the other. Both in the northern and southern Levant, the Middle Bronze Age sociocultural complex developed in the wake of substantial continuity with late Early Bronze IV, but with significant changes that were the outcomes of long-term factors paired with important external stimuli,208 including intense interregional mobility and the possible presence of ‘foreigners’ from the neighbouring regions in both the northern and southern Levant in connection with economic activities. This process may have paved the way for growing material culture homogenisation between the northern and southern Levant (and beyond) and to a phase of re-alignment of the two regional trajectories in a new pan-Levantine urban phase in the Middle Bronze Age from the 19th to the 16th century BCE. One of the most important aspects of such growing homogenisation is the spread of burials of individuals with progressively codified sets of weapons starting from the late 3rd millennium BCE and lasting into the 2nd millennium BCE. This is, at the same time, a sign of a certain degree of continuity in socioeconomic structures between the Early and Middle Bronze Ages. Moreover, this is the outcome of a need for a medium to characterise social identities within communication at a ‘supra-regional’ level quite likely connected with trade, cutting across all the differences in the material correlates of interactions recognisable at smaller spatial scales. Although a one-to-one correlation of burials with sets of weapons and ‘warriors’ or mercenaries still resonates in recent scholarship,209 as well as their exclusive association with the Amorites,210 the need for new interpretative constructs that may take into account homogeneity of the sets of weapons across space and time within diversity of burial practices at different places has been advocated.211 In a quest for the ancestry of visual canons adopted as identity markers over such a wide spatial scale and through quite a long span of time I have recently recalled that the close connection between individuals and weapons recurs on seal impressions found in the area between the Euphrates Valley and north-western Syria representing a For the northern Levant, see Morandi Bonacossi 2014; for the southern Levant, see Homsher and Cradic 2018, 10–19. 209 Cohen 2012; K ettler and Levi 2016; Burke 2019, 86 and see also Burke 2017, 287. 210 Gernez 2007, 124–125; 2012, 120; Burke 2014a, 361; 2014b, 407; 2019, 83–88. See also Bradbury and Philip 2017. 211 Luciani 2016, 25–26; H ausleiter, D’A ndrea and Zur 2018, 426–428; Homsher and Cradic 2018, 10–11. 208

D’Andrea 2020d, 136–138. D’Andrea and Vacca 2015, 47–51, figs. 2–8; 2020, 125– 126, 128–130; D’Andrea 2018a; Cooper 2020, 117–118. 207 For the tin-bronze technology, see already Philip 1991, 90–98; for the wheel-coiling technique, see e.g. Roux and Thalmann 2016, 117–120 and Homsher and Cradic 2018, 17. 205

206

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

67

Fig. 25 Iconographies of armed individuals or individuals connected with weapons (coloured in grey); no. 1: seal impression UMM04 G-001 from Umm el-Marra, Early Bronze III (after Schwartz et al. 2012, fig. 17, redrawn); no. 2: seal impression 3H 380 from Hama Level J5, Early Bronze IVA (after R avn 1960, 98–99, no. 119, redrawn); no. 3: seal impression UMM99 G-1 from Umm el-Marra, Early Bronze IVB (redrawn after Schwartz et al. 2003, fig. 4); nos. 4–6: seal impressions TM.68.D.30, TM.90.P.327 and TM.77.G.477 from Tell Mardikh/Ebla, Early Bronze IVA (respectively after Mazzoni 1992, A3, pls. IV, XI; Mazzoni 1993, A46, fig. 6, pl. 73.2 and Mazzoni 1992, A16, pls. VI, XIV; © Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria); no. 7: seal impression with the theme of the ‘Master of Animals’ from Fara, Early Dynastic Period (after Amiet 1980, pl. 64, no. 857, redrawn); no. 8: petroglyphs at Har Nafḥa in the Central Negev (after Schwimer and Yekutieli 2017, third illustration, redrawn); no. 9: graffiti on the walls of Tomb P3 at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho (after K enyon 1965, pl. 7.2, redrawn). Drawings not to scale

68

Marta D’Andrea

personage either armed or connected with weapons in the act of protecting or defending the flocks.212 These seal impressions document an iconography of protection of the flocks attested from Early Bronze III to Early Bronze IVB (Fig. 25.1–6).213 The complex elaboration of this local theme has been analysed in several works, pointing out a possible connection with the protohistoric theme of the ‘Master of Animals’ attested in southern Mesopotamia and at Susa since the local Late Chalcolithic period, re-elaborated in a particular local fashion in the Levant in the course of the 3rd millennium BCE, as well as later influences of the Early Dynastic Mesopotamian glyptics on the elaboration of those local iconographies.214 In addition, similarities between some cylinder seal impressions from southern Mesopotamia dating from the Early Dynastic Period and reproducing scenes with the ‘Master of Animals’ and our Early Bronze III–IV specimens from Syria (Fig. 25.7) are noteworthy, also for the association of the latter figure with a dagger with crescent-shaped hilt analysed earlier by Frances Pinnock.215 Interestingly, as we noticed in a previous work, an iconography of protection of the flocks by an armed individual that someway recalls the scenes represented on the Syrian seal impressions seems to occur, in a local fashion, also in rare depictions in the southern Levant during the Early Bronze IV period (Fig. 25.8–9).216 More work on this issue is needed, but, if this hypothesis is correct, it would suggest that the visual components of codes progressively elaborated at the transition between the Early and Middle Bronze Ages to convey social identities were chosen among features that had become intercultural visual elements due to a long-term acquaintance between communities of different regions put in gradually more structured contacts with each other by the need for valued resources (such as wool and textiles,

212 213

214 215 216

D’Andrea 2019b, 33 and fig. 24. M azzoni 1993, 410; Schwartz et al. 2012, 172, fig. 17 and see also fn. 76 therein, citing comparative evidence from Selenkahiye and Tell Khuera; Tumolo 2014, 233–237; 2017, 168–170. References at fn. 212. Pinnock 1997, 465–466, figs. 3–7. D’Andrea 2019b, 33, with references.

metals and metalwork, and timber) in a time of formation of complex societies, including states, in several areas of the Near East. This might be one factor behind the success of such visual codes both in time – from Early Bronze IV to Middle Bronze II – and in space – extending beyond the borders of the Levant. The reason why identity markers created during Early Bronze IV were still used efficiently during the Middle Bronze Age may have been their original connection with large-scale economic activities requiring long-distance mobility – such as metallurgy and metal trade, and textile production – that had been catalysts of interregional connectivity during different Early Bronze Age phases and that remained crucial also in the new social order of the Near East during the Middle Bronze Age.

Acknowledgments

This paper is an expanded version of the talk entitled ‘Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between the Early and Middle Bronze Ages’ delivered at ‘The Enigma of the Hyksos’ ERC Advanced Grant Workshop ‘Changing Clusters and Migration in the Near Eastern Bronze Age’ held on December 4–6, 2019 at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. I wish to thank warmly Manfred Bietak and Silvia Prell for their kind invitation to take part, for the second time, in an Enigma of the Hyksos ERC Project’s Workshop and to contribute to the proceedings with this article, as well as for letting me expand my presentation for the proceedings to include a more extensive analysis of the dataset. I am grateful to Manfred Bietak and Ezra Marcus for valuable comments in the discussion following the presentation, and to Frances Pinnock and Silvia Prell for helpful remarks on the manuscript. I also wish to acknowledge the assistance of Melania Zingarello for the preparation of the maps used in this article.

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

69

Bibliography A dams, R.B. 2006 Copper Trading Networks across the Arabah during the Later Early Bronze Age, in: P. Bienkowski and K. Galor (eds.), Crossing the Rift: Resources, Routes, Settlement Patterns and Interaction in the Wadi Arabah, Levant Supplementary Series 3, London, 135–142. Agranat-Tamir, L., Waldman, S., Martin, M.A.S., Gokhman, D., Mishol, D., Eshel, T., Cheronet, O., Rohland, N., Mallick, S., Adamski, N., Lawson, A.M., Mah, M., Michel, M., Oppenheimer, J., Stewardson, K., Candilio, F., Keating, D., Gamarra, B., Tzur, S., Novak, M., Kalisher, R., Bechar, S., Eshed, V., Kennett, D.J., Faerman, M., Yahalom-Mack, N., Monge, J.M., Govrin, Y., Erel, Y., Yakir, B., Pinhasi, R., Carmi, S., Finkelstein, I., Carmel, L. and Reich, D. 2020 The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant, Cell 181, 1146–1157. A lbright, W.F. 1933 The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim. The Bronze Age Pottery of the 4th Campaign, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 13, New Haven, Conn. 1961 Abraham the Hebrew. A New Archaeological Interpretation, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 163, 36–42. A llen, J.P. 2008 The Historical Inscription of Khnumhotep at Dahshur: Preliminary Report, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 352, 29–39. A l-M aqdissi, M. 1989 Essai préliminaire de classification de la poterie de Moumassakhin (campagnes de 1987 and 1988), Notes de Céramologie Syrienne 5, Damas. 2010 Matériel pour l’étude de la ville ancienne en Syrie (Deuxième Partie): Urban Planning in Syria during the Sur (Second Urban Revolution) (Mid-third Millennium BC), Al-Rāfidān Special Issue 2010, 131–145.

2016

la Syrie, Vol. 1, La Syrie de l’époque Néolithique à l’âge du Fer, Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 1, Wiesbaden, 77–87. Il tempio nella società della Siria del III millennio a.C. ed una ricognizione epigraica dei templi di Ebla e Aleppo, in M atthiae (ed.) 2016, 137–160.

Ascalone, E. and D’Andrea, M. 2013 Assembling the Evidence: Excavated Sites Dating from the Early Bronze Age in and around the Chora of Ebla, in: M atthiae and M archetti (eds.) 2013, 215–237. Bar, S. 2020 Khirbet el-Meiyiteh and Elevation Point-167: Evidence of Fortified and Rural Early Bronze IV Settlements in Eastern Samaria, in: R ichard (ed.) 2020, 347–364. Barjamovic, G. 2008 The Geography of Trade: Assyrian Colonies in Anatolia c. 1975–1725 BC and the Study of Early Interregional Networks of Exchange. Anatolia and the Jazira during the Old Assyrian Period, in: J.G. Dercksen (ed.), Old Assyrian Archives, Studies 3/PIHANS 111, Leiden, 87–100. 2011 A Historical Geography of Anatolia in the Old Assyrian Colony Period, Copenhagen. Beayno, F., M attar, C. and A bdul-Nour, H. 2002 Mgharet al-Hourriyé (Karussadé, Caza de Zgharta). Rapport Préliminaire de la Fouille 2001, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 6, 135–178.

A miet, P. 1980 La glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque, Paris.

Bechar, S. 2013 Tel Hazor: a Key Site of the Intermediate Bronze Age, Near Eastern Archaeology 76.2, 73–75. 2015 A Reanalysis of the Black Wheel-Made Ware of the Intermediate Bronze Age, Tel Aviv 42.1–2, 27–58. 2017 The Intermediate Bronze Age Pottery, in: A. Ben-Tor, S. Zuckerman, S. Bechar and D. Sandhaus (eds.), Hazor VII. The 1990–2012 Excavations: The Bronze Age, Jerusalem, 161–198. 2020 It’s in the Style: Black Wheelmade Ware and its Social Meaning, in: R ichard (ed.) 2020, 365–375.

A miran, R. 1961 Tombs of the Middle Bronze Age I at Ma’ayan Barukh, ‘Atiqot 3 (English Series), 84–92.

Beck, P. 1985 The Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery from Tell Aphek: First Summary, Tel Aviv 12.1, 181–203.

Antonetti, S. 2005 Sepolture di guerrieri in Palestina nell’età del Bronzo Medio, in: A. Di Ludovico and D. Nadali (eds.), Studi in onore di Paolo Matthiae presentati in occasione del suo sessantacinquesimo compleanno, Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 10, Rome, 5–37.

Ben-Yosef, E., Gidding, A., Tauxe, L., Davidovich, U., Najjar, M. and Levy, T.E. 2016 Early Bronze Age Copper Production Systems in the Northern Arabah Valley: New Insights from Archaeomagnetic Study of Slag Deposits in Jordan and Israel, Journal of Archaeological Science 72, 71–84.

A rchi, A. 2013 History of Syria in the Third Millennium: The Written Sources, in: W. Orthmann, M. A l-M aqdissi and P. M atthiae (eds.), Archéologie et histoire de

Besana, R., Da Ros, M. and Iamoni, M. 2008 Excavations on the Acropolis of Mishrifeh, Operation J. A New Early Bronze Age III–Iron Age III Sequence for Central Inner Syria. Part 2: The Pottery, Akkadica 129.2, 129–179.

70

Marta D’Andrea

Bietak, M. and Czerny, E. (eds.) 2008 The Bronze Age in the Lebanon: Studies on the Archaeology and Chronology of Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 17, Vienna. Bietak, M. and Prell, S. (eds.) 2019 The Enigma of the Hyksos Volume. I, ASOR Conference Boston 2017 − ICAANE Conference Munich 2018 – Collected Papers, Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant 9, Wiesbaden. Biga, M.G. 2014 The Syrian Steppes and the Kingdom of Ibal in the Third Millennium B.C.: New Data from the Ebla Texts, in: D. Morandi Bonacossi (ed.), Settlement Dynamics and Human-Landscape Interaction in the Dry Steppes of Syria, Studia Chaburensia 4, Wiesbaden, 199–208. Blegen, C.W., Caskey, J.L., R awson, M. and Sperling, J. 1950 Troy: The University of Cincinnati Excavations, 1932–1938. Vol. I: General Introduction, the First and Second Settlements, Princeton. Blegen, C.W., Caskey, J.L. and R awson, M. 1950 Troy II: The Third, Fourth and Fifth Settlements, Princeton. Boileau, M.-C. 2018 Petrographic Signatures of the Tell ‘Acharneh Ceramics: a Diachronic Perspective, Levant, doi:10. 1080/00758914.2018.1477296 (last accessed January 2021). Bourke, S.J. 2012 The Six Canaanite Temples of Ṭabaqāt Faḥil. Excavating Pella’s ‘Fortress’ Temple (1994–2009), in: J. K amlah (ed.), Temple Building and Temple Cult. Architecture and Cult Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. Mill. B.C.E.), Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 41, Wiesbaden, 159–201. Bradbury, J. and Philip, G. 2016 The Invisible Dead Project: A Methodology for ‘Coping’ with the Dead, in: C. Felli (ed.). How to Cope with Death: Mourning and Funerary Practices in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the International Workshop – Firenze, 5–6 December 2013, Pisa, 309–336. 2017 Shifting Identities: the Human Corpse and Treatment of the Dead in the Levantine Bronze Age, in: J. Bradbury and C. Scarre (eds.), Engaging with the Dead: Exploring Changing Human Beliefs about Death, Mortality and the Human Body, Studies in Funerary Archaeology 13, Oxford, 87–102.

2006 Of Pots and Paradigms: Interpreting the Intermediate Bronze Age in Israel/Palestine, in: Gitin, Wright and Dessel (eds.) 2006, 23–31. Burke, A.A. 2014a Entanglement, the Amorite Koiné, and Amorite Cultures in the Levant, ARAM 26, 357–373. 2014b Introduction to the Middle Bronze Age: Themes and Developments, in: Steiner and K illebrew (eds.) 2014, 403–413. 2017 Amorites, Climate Change and the Negotiation of Identity at the End of the Third Millennium B.C., in: Höflmayer (ed.) 2017, 261–310. 2019 Amorites in the Eastern Nile Delta: The Identity of Asiatics at Avaris during the Early Middle Kingdom, in: Bietak and Prell (eds.) 2020, 69–94. Burmeister, S. 2016 Archaeological Research on Migrationas a Multidisciplinary Challenge, Medieval Worlds. Comparative & Interdisciplinary Studies 2016.4, 42–64. 2019 Archaeological Migration Research is Interdisciplinary, or it is Nothing. Ten Essentials How to Think About the Archaeological Study of Migration, in: I. Vyacheslav, L. Molodin and N. Mylnikova (eds.), Mobility and Migration: Concepts, Methods, Results. Materials of the V International Symposium »Mobility and Migration: Concepts, Methods, Results« (Denisova Cave (Altai, Russia) 19–24 August 2019), Novosibirsk, 229–237. Calcagnile, L., Quarta, G. and D’Elia, M. 2013 Just at That Time: 14C Determinations and Analyses from EB IVA Layers, in: M atthiae and M archetti (eds.) 2013, 415–424. Callaway, J.A. 1978 New Perspectives on Early Bronze III Canaan, in: P.R.S. Moorey and P.J. Parr (eds.), Archaeology in the Levant: Essays in Honor of Kathleen M. Kenyon, Warminster, 46–58. Caspi, E.N., Ettedgui, A., R ivin, O., Peilstöcker, M., Breitman, B., Hershko, I., Shilstein, S. and Shalev, S. 2009 Preliminary Neutron Diffraction Study of Two Fenestrated Axes from the ‘Enot Shuni’ Bronze Age Cemetery (Israel), Journal of Archaeological Science 36.12, 2835–2840. Castel, C. 2010 The First Temples in antis. The Sanctuary of Tell Al-Rawda in the Context of 3rd Millennium Syria, in: J. Becker, R. Hempelmann and E. R ehm (eds), Kulturlandschaft Syrien, Zentrum und Peripherie, Festschrift für Jan-Waalke Meyer, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 371, Münster, 123–164.

Braidwood, R.J. and Braidwood, L. 1960 Excavations on the Plain of Antioch I. The Early Assemblages. Phases A–J, Oriental Institute Publications 41, Chicago.

Catagnoti, A. 1997 Sul lessico dei giuramenti a Ebla: nam-ku5, Miscellanea Eblaitica 4, 111–137.

Bunimovitz, S. and Greenberg, R. 2004 Revealed in Their Cups: Syrian Drinking Customs in Intermediate Bronze Age Canaan, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 334, 19–31.

Chesson, M.S., M akarewicz, C., Kuijt, I. and Whiting, C. 2005 Results of the 2001 Kerak Plateau Early Bronze Age Survey, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 59, Boston, 1–62.

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE Cleveland, R.L. 1960 “Soundings at Khirbet Ader”, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 34–35, 79–97. Cohen, R. 1999 Ancient Settlement of the Central Negev, Vol. 1, The Chalcolithic Period, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age I, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 6, Jerusalem. Cohen, S.L. 2002 Canaanites, Chronologies, and Connections: The Relationship of Middle Bronze IIA Canaan to Middle Kingdom Egypt, Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 3, Winona Lake, IN. 2012 Weaponry and Warrior Burials: Patterns of Disposal and Social Change in the Southern Levant, in: R. M atthews and J. Curtis (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 12–16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL, London, Wiesbaden, 307–320. 2015 Interpretative Uses and Abuses of the Beni Hasan Tomb Painting, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 74.1, 19–38. 2016 Peripheral Concerns: Urban Development in the Bronze Age Southern Levant, New Directions in Anthropological Archaeology, Sheffield. 2017 Reevaluation of Connections between Egypt and the Southern Levant in the Middle Bronze Age in the Light of the New Higher Chronology, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 13, 34–42. 2018 Continuity, Innovation, and Change. The Intermediate Bronze Age in The Southern Levant, in: A. Yasur-Landau, E.H. Cline and Y. Rowan (eds.), The Social Archaeology of the Levant From Prehistory to the Present, Cambridge, 183–198. 2019 Not so Vile? Rhetoric and Reality in Egyptian-Levantine Relationships in Sinai during the Old and Middle Kingdoms, in: J. Mynářová, M. K ilani and S. A livernini (eds.), A Stranger in the House – the Crossroads III. Proceedings of an International Conference on Foreigners in Ancient Egyptian and Near Eastern Societies of the Bronze Age held in Prague, September 10–13, 2018, Prague, 73–90. Cohen, S.L. and Bonfil, R. 2007 “The Pottery”, in: Y. Garfinkel and S. Cohen (eds), The Middle Bronze Age IIA Cemetery at Gesher: Final Report, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 63, 76–99. Cohen-Weinberger, A. 2016 A Note on the Provenance of Black Wheel-Made Vessels from a Burial Cave West of Tel Hazor, ‘Atiqot 83, 21–23. Collins, S. 2020 The Early Bronze III–IV Fortifications and Gateways of Tall al-Ḥammam, in: R ichard (ed.) 2020, 280–299. Cooper, L. 2007 Exploring the Heartland of the Early Bronze Age ‘Caliciform Culture’, Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 2, 43–50. 2012 Cultural Developments in Western Syria and the Middle Euphrates Valley during the Third Millenni-

71

um BC, in: H. Crawford (ed.), The Sumerian World, London, 478–497. 2014 The Northern Levant (Syria) during the Early Bronze Age, in: Steiner and K illebrew (eds.) 2014, 278–290. 2018 Half-empty or Half-full? Past and Present Research on EB IV Caliciform Goblets and their Chronological and Socio-economic Implications, in: M atthiae, Pinnock and D’Andrea (eds.) 2018, 181–208. 2020 The Northern Levantine “Caliciform” Tradition, in: R ichard (ed.) 2020, 111–118. Courtois, J.C. 1962 Contribution à l’etude des niveaux II et III de Ras Shamra, in: C.F.A. Schaeffer (ed.), Ugaritica IV: Découvertes des XVII et XIX Campagnes, 1954–1955; Fondements Préhistoriques d’Ugarit et Nouveaux Sondages; Études Anthropologiques; Poteries Grecques et Monnaies Islamiques de Ras Shamra et Environs: Tome XV, Mission De Ras Shamra, Paris, 329–414. Covello -Paran, K. 2008 A Bronze Age Site at Nahal Rimmonim in the Jezreel Valley, ‘Atiqot 63, 54–74. 2020 Excavations at Kfar Vradim and Intraregional Settlement Patterns of the Western Upper Galilee during the Intermediate Bronze Age, in: R ichard (ed.), 2020, 376–394. D’Andrea, M. 2012 The Early Bronze IV Period in South-Central Transjordan: Reconsidering Chronology through Ceramic Technology, Levant 44.1, 7–50. 2013 Of Pots and Weapons: Constructing the Identities in the Late 3rd Millennium BC in the Southern Levant, in: L. Bombardieri, A. D’Agostino, G. Guarducci, V. Orsi and S. Valentini (eds.), Identity and Connectivity: Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1–3 March 2012, Vol. 1, British Archaeological Report – International Series 2581(I), Oxford, 137–146. 2014a The Southern Levant in Early Bronze IV. Issues and Perspectives in the Pottery Evidence, Vol. 1: Texts, Vol. 2: Appendices and Plates, Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 17, Rome. 2014b La Black Wheelmade Ware. Originalità e modelli stilistici, tipologici e tecnologici dalla Siria e dal Levante settentrionale in una peculiare produzione dipinta sud-levantina del tardo III millennio a.C., Atti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Rendiconti della Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche s. IX, Vol. 24, 181–220. 2014c Middle Bronze I Cult Places in Northern Palestine and Transjordan: Original Features and External Influences, in: Romano and Pizzimenti (eds.) 2014, 39–72. 2014d Townships or Villages? Remarks on the Middle Bronze IA in the Southern Levant, in: P. Bieliński, M. Gawlikowski, R. Koliński, D. Ławecka, A. Sołtysiak and Z. Wygnańska (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 30 April–4 May 2012, University of Warsaw, Vol. 1, Wiesbaden, 151–172. 2014/ Early Bronze IVB at Ebla: Stratigraphy, Chronolo2015 gy, and Material Culture of the Late Early Syrian

72

Marta D’Andrea

Town and Their Meaning in the Regional Con text, in: P. M atthiae, M. A bdulkarim, F. Pinnock and M. A lkhalid (eds.), Studies on the Archeology of Ebla after 50 Years of Discoveries, Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 57–58, 131–164. 2015 The Socio-economic Landscape of the Early Bronze IV Period in the Southern Levant: A Ceramic Perspective, in: G. A ffanni, C. Baccarin, L. Cordera, A. Di Michele and K. Gavagnin (eds.), Broadening Horizons 4. A Conference of Young Researchers Working in the Ancient Near East, Egypt and Central Asia, University of Torino, October 2011, British Archaeological Report – International Series 2698, Oxford, 31–38. 2016a Pottery Production at Khirbat Iskandar, Jordan: Preliminary Results of the Technological Study of EB IV Pottery from the Site, in: K aelin and M athys (eds.) 2016, 533–548. 2016b I Luoghi di culto del Levante meridionale all’inizio del Bronzo Medio: caratteri locali, sviluppi autonomi e rapporti con il Levante settentrionale, in: M atthiae (ed.) 2016, 179–221. 2017 Note on Early Bronze IV Grey Hard-Textured Wares in the Levant, Studia Eblaitica 3, 172–181. 2018a The EB–MB Transition in the Southern Levant: Contacts, Connectivity and Transformations, in: Horejs et al. (eds.) 2018, 81–96. 2018b The Early Bronze IVB Pottery of Ebla: Stratigraphy, Chronology, Typology and Style, in: M atthiae, Pinnock and D’Andrea (eds.) 2018, 221–255. 2018c The Early Bronze IVB Pottery from Tell Mardikh/ Ebla: Chrono–Typological and Technological Data for Framing the Site within the Regional Context, Levant. DOI: doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2018.14493 74 (last accessed January 2021). 2018d Le relazioni tra Egitto e Levante meridionale nella seconda metà del III millennio a.C.: Una visione d’insieme e un esame critico delle problematiche più recenti, in: A. Vacca, S. Pizzimenti and M.G. Micale (eds.), A Oriente del Delta. Scritti sull’Egitto ed il Vicino Oriente antico in onore di Gabriella Scandone Matthiae, Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 18, 195–222. 2019a The Periodization of Early Bronze IV in the Southern Levant: Bridging the Gap between Stratigraphy and Absolute Chronology, in: Gallo (ed.) 2019, 61–78. 2019b Before the Cultural Koinè: Contextualizing Interculturality in the ‘Greater Levant’ during the Late Early Bronze Age and the Early Middle Bronze Age, in: Bietak and Prell (eds.) 2019, 13–45. 2019c The EB–MB Transition at Ebla: A State-of-the-Art Overview in the Light of the 2004–2008 Discoveries at Tell Mardikh, in: D’Andrea et al. (eds.) 2019, 63–97. 2020a About Stratigraphy, Pottery and Relative Chronology: Some Considerations for a Refinement of Archaeological Periodization for the Southern Levantine EB IV, in: R ichard (ed.) 2020, 395–416. 2020b Ebla and the South: Reconsidering Inter-Regional Connections during Early Bronze IV, in: M. Iamo ni (ed.), Broadening Horizons 5. Civilizations in Contact. Volume I. From the Prehistory of Upper Mesopotamia to the Bronze Age Societies of the Levant, West & East. Monografie 2, Trieste, 201–222.

2020c Again on the “Grey Wares”, Ebla, the Steppe, and the South during Early Bronze IV, Studia Eblaitica 6, 153–161. 2020d A Land In-Between, A Matter of Style. Ceramic Evidence of Contacts between the Orontes Valley and the Southern Levant during the Mid-Late 3rd Millennium BC, in: M. K ennedy (ed.), A Land In-between: The Orontes Valley in the Early Urban Age, Adapa Monographs, Sydney, 103–148. 2020e Some Thoughts on Early Bronze Age Religious Complexes at Megiddo and Khirbet ez-Zeraqon and Interregional Connections, Studia Eblaitica, 6, 1–29. in pr. Urbanism, Collapse and Transitions: Considerations on the EB III/IV and the EB IV/ MB I Nexuses in the Southern Levant, in: Dever and Long Jr. (eds.) in press. D’Andrea, M., Micale, M.G., Nadali, D., Pizzimenti, S. and Vacca, A. (eds.) 2019 Pearls of the Past. Studies on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honour of Frances Pinnock, marru: Studien zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie/ Studies in Near and Middle Eastern Archaeology 8, Münster. D’Andrea, M. and Vacca, A. 2015 The Northern and Southern Levant during the Late Early Bronze Age: A Reappraisal of the “Syrian Connection”, Studia Eblaitica 1, 43–74. 2020 Alike but Different. Drinking Vessels in the Eastern Mediterranean around 2500–2000 BC, in: S. Valentini and G. Guarducci (eds.), Between Syria and the Highlands. Studies in Honor of Giorgio Buccellati and Marilyn Kelly-Buccellati, Studies on the Ancient Near East and the Mediterranean 3, Rome, 122–138. D’Andrea, M. Long, J.C. Jr. and R ichard, S. in pr. New Insights about the Early Bronze Age Sequence at Khirbat Iskandar: The 2016 Excavations, Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 14, Amman. Dar, S. 1977 Ancient Settlement of ‘Emeq-Hefer: The Sites of Tell Nurit, Nahal Alexander, and the Rock-cut Tombs of Ma‘abarot, Ma‘abarot (Hebrew). Dever, W.G. 1972a A Middle Bronze I Site in the West Bank of the Jordan, Archaeology 25, 231–233. 1972b Middle Bronze Age Cemeteries at Mirzbaneh and ‘Ain Sâmiya, Israel Exploration Journal 22, 95–112. 1973 The EB IV-MB I Horizon in Transjordan and Southern Palestine, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 210, 37–63. 1975 A Middle Bronze I Cemetery at Khirbet el-Kirmil, Eretz-Israel 12, 18*–33* (English). 1980 New Vistas on the EB IV (“MB I”) Horizon in Syria-Palestine, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 237, 35–64. 1995 Social Structure in the Early Bronze IV Period in Palestine, in: Levy (ed.) 1995, 282–296. 2003 An EBIV Tomb Group from Tell Beit Mirsim, Eretz-Israel 27, 29*–36* (English).

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE 2014

Excavations at the Early Bronze IV Sites of Jebel Qa‘aqir and Be’er Resisim, Harvard Semitic Museum Publications 6, Winona Lake, IN.

Dever, W.G. and Long, J.C. Jr. In pr. Transitions, Urbanism, and Collapse in the Early Bronze Age. Essays in Honor of Suzanne Richard, Sheffield. Dever, W.G. and Tadmor, M. 1976 A Copper Hoard of the Middle Bronze Age I, Israel Exploration Journal 26, 163–169. Dunand, M. 1950 Fouilles de Byblos 1933–1938, Tome II, Atlas, Paris. Dunseth, Z., Finklestein, I. and Shahack-Gross, R. 2018 Intermediate Bronze Age subsistence practices in the Negev Highlands, Israel: Macro- and Microarchaeological Results from the Sites of Ein Ziq and Nahal Boqer 66, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 19, 712–726. Échallier, J.-C. and Braemer, F. 2004 Le matériel céramique, in: F. Braemer, J.-C. Échallier and A. Taraqji (eds.), Khirbat al-Umbashi. Villages et campements de pasteurs dans le «désert noir» (Syrie) à l’âge du Bronze, Bibliohèque Archéologique et Historique 171, Beyrouth, 296–335. Efe, T. 2007 The Theories of the ‘Great Caravan Route’ between Cilicia and Troy: The Early Bronze Age III Period in Inland Western Anatolia, Anatolian Studies 57, 47–64. Enrich, A.M.H. 1939 Early Pottery of Jebeleh Region, Memoires of the American Philosophical Society 13, Philadelphia. Eisenberg, E. 1985 A Burial Cave of the Early Bronze Age IV (MBI) near ‘Enan, ‘Atiqot 17, 59–74. Eisenmann, S., Banffy, E., van Dommelen, P., Hofmann, K.P., M aran, J., Lazaridis, I., Mittnik, A., McCormick, M., K rause, J., R eich, D. and Stockhammer, P.W. 2018 Reconciling Material Cultures in Archaeology with Genetic Data: The Nomenclature of Clusters Emerging from Archaeogenomic Analysis, Scientific Reports 8, 13003, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-01831123-z (last accessed January 2021). El Morr, Z., Cattin, F., Bourgarit, D., Lefrais, Y. and Degryse, P. 2013 Copper Quality and Provenance in Middle Bronze Age I Byblos and Tell Arqa (Lebanon), Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 4291–4305. Falconer, S.E. 1987 Village Pottery Production and Exchange. A Jordan Valley Perspective, in: A. H adidi (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan III, Amman, 251–259.

73

Falconer, S.E. and Fall, P.L. 2006 Bronze Age Rural Economy and Village Life at Tell el-Hayyat, Jordan, British Archaeological Reports – International Series 1586, Oxford. 2019 Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley. Excavations at Tell Abu en-Ni’aj and Dhahret Umm el-Marar, Jordan, British Archaeological Reports – International Series 2922, Oxford. Fall, P.L., Falconer, S.E. and Höflmayer, F. 2021 New Bayesian Radiocarbon Models and Ceramic Chronologies for Early Bronze IV Tell Abu en-Niʾaj and Middle Bronze Age Tell el-Hayyat, Jordan. Radiocarbon, 63(1): 41–76. Falconer, S.E., Fall, P.L. and Jones, J.E. 2007 Life at the Foundation of Bronze Age Civilization: Agrarian Villages in the Jordan Valley, in: Levy et al. (eds.) 2007, 261–269. Felli, C. and Merluzzi, E. 2008 EB–MB Afis: A Single Cultural Tradition between Two Phases?, in: Kühne, Czichon and K reppner (eds.) 2008, 97–110. Finkelstein, I., A dams, M.J., Dunseth, Z.C. and Shahack-Gross, R. 2018 The Archaeology and History of the Negev and Neighbouring Areas in the Third Millennium BCE: A New Paradigm, Tel Aviv 45.1, 63–88. Finkelstein, I. and Langgut, D. 2014 Dry Climate in the Middle Bronze I and Its Impact on Settlement Patterns in the Levant and Beyond: New Pollen Evidence, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 73.2, 219–234. Fiorentino, G., Caracuta, V., Calcagnile, L., D’Elia, M., M atthiae, P., M avelli, F. and Quarta, G. 2008 Third Millennium B.C. Climate Change in Syria Highlighted by Carbon Stable Isotope Analysis of 14 C-AMS Dated Plant Remains from Ebla, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 266, 51–58. Fleming, D.E. 2004 Democracy’s Ancient Ancestors: Mari and Early Collective Governance, Cambridge. Fraser, J. and Cartwright, C.R. 2018 Khirbet Um al-Ghozlan, in: D.M. Green, B.A. Porter and C.P. Shelton (eds.), Archaeology in Jordan Newsletter. 2016 and 2017 Seasons, https://www. acorjordan.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/AIJ2016-2017-High-Res.pdf, 27–28 (last accessed January 2021). Friedman, H., A dams, R.B., H aylock, K. and D’Andrea M. 2020 Deeper Understandings: A Trench through the Bronze Age Deposits at Khirbat Hamra Ifdan, in: R ichard (ed.) 2020, 265–274. Fugmann, E. 1958 Hama. Fouilles et recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg 1931–1938, Nationalmuseet Skrifter: Større Beretninger 4, Copenhagen.

74

Marta D’Andrea

Gallo, E. (ed.) 2019 Conceptualizing Urban Experiences: Tell es-Sultan and Tall al-Ḥammām Early Bronze Cities across the Jordan. Proceedings of a Workshop held in Palermo, G. Whitaker Foundation, Villa Malfitano, June 19th 2017, Rome “La Sapienza” Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine and Transjordan 13, Rome, 61–78. Gardiner, A.H., Peet, T.E. and Černý, J. 1952 The Inscriptions of Sinai, Part I: Introduction and Plates, London. 1955 The Inscriptions of Sinai, Part II: Translations and Commentary, London. Garfinkel, Y. 2001 Warrior Burial Customs in the Levant during the Early Second Millennium B.C., in: S. Wolff (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands: in Memory of Douglas L. Esse, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 59, Winona Lake, IN, 143–161. Genz, H. 2003 Ritzverzierte Knochenhülsen des dritten Jahrtausends im Ostmittelmeerraum. Ein Beitrag zu den frühen Kulturverbindungen zwischen Levante und Ägäis, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina Vereins 31, Wiesbaden. 2010 Reflections on the Early Bronze Age IV in Lebanon, in: P. M atthiae, F. Pinnock, N. M archetti and L. Nigro (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. May, 5th –10th 2008, “Sapienza” – Università di Roma, Vol. 2, Wiesbaden, 205–217. 2014 Excavations at Tell Fadous-Kfarabida 2004–2011: an Early and Middle Bronze Age Site on the Lebanese Coast, in: F. Höflmayer and R. Eichmann (eds.), Egypt and the Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age: C14, Chronology, Connections, Orient-Archäologie 31, Rahden, 69–91. Genz, H., Badreshany, K. and Jean, M. In pr. A View from the North: Black Wheel-made Ware in Lebanon, in: Dever and Long (eds.) in press. Genz, H., Daniel, R., Damick, A., A hrens, A., el-Zaatari, S., Höflmayer, F., Kutschera, W. and Wild, E.M. 2010 Excavations at Tell Fadous-Kfarabida: Preliminary Report on the 2010 Excavation Season, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 14, 241–274. Genz, H. and Sader, H. 2007 Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Tell Fadous-Kfarabida: Preliminary Report on the 2007 Season of Excavations, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 11, 7–16. 2008 Tell Hizzin: Digging up new Material from an Old Excavation, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 12, 183–201. Genz, H., R iehl, S., Çakırlar, C., Slim, F. and Damick, A. 2016 Economic and Political Organization of Early Bronze Age Coastal Communities: Tell Fadous-Kfarabida as a Case Study, Berytus 55, 79–119.

Gernez, G. 2008 Metal Weapons and Cultural Transformation, in Kühne, Czichon and K reppner (eds.) 2008, 125–146. Getzov, N. 1995 Tombs of the Early and Intermediate Bronze Age in Western Galilee, ‘Atiqot 27, 1*–18* (Hebrew), 211 (English). Gidding, A. and Levy, Th.E. 2020 Manufacturing Copper in the Periphery: Radiocarbon and the Question of Urbanism during the Early Bronze III–IV Transition, in: R ichard (ed.) 2020, 312–326. Gitin, S., Wright, J.E. and Dessel, J.P. (eds.) 2006 Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever, Winona Lake, IN. Goldwasser, O. 2013 Out of the Mists of the Alphabet – Redrawing the “Brother of the Ruler of Retenu”, Ägypten & Levante 22, 353–374. Goldman, H. 1956 Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, 2. From the Neolithic to the Bronze Age, Princeton. Greenberg, R. 2002 Early Urbanizations in the Levant: a Regional Narrative, New Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology, London. 2003 Discontinuities in Rural Settlement in Early Bronze – Middle Bronze Age I Palestine, in: A.M. M aeir, S. Dar and Z. Safrai (eds.), The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel, British Archaeological Report – International Series 1121, Oxford, 27–36. 2017 No Collapse: Transmutations of Early Bronze Age Urbanism in the Southern Levant, in: Höflmayer (ed.) 2017, 31–58. 2019 The Archaeology of the Bronze Age Levant. From Urban Origins to the Demise of City-States, 3700–1000 BCE, Cambridge. Greenberg, R. and Eisenberg, E. 2006 Area BS: the Bar-Adon Excavations, Southeast, 1951–1953, in: R. Greenberg, E. Eisenberg, S. Paz and Y. Paz (eds.), Bet Yerah. The Early Bronze Age Mound. Volume I. Excavation Reports 1933–1986, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 30, Jerusalem, 117–234. Greenberg, R., Horowitz, L.K., Lernau, O., Mienis, H.K., K halaily, H. and M arder, O. 1998 A Sounding at Tel Na‘ama in the Hula Valley, ‘Atiqot 35, 9–35. Guy, P.L.O. 1938 Megiddo Tombs, Oriental Institute Publications 33, Chicago. H aber, M., Doumet-Serhal, C., Scheib, C., Xue, Y., Danecek, P., Mezzavilla, M., Youhanna, S., Martiniano, R., Prado -M artinez, J., Szpak, M., M atisoo-Smith, E., Mikulski, R., Zalloua, P., K ivisild, T. and Tyler-Smith, C. 2017 Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences, American Journal of Human Genetics 101, 274–282. H aiman, M. 1996 Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts: View from Small Marginal Temporary Sites, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 303, 1–32. 2009 Copper Trade and Pastoralism in the Negev and Sinai Deserts in the EB IV, in: Parr (ed.) 2009, 38–42. H auptmann, A., Schmitt-Strecker, S., Levy, Th.E. and Begemann, F. 2015 On Early Bronze Age Copper Bar Ingots from the Southern Levant, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 373, 1–24. H ausleiter, A., D’Andrea, M. and Zur, A. 2018 The EB–MB Transition from Early to Middle Bronze Age in Northwest Arabia: Bronze Weapons from Burial Contexts at Tayma, Arabia and Comparative Evidence from the Levant, Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 11, 412–436. H ausleiter, A. and Zur, A. 2016 Taymāʿ in the Bronze Age (c. 2,000 BCE): Settlement and Funerary Landscapes, in: Luciani (ed.) 2016, 135–174. 2018 Funerary Landscapes in 2nd Millennium BCE Tayma, Northwest Arabia, in: Horejs et al. (eds.) 2018, 355–367. Helms, S. 1986 Excavations at Tell Umm Hammad, 1984, Levant 18, 25–49. Höflmayer, F. 2015 The Southern Levant, Egypt, and the 4.2 ka BP Event, in: H. Meller et al. (eds.) 2015, 113–130. 2017 Introduction: The Late Third Millennium BC in the Ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean, in: F. Höflmayer (ed.) 2017, 1–29. Höflmayer, F. (ed.) 2017 The Late Third Millennium in the Ancient Near East: Chronology, C14, and Climate Change, Oriental Institute Seminars 11, Chicago. Höflmayer, F., Dee, M.W., Genz, H. and R iehl, S. 2014 Radiocarbon Evidence for the Early Bronze Age Levant: The Site of Tell Fadous-Kfarabida Lebanon and the End of the Early Bronze III Period, Radiocarbon 56.2, 1–14. Homsher, R.S. and Cradic, M. 2017 Rethinking Amorites, in: O. Lipschits, Y. Gadot and M.J. A dams (eds.), Rethinking Israel: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel in Honor of Israel Finkelstein, Winona Lake, IN, 131–150. 2018 The Amorite Problem: Resolving an Historical Dilemma, Levant 49.3, 259–283.

75

Horejs, B., Schwall, Ch., Müller, V., Luciani, M., R itter, M., Giudetti, M., Salisbury, R.B., Höflmayer F. and Bürge T. (eds.) 2018 Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 25–29 April 2016, Vienna, Wiesbaden. Iamoni, M. 2014 Transitions in Ceramics, a Critical Account and Suggested Approach: Case-Study through Comparison of the EBA–MBA and MBA–LB Horizons at Qatna, Levant 46.1, 4–26. Ilan, D. 1995 The Dawn of the Internationalism – The Middle Bronze Age, in: Levy (ed.) 1995, 297–319. Ilan, D. and M arcus, E.S. 2019 Middle Bronze IIA, in: S. Gitin (ed.), The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors from the Middle Bronze Age through the Late Bronze Age, Jerusalem, 9–75. K aelin, O. and M athys, H-P. (eds.) 2016 Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 8–14 June 2014 Basel, Vol. 3, Wiesbaden. K aufman, B. 2013 Copper Alloys from the ‘Enot Shuni Cemetery and the Origins of Bronze Metallurgy in the Levant, Archaeometry 55.4, 663–690. K aufman, B. and Scott, D.A. 2015 Fuel Efficiency of Ancient Copper Alloys: Theoretical Melting Thermodynamics of Copper, Tin and Arsenical Copper and Timber Conservation in the Bronze Age Levant, Archaeometry 57.6, 1009–1024. K ennedy, M.A. 2015a The Late Third Millennium BCE in the Upper Orontes Valley, Syria: Ceramics, Chronology and Cultural Connections, Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplementary Series 46, Leuven. 2015b EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Petrie’s Excavations at Tell el-‘Ajjul, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 147.2, 104–129. 2015c Life and Death at Tell Umm Ḥammād, Jordan: A Village Landscape of the Southern Levantine Early Bronze Age IV/Intermediate Bronze Age, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 131.1, 1–28. 2016 The End of the 3rd Millennium BC in the Levant: New Perspectives and Old Ideas, Levant 48.1, 1–32. 2019 A New EB IV Cultural Province in Central and Southern Syria: The View from Tell Nebi Mend, in: D’Andrea et al. (eds.) 2019, 429–448. 2020a Developing Urbanism in the Early Bronze Age II– III of the Upper Orontes River Valley, Syria: Ceramics, Chronology, and Foreign Relations, in: R ichard (ed.) 2020, 31–50. 2020b Horizons of Cultural Connectivity North-South Interactions and Interconnections during the Early Bronze Age IV, in: R ichard (ed.) 2020, 328–346. K ennedy, M.A., Badreshany, K. and Philip, G. 2018 Drinking on the Periphery: The Tell Nebi Mend Goblets in their Regional and Archaeometric Con-

76

Marta D’Andrea text, Levant, doi: 10.1080/00758914.2018 (last accessed January 2021).

K enyon, K.M. 1960 Excavations at Jericho I. The Tombs Excavated in 1952–1954, London 1965 Excavations at Jericho II. The Tombs Excavated in 1955–1958, London. 1966 Amorites and Canaanites, The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1963, London. 1970 Archaeology in the Holy Land, 3rd Edition, London. K enyon, K.M. and Holland, T.A. 1983 Excavations at Jericho V. The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds, London. K ettler, R. and Levi, Y. 2016 Middle Bronze Age Burials in the Southern Levant: Spartan Warriors or Ordinary People?, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 35.1, 5–27. Kühne, H., Czichon R.M. and K reppner, F.J. (eds.) 2008 Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Berlin, March 29th –April 3rd 2004, Vol. 2, Wiesbaden. Kulakoğlu, F. 2011 Kültepe-Kanes: A Second Millennium B.C.E. Trading Center on the Central Plateau, in: G. McM ahon and S. Steadman (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000–323 BCE), Oxford, 1012– 1030. Lafont, B. 2010 Contribution de la documentation cunéiforme à la connaissance du « Très Long Mur » de la steppe syrienne, Paléorient 36.2, 73–89. Lapp, P.W. 1966 The Dhahr Mirzbaneh Tombs, New Haven, Conn. Lev, R., Shalev O., R egev, J., Paz, Y., and Boaretto, E. 2020 Bridging the Gap EB III–IBA: Early Intermediate Bronze Radiocarbon Dates from Khirbet el-’Alya, Israel, Radiocarbon 62(6), 1637–1649. doi:10.1017/ RDC.2020.83 Levy, Th.E. (ed.) 1995 The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, New York. Levy, Th.E., A dams, R.B., H auptmann, A., Prange, M., Schmitt-Strecker, S. and Najjar, M. 2002 Early Bronze Age Metallurgy: A Newly Discovered Copper Manufactory in Southern Jordan, Antiquity 76, 425–437. Levy, Th.E., Daviau, P.M.M., Younker, R.W. and Shaer, M. (eds.) 2007 Crossing Jordan – North American Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan, London. Long, J.C. Jr. 2010 The Stratigraphy of Area C, in: R ichard (ed.) 2020, 37–68.

Loud, G. 1948 Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–1939, Oriental Institute Publications 62, Chicago. Luciani, M. 2016 Mobility, Contacts and the Definition of Culture(s) in New Archaeological Research in Northwest Arabia, in: Luciani (ed.) 2016, 21–56. Luciani, M. (ed.) 2016 The Archaeology of North Arabia: Oases and Landscapes. Proceedings of the International Congress Held at the University of Vienna, 5–8 December, 2013, Oriental and European Archaeology 4, Vienna. M aeir, A.M. 2010 “In the Midst of the Jordan”: The Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000–1500 BCE). Archaeological and Historical Correlates, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 26, Vienna. M arcus, E.S. 2007 Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription, Ägypten & Levante 17, 137–190. 2010 Appendix B: Radiometric Dates from the Middle Bronze Age Jordan Valley, in: M aeir 2010, 243–252. 2013 Correlating and Combining Egyptian Historical and Southern Levantine Radiocarbon Chronologies at Middle Bronze Age IIa Tel Ifshar, in: A.J. Shortland and C. Bronk R amsey (eds.), Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of Ancient Egypt, Oxford, 182–208. Marcus, E.S., Porath, Y., Schiestl, R., Seiler, A. and Paley, S.M. 2008 The Middle Kingdom Egyptian Pottery from Middle Bronze Age IIa Tel Ifshar, Ägypten & Levante 18, 203–219. M arcus, E.S., Porath Y. and Paley, S. 2008 The Early Middle Bronze Age IIa Phases at Tel Ifshar and Their External Relations, Ägypten & Levante 18, 221–244. M assa, M. and Palmisano, A. 2018 Change and Continuity in the Long-distance Exchange Networks between Western/Central Anatolia, Northern Levant and Northern Mesopotamia, c. 3200–1600 BCE, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 49, 65–87. M atthiae, P. 2006 Middle Bronze Age II Minor Cult Places at Ebla?, in: A.M. M aeir 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, Vol. 1, Winona Lake, IN, 217–233. 2007 Nouvelle fouilles à Ébla en 2006: le temple du Rocher et ses successeurs protosyriens et paléosyriens, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 151.1, 481–525. 2013 Middle Bronze Age II Minor Cult Places at Ebla?, in: P. M atthiae, Studies in the History and Archaeo-

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE

2020

logy of Ebla, edited by F. Pinnock, Wiesbaden, 323–334. The Problem of the Ebla Destruction and the End of Early Bronze IVB: Stratigraphic Evidence Historical Events, Radiocarbon Datings, in: R ichard (ed.) 2020, 91–110.

P. M atthiae (ed.) 2016 L’archeologia del sacro e l’archeologia del culto. Ebla e la Siria dall’Età del Bronzo all’Età del Ferro, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Atti dei Convegni Lincei 304, Rome. M atthiae, P. and M archetti, N. (eds.) 2013 Ebla and its Landscape: Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East, Walnut Creek, CA. M atthiae, P., Pinnock, F. and D’Andrea, M. (eds.) 2018 Ebla and Beyond: Ancient Near Eastern Studies after Fifty Years of Discoveries at Tell Mardikh. Proceedings of the International Congress Held in Rome, 15th–17th December 2014, Wiesbaden. M azar, B. 1968 The Middle Bronze Age in Palestine, Israel Exploration Journal 18, 65–97. M azzoni, S. 1985 Elements of the Ceramic Culture of Early Syrian Ebla in Comparison with Syro-Palestinian EB IV, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 257, 1–18. 1992 Materiali e Studi Archeologici di Ebla, I. Le impronte su giare eblaite e siriane nel Bronzo Antico, Rome. 1993 Cylinder Seal Impressions on Jars at Ebla, New Evidence, in: M.J. Mellink, E. Porada and T. Ozgüç (eds.), Aspect of Art and Iconography, Anatolia and Its Neighbours. Studies in Honor of Nimet Ozgüç, Ankara, 399–414. 2003 Ebla: Crafts and Power in an Emergent State of Third Millennium BC Syria, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16.2, 173–191. 2013 Tell Afis and the Early-Middle Bronze Age Transition, in: S. M azzoni and S. Soldi (eds.), Syrian Archaeology in Perspective: Celebrating 20 Years of Excavations at Tell Afis. Proceedings of the International Meeting Percorsi di Archeologia Siriana Giornate di Studio Pisa 27–28 Novembre 2006 Gipsoteca di Arte Antica – S. Paolo all’Orto, Pisa, 31–80. 2020 Northern Levant in Early Bronze III–IV: Economic Wealth and International Landscape of “Second Urbanization”, in: R ichard (ed.) 2020, 3–30. M azzoni, S. and Felli, C. 2007 Bridging the 3rd/2nd Millennium Divide: The Afis and Ebla Evidence, in: C. Kuzucuoğlu and C. M arro (eds.), Sociétés humaines et changement climatique à la fin du troisième millénaire: une crise a-t-elle eu lieu en Haute Mésopotamie?, Varia Anatolica 19, Paris, 205–224. Meller, H.W., A rz, R., Jung, R. and R isch, R. (eds.) 2015 2200 BC – Ein Klimasturz als Ursache für den Zerfall der Alten Welt? 7. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 23. bis 26. October 2014 in Halle

77

(Saale). 7th Archaeological Conference of Central Germany, Tagungen des Landsmuseums für Vorgeschichte 12.1, Halle (Saale). Montanari, D. 2020 Metal Weapons and Social Differentiation at Bronze Age Tell es-Sultan, in: R.T. Sparks, B. Finlayson, B. Wagemakers and J.M. Briffa (eds), Digging Up Jericho. Past, Present and Future, Oxford, 115–127. Morandi Bonacossi, D. 2008 The EB/MB Transition at Tell Mishrifeh: Stratigraphy, Ceramics and Absolute Chronology: A Preliminary Review, in: Bietak and Czerny (eds.) 2008, 127–152. 2009 Tell Mishrifeh and its Region during the EBA IV and the EBA–MBA Transition: A First Assessment, in: Parr (ed.) 2009, 56–68. 2014 The Northern Levant (Syria) in the Middle Bronze Age, in: Steiner and K illebrew (eds.) 2014, 414–433. Mouamar, G. 2016 Tell Sh‘aīrat: une ville circulaire majeure du IIIe millénaire av. J.-C. du territoire de la confédération des Ib’al, Studia Eblaitica 2, 71–102. 2018 The Early Bronze IVB Painted Simple Ware from Tell Sh‘aīrat: an integrated archaeometric approach, Levant, DOI: doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2018.147729 5 (last accessed January 2021). Nichols, J.J and Weber, J.A. 2006 Amorites, Onagers, and Social Reorganization in Middle Bronze Age Syria, in: G.M. Schwartz and J.J. Nichols (eds.), After the Collapse. The Regeneration of Complex Societies, Tucson, 38–57. Nigro, L. 1999 Sei corredi tombali del Bronzo Antico IV dalla necropoli di Gerico ai Musei Vaticani, Bollettino dei Monumenti, Musei e Gallerie Pontificie 19, 5–52. 2003a Tell es-Sultan in the Early Bronze Age IV (2300– 2000 BC.). Settlement vs Necropolis – A Stratigraphic Periodization, Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 9, 121–158. 2003b L’ascia fenestrata e il pugnale venato: due tipologie di armi d’apparato dell’età del Bronzo Medio in Palestina, Bollettino dei Monumenti, Musei e Gallerie Pontificie 23, 7–42. 2019 Archaeological Periodization vs Absolute Chronology: What Does not Work with High and Low Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant, in: Gallo (ed.) 2019, 1–46. 2020 Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Early Bronze Age III: Apogee of an Unusual “Palatial Society” in Palestine, in: R ichard (ed.) 2020, 195–212. Nigro, L., Calcagnile, L., Yasin, Y., Gallo, E. and Quarta, G. 2019 Jericho and the Chronology of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age: A Radiometric Re-Assessment, Radiocarbon 61.1, 211–241. Nishiyama, S. 2009 Radiocarbon Dating, Tell Mastuma. An Iron Age Settlement in Northwest Syria, Memoirs of the Ancient Orient Museum 3, Tokyo, 520–528.

78

Marta D’Andrea

Novák, M. 2015 Urbanism and Architecture, in: U. Finkebeiner, M. Novák, F. Sakal and P. Sconzo (eds.), ARCANE IV: Middle Euphrates, Brepols, 41–84. Olávarri, E. 1969 Fouilles à ‘Arô‘er sur l’Arnon, Revue Biblique 76, 230–259. Oren, E.D. 1971 A Middle Bronze Age I Warrior Tomb at Beth-Shan, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 87, 109–139. 2003 Interconnections between the Southern Levant and the Aegean at the End of the Early Bronze Age, Eretz-Israel 27, 10–17 (Hebrew), 282* (English). Oren, E.D. and Yekutieli, Y. 1990 North Sinai during the MB I Period: Pastoral Nomadism and Sedentary Settlement, Eretz Israel 21, 6–22. Palumbo, G. 1990 The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant: Settlement Patterns, Economy and Material Culture of a “Dark Age”, Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 3, Rome. 2001 The Early Bronze IV, in: B. MacDonald, R.B. Adams and P. Bienkowski (eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan, Levantine Archaeology, Sheffield, 233–269. 2008 The Early Bronze IV, in: R.B. A dams (ed.), Jordan: An Archaeological Reader, London, 227–262. Parr, P.J. (ed.) 2009 The Levant in Transition: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the British Museum on 20–21 April 2004, Palestine Exploration Fund Annuals 9, Leeds. Parrot, A. 1974 Mari, capitale fabuleuse, Paris 1974. Peterman, G. and R ichard, S. 2010 Ceramic Assemblage of the Early Bronze IV Cemeteries, in: R ichard et al. (eds.) 2010, 223–251. Petrie, F.M. 1932 Ancient Gaza II, London. Peyronel, L. 2019 The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in the Northern Levant. The Pottery from the EE Midden at Tell Mardikh-Ebla, Syria (c. 2000–1900 BC), in: D’Andrea et al. (eds.) 2019, 741–760. Philip, G. 1988 Hoards of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in the Levant, World Archaeology 20, 190–208. 1989 Metal Weapons of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine, British Archaeological Reports – International Series 526, Oxford. 1991 Tin, Arsenic, Lead: Alloying Practices in Syria-Palestine around 2000 B.C., Levant 23, 93–104. 1995 Warrior Burials in the Ancient Near Eastern Bronze Age: The Evidence from Mesopotamia, Western Iran and Syria-Palestine, in: A.C. Green and S. Campbell (eds.), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, Oxbow Monographs in Archaeology 51, Oxford, 140–154.

Pinnock, F. 1997 Tipologia di un pugnale rituale del III millennio a.C., in: P. M atthiae (ed.), Studi in memoria di Henri Frankfort (1897–1954) presentati dalla scuola romana di Archeologia Orientale, Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 7, Rome, 463–493. 2009 EB IVB–MB I in Northern Syria: Crisis and Change of a Mature Urban Civilisation, in: Parr (ed.) 2009, 69–79. Porter, A. 2012 Mobile Pastoralism and the Formation of Near Eastern Civilizations: Weaving Together Society, Cambridge, New York and Melbourne. 2019 Isotopes and Ideograms: Bio-archaeological and Theoretical Approaches to Pastoralism in Light of the Mari (and Other) Texts, Claroscuro 18.2, 1–34. Prag, K. 1974 The Intermediate Early Bronze–Middle Bronze Age: An Interpretation of the Evidence from Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon, Levant 6, 69–116. 2009 The Late Third Millennium in the Levant: A Reappraisal of the North-South Divide, in: Parr (ed.) 2009, 80–89. 2011 The Domestic Unit at Tell Iktanu: Its Derivations and Functions, in: M.S. Chesson (ed.), Daily Life, Materiality, and Complexity in Early Urban Communities of the Southern Levant: Papers in Honor of Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub, Winona Lake, IN, 55–76. Prell, S. 2019 Burial Customs as Cultural Marker: a ‘Global′ Approach, in: Bietak and Prell (eds.) 2019, 125–147. 2020 ‘Buckle Up and Fasten That Belt!’ Metal Belts in the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Ägypten & Levante 29, 331–353. Priglinger, E. 2018 The Role of Migration Theory in Egyptology, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 19, 22–42. 2019a “One Ticket to Egypt Please!” Migration from Western Asia to Egypt in the Early Second Millennium BCE, in: Bietak and Prell (eds.) 2019, 209–223. 2019b Different Aspects of Mobility and Migration during the Middle Kingdom, Ägypten & Levante 29, 331–353. Pritchard, J.B. 1963 The Bronze Age Cemetery at Gibeon, Philadelphia. R ahmstorf, L. 2006a In Search of the Earliest Balance Weights, Scales and Weighing Systems from the East Mediterranean, the Near and Middle East, in: M.E. A lberti, E. Ascalone and L. Peyronel (eds.), Weights in Context: Bronze Age Weighing Systems of Eastern Mediterranean: Chronology, Typology, Material and Archaeological Contexts: Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Roma 22nd –24th November 2004, Istituto Italiano di Numismatica. Studi Materiali 13, Rome, 9–45. 2006b Zur Ausbreitung vorderasiatischer Innovationen in die frühbronzezeitliche Ägäis, Praehistorische Zeitschrift 81, 49–96.

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE R ast, W.E. and Schaub, R.T. 2003 Bâb edh-Dhrâ‘: Excavations at the Town Site (1975– 1981). Part 1: Text, Part 2: Plates and Appendices, Reports of the Expeditions to the Dead Sea Plain Jordan 2, Winona Lake, IN. R avn, O.E. 1960 A Catalogue of Oriental Cylinder Seals and Seal Impressions in the Danish National Museum, Nationalmuseets Skrifter/Arkæologisk-Historisk Række 8, Copenhagen.

79

od, in: M. Jamhawi (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 12, 561–586. R ichard, S. Long, J.C. Jr. and D’Andrea, M. In pr. Expedition to Khirbat Iskandar and its Environs: the 2019 Season, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan.

R egev, J., de Miroschedji, P., Greenberg, R., Braun, E., Greenhut, Z. and Boaretto, E. 2012 Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology, Radiocarbon 54.3–4, 525–566.

R ichard, S. and Long, J.C. Jr. 2007 Social Institutions at Khirbat Iskandar: An Argument for Elites in EB IV, in: F. al-K hraysheh (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 9, Amman, 71–81. 2007b Khirbet Iskander: A City in Collapse at the End of the Early Bronze Age, in: Levy et al. (eds.) 2007, 269–76. 2009 Khirbet Iskander, Jordan and Early Bronze IV Studies: A View from a Tell, in: Parr (ed.) 2009, 90–200. 2010 Summary and Conclusions, in: S. R ichard, J.C. Long, Jr, P.S. Holdorf and G. Peterman (eds.), Khirbat Iskandar Final Report on the Early Bronze IV Area C ‘Gateway’ and Cemeteries, ASOR Archaeological Reports 14, Boston, 271–279.

R ehm, E. 2003 Waffengräber im Alten Orient. Zum Problem der Wertung von Waffen in Gräbern des 3. und frühen 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. in Mesopotamien und Syrien, British Archaeological Reports – International Series 1191, Oxford.

R iede, F., Hoggard, C. and Shennan, S. 2019 Reconciling Material Cultures in Archaeology with Genetic Data Requires Robust Cultural Evolutionary Taxonomies, Palgrave Communications 5, DOI:10.1057/s41599-019-0260-7 (last accessed January 2021).

R ichard, S. 1980 Toward a Consensus of Opinion on the End of the Early Bronze Age in Palestine–Transjordan, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 237, 5–34. 2006 Early Bronze Age IV Transitions: An Archaeometallurgical Study, in: Gitin, Wright and Dessel (eds.) 2006, 119–132. 2010 The Area C Early Bronze IV Ceramic Assemblage, in: R ichard et al. (eds.), 2010, 69–112. 2016 Recent Excavations at Khirbat Iskandar, Jordan. The EB III/IV Fortifications, in: O. Stucky, H.-P. K aelin and H.-P. M athys (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 3, Wiesbaden, 585–597. 2020 New Vistas on the Early Bronze Age IV of the Southern Levant: A Case for “Rural Complexity” in the Permanent Sedentary Sites, in: R ichard (ed.) 2020, 417–453.

Roberts, B.W. and Vander Linden, M.V. 2011 Investigating Archaeological Cultures: Material Culture, Variability, and Transmission, in: B.W. Roberts and M. Vander Linden (eds.), Investigating Archaeological Cultures: Material Culture, Variability, and Transmission, New York, 1–21.

R ichard, S. (ed.) 2020 New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV in the Levant, University Park, PA.

Rothenberg, B. 1999 Archaeo-Metallurgical Researches in the Southern Arabah 1959–1990. Part I: Late Pottery Neolithic to Early Bronze IV, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131, 68–89.

R egev, J., Finkelstein, I., A dams, M.J. and Boaretto, E. 2014 Wiggle-Matched 14C Chronology of Early Bronze Megiddo and the Synchronization of Egyptian and Levantine Chronologies, Ägypten & Levante 24, 243–266.

R ichard, S., Long, J.C. Jr, Holdorf, P.S. and Peterman, G. (eds.) 2020 Khirbat Iskandar Final Report on the Early Bronze IV Area C “Gateway” and Cemeteries, ASOR Archaeological Reports 14. Archaeological Expedition to Khirbat Iskandar and its Environs, Jordan Vol. 1, Boston, MA. R ichard, S. and D’Andrea, M. 2016 A Syrian Goblet at Khirbat Iskandar, Jordan: A Study of Interconnectivity in the EB III/IV Peri-

Romano, L. and Pizzimenti S. (eds.) 2014 Šime ummiānka. Ascoltate l’ammaestramento. Scritti in onore del 75 compleanno di Paolo Matthiae da parte dei suoi allievi più giovani, Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 16, Rome. Rosen, S.A. 2016 Revolutions in the Desert: The Rise of Mobile Pastoralism in the Southern Levant, New York and London.

Roux, V. and Thalmann, J.-P. 2016 Évolution technologique et morpho-stylistique des assemblages céramiques de Tell Arqa (Liban, 3e millénaire av. J.-C.): stabilité sociologique et changements culturels, Paléorient 42.1, 95–121. Rutter, J.B. 1995 Lerna, a Pre-classical Site in the Argolis: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American Schools of

80

Marta D’Andrea Classical Studies at Athens, Volume III: The Pottery of Lerna V, Princeton.

Şahoğlu, V. 2005 The Anatolian Trade Network and the Izmir Region during the Earl Bronze Age, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24.4, 339–361. 2019 The Early Bronze Age Anatolian Trade Network and its Role on the Transformation of the Anatolian and Aegean Communities, in: V. Şahoğlu, M. Sevketoglu and Y.H. Erbil (eds.), Kültürlerin Bağlantısı. Başlangıcından Roma Dönemi Sonuna Kadar Eski Yakın Doğuda Ticaret ve Bölgelerarası İlişkiler/Connecting Cultures. Trade and Interconnections in the Ancient Near East from the Beginning until the End of the Roman Period, Ankara, 115–131. Samida, S. and Fleuchter, J. 2016 Why Archaeologists, Historians and Geneticists Should Work Together – and How, Medieval Worlds Comparative & Interdisciplinary Studies 2016.4, 5–21. Schaub, R.T. 2009 The Southern Ghors and the Kerak Plateau in EB IV, in: Parr (ed.) 2009, 101–110. Schloen, D. 2017 Economic and Political Implications of Raising the Date for the Disappearance of Walled Towns in the Southern Levant, in: Höflmayer (ed.) 2017, 59–71. Schwartz, G.M. 2017 Western Syria and the Third- to Second-Millennium BC Transition, in: Höflmayer (ed.) 2017, 87–128. Schwartz, G.M., Curvers, H.H., Dunham, S. and Stuart, B. 2003 A Third-Millennium B.C. Elite Tomb and Other New Evidence from Tell Umm el-Marra, American Journal of Archaeology 107.3, 325–361. Schwartz , G.M., Curvers, H.H., Dunham, S. and Weber, J.A. 2012 From Urban Origin to Imperial Integration in Western Syria: Umm el-Marra 2006, 2008, American Journal of Archaeology 116, 157–193. Schwimer, L. and Yekutieli, Y. 2017 Visitors from the Intermediate Bronze Age? Crescent Headed Figures in Negev Rock Art, The Ancient Near East Today 5.12, http://www.asor.org/ anetoday/2017/12/crescent-headed-figures (last accessed July 2020). Sconzo, P. 2015 Ceramics, in: U. Finkebeiner, M. Novák, F. Sakal and P. Sconzo (eds.), ARCANE IV: Middle Euphrates, Brepols, 95–203. Segal, D. 1999 Results of Carbon-14 Tests of Samples from Early and Middle Bronze Age Sites in Eretz-Israel and Neighboring Areas, in: R. Cohen (ed.), Ancient S ettlement of the Central Negev. Volume I. The Chalcolithic Period, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle

Bronze Age I, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 6, Jerusalem, 336–339. Sellin, E. and Watzinger, C. 1913 Jericho: Die Ergebnisse Leipzig.

der

Ausgrabungen,

Shai, I., Greenfield, H.J., R egev, J., Boaretto, E., Eliyahu-Behar, A. and M aeir, A.M. 2014 The Early Bronze Age Remains at Tell eṣ-Ṣāfi/Gath, Israel: An Interim Report, Tel Aviv 41.1, 20–49. Sherrat, S. 2011 Between Theory, Texts and Archaeology: Working with the Shadows, in: K. Duistermaat and I. R egulski (eds.), Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean. Proceedings of the International Conference at the Netherlands-Flemish Institute in Cairo, 25th–29th October 2008, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 202, Leuven, Paris and Walpole, MA, 3–29. Skourtanioti, E., Erdal, Y.S., Frangipane, M., Balossi Restelli, F., Yener, K.A., Pinnock, F., Matthiae, P., Özbal, R., Schoop, U.-D., Guliyev, F., Akhundov, T., Lyonnet, B., Hammer, E.L., Nugent, S.E., Burri, M., Neumann, G.U., Penske, S., Ingman, T., Akar, M., Shafiq, R., Palumbi, G., Eisenmann, S., D’Andrea, M., Rohrlach, A.B., Warinner, C., Jeong, C., Stockhammer, P.W., Haak, W. and K rause, J. 2020 Genomic History of Neolithic to Bronze Age Anatolia, Northern Levant, and Southern Caucasus, Cell 181.5, 1158–1175. Squadrone, F.F. 2015 Metals, in: U. Finkebeiner, M. Novák, F. Sakal and P. Sconzo (eds.), ARCANE IV: Middle Euphrates, Brepols, 297–340. Stantis, C., K harobi, A., M aaranen, N., Nowell, G.M., Bietak, M., Prell, S. and Schutkowski, H. 2020 Who were the Hyksos? Challenging traditional narratives using strontium isotope (87Sr/86Sr) analysis of human remains from ancient Egypt, PLoS ONE 15/7: e0235414, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0235414 (last accessed January 2021). Steiner, M.L. and K illebrew, A.E. (eds.) 2014 The Oxford Handbook for the Archaeology of the Levant (ca. 8000–332 BCE), Oxford. Tadmor, M. 1978 A Cult Cave of the Middle Bronze Age I near Qedesh, Israel Exploration Journal 28.1–2, 1–30. Tefnin, R. 1980 Deux campagnes des fouilles au Tell Abou Danné (1975–1976), in: J.-C. M argueron (ed.), Le Moyen Euphrate: Zone de contacts et d’échange: actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 10–12 mars 1977, Travaux du Centre de Recherche sur le Proche Orient et la Grèce Antiques 5, Leiden, 179–200. Thalmann, J.-P. 2006 Tell Arqa I: les niveaux de l’Âge du Bronze, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 177, Beyrouth. 2008 Tell Arqa et Byblos: essai de correlation, in: Bietak and Czerny (eds.) 2008, 61–78.

Developing Connections and Changing Clusters: The Levant between c. 2600 and 1900 BCE 2010 Tell Arqa: a Prosperous City in the Bronze Age, Near Eastern Archaeology 73.2–3, 86–101. 2016 Rapport préliminaire sur les campagnes de 2008 à 2012 à Tell Arqa, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 16, 15–78. Tsuneki, A. 2009 Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Layers in Square 15Gc, in: T. Iwsaki, S. Wakita, K. Ishida and H. Wada (eds.), Tell Mastuma: An Iron Age Settlement in the Northwest Syria, Memoirs of the Ancient Orient Museum 3, Tokyo, 69–88. Tubb, J.N. 1990 Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Cemetery of Tiwal Esh-Sharqi, London. 2009 Aliens in the Levant, in: Parr (ed.) 2009, 111–117. Tumolo, V. 2014 Le scene di pastorizia nelle impronte di sigillo su giara del Bronzo Antico: l’espressione simbolica dell’ideologia rurale all’interno del sistema economico regionale eblaita, in: Romano and Pizzimenti (eds.) 2014, 224–250. 2017 Preliminary Notes on Some New Seal Impressed Potsherds from Ebla, Studia Eblaitica 3, 164–171. Tufnell, O. 1958 Lachish IV. The Bronze Age, Oxford.

81

Welton, L. 2014 Revisiting the Amuq Sequence: a Preliminary Investigation of the EBIVB Ceramic Assemblage from Tell Tayinat, Levant 46.3, 339–370. Welton, L. and Cooper, L. 2014 Caliciform Ware, in: M. Lebeau (ed.), ARCANE Interregional I: Ceramics, Turnhout, 293–322. Werner, P. 1994 Die Entwicklung der Sakralarchitektur in Nordsyrien und Südostkleinasien vom Neolithikum bis in das 1. Jt. v.Chr., Münchener Vorderasiatische Studien 15, Munich and Vienna. Wilkinson, T., Philip, G., Bradbury, J., Dunford, R., Donoghue, D., Galiatsatos, N., Lawrence, D., R icci, A. and Smith, S. 2014 Contextualizing Early Urbanization: Settlement Cores, Early States and Agro-pastoral Strategies in the Fertile Crescent during the Fourth and Third Millennia BC, Journal of World Prehistory 27, 43–109. Wright, G.E. 1938 The Chronology of Palestinian Pottery in Middle Bronze I, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 71, 27–34.

Vacca, A. 2015 Before the Royal Palace G. The Stratigraphic and Pottery Sequence of the West Unit of the Central Complex: The Building G5, Studia Eblaitica 1, 1–32.

Yadin, Y., A haroni, Y., A miran, R., Dothan, T., Dunayevsky, I. and Perrot, J. 1961 Hazor III–IV. An Account of the Third and Fourth Season of Excavation, 1957–1958, Jerusalem.

Vacca, A. and D’Andrea, M. 2020 The Connections between the Northern and Southern Levant during EB III: Re-evaluations and New Vistas in the Light of New Data and Higher Chronologies, in: R ichard (ed.) 2020, 120–145.

Yahalom-M ack, N., Gadot, Y., Eliyahu Behar, A., Bechar, S., Shilstein, S. and Finkelstein, I. 2014 Metalworking at Hazor: A Long–Term Perspective, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 33.1, 19–45.

Vacca, A., Mouamar, G., D’Andrea, M. and Lumsden, S. 2018 A Fresh Look at Hama in an Inter-regional Context. New Data from Phase J Materials in the National Museum of Denmark, Studia Eblaitica 4, 17–58. Véron, A., Le Roux, G., Poirier, A. and Baque, D. 2011/ Origin of Copper Used in Bronze Artefacts from 2012 Middle Bronze Age Burials in Sidon: A Synthesis from Lead Isotope Imprints and Chemical Analyses, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 34–35, 68–78. Wakita, S. 2009 North Trench, in: T. Iwsaki, S. Wakita, K. Ishida and H. Wada (eds.), Tell Mastuma: An Iron Age Settlement in the Northwest Syria, Memoirs of the Ancient Orient Museum 3, Tokyo, 62–67. Weiss, H. 2014 The Northern Levant during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Altered Trajectories, in: Steiner and K illebrew (eds.) 2014, 367–387. 2017 Seventeen Kings Who Lived in Tents, in: Höflmayer (ed.) 2017, 131–162.

Yannai, E. 2014 Bet Dagan: Intermediate Bronze Age and Mamluk-Period Cemeteries, 2004–2005 Excavations, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 55, Jerusalem. Yekutieli, Y. 2002 Settlement and Subsistence Patterns in North Sinai during the Fifth to Third Millennia BCE, in: E.C.M. van den Brink and Th.E. Levy (eds.), Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the 4th through the 3rd Millennium B.C.E., New Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology, London and New York, 422–433. Yekutieli, Y., Shalev, S. and Shilstein, S. 2005 ‘Ein Yahav: A Copper Smelting Site in the ‘Arava, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 340, 1–55. Yogev, O. 1985 A Middle Bronze Age Cemetery South of Tel Rehov, ‘Atiqot 17, 90–113.

Changing Clusters and Migrations in the Central Jezirah Region (NE Syria)

83

Changing Clusters and Migrations in the Central Jezirah Region (NE Syria) by Rafał Koliński1

Abstract

The nature and extent of a settlement crisis at the end of the 3rd millennium BCE, postulated by Harvey Weiss, is a matter of scholarly dispute. Towards the end of the Akkadian period, the density of archaeological sites and their settlement areas shrink considerably because of climate change, and the region may have been abandoned for more than two centuries from the end of the 22nd century BCE. Settlement was restored at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age and the 18th century BCE textual evidence demonstrates that a dense network of both settled and nomadic groups was present in the area. Recent advances in resolving the absolute dating dilemma provide strong indicators for the Lower Middle Chronology, which is later by eight years than the Middle Chronology. Moreover, fixed absolute chronology provides the basis for the precise dating of the eponym sequence of the Old Assyrian period and can provide very precise dating for events and archaeological contexts excavated in North Mesopotamia. Publication of abundant new evidence retrieved during the excavations carried out in Syria before 2011, allow for a new perspective and more precise reconstruction of the situation in north Mesopotamia in this particular period. The first subject discussed in this paper concerns population changes in the Jezirah at the turn of the 3rd millennium BCE. The original Semitic population was first modified by an Akkadian component at the beginning of the Akkadian period and by a Hurrian component at a slightly later time. Later, but still in the 3rd millennium, Amorites appeared in the area, while written sources tell of a new Hurrian migration in the mid- 18th century BCE. Moreover, a radical change occurs in the funerary customs at the turn of the Early Bronze Age. Pit graves often containing disarticulated human

remains, typical of the central Jezirah for the end of the 3rd millennium BCE, are replaced by various types of chamber and shaft graves of elaborate construction, often accommodating more than one deceased. Other observable changes include the appearance of animal offerings in and around graves, and changes in the funerary equipment deposited in the graves. Graves were installed in houses or close by. These changes need to be considered in relation to the ancestor cults and funerary rituals shown in numerous written sources from the early 2nd millennium BCE. And finally, at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE, a new painted pottery decoration style appeared, the so-called Ḫabur Ware. Its origin should be now studied considering the recent identification, in the Jezirah, of Early Ḫabur Ware, dated to 20–19 centuries BCE. High resolution absolute dating of archaeological assemblages suggests that, c. 1760 BCE, a remarkable change occurred in the decoration motifs and vessels repertoire, validating the definition of two other chronological groups of Ḫabur Ware, namely Classical and Elaborate Ḫabur Ware.

Introduction

At the turn of the 1980s, the Syrian Jezirah was one of the most intensively studied regions in Mesopotamia. Surveys, salvage activities, and numerous long-term excavation projects, which came to an abrupt end in 2011, radically enhanced our knowledge of the region, in particular during the Bronze Age. Thanks to the ongoing publication of collected datasets (for instance, from Tell Mozan or Tell Chagar Bazar), a new evaluation of old data is possible. But, before I go into detail, let me turn your attention to the progress that was made in the chronology of Northern Mesopotamia.

1 Adam

Mickiewicz University, Poznań, kolinski@amu. edu.pl. I am greatly grateful for the invitation to speak at the ‘Changing clusters’ workshop in Vienna and for the possibility to publish my work in the proceedings of the workshop. The present text was written with the generous support of the Fund for Support Creativity of the ZAiKS, Poland.

© by the author This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc by 4.0 license DOI: 10.13173/9783447117371.083

84

Rafał Koliński

Fig. 1 Map of North Mesopotamia showing sites on which cuneiform tablets dated with eponyms of the early 2nd millennium BCE were discovered and their ancient names (by Joanna Mardas)

Improved Chronological Resolution

A paper published in 2016 by Sturt Manning and collaborators, presented arguments in favour of either the Middle Chronology (henceforth MC) or Lower Middle Chronology (henceforth LMC – eight years younger).2 In 2017, Manning and his team provided additional evidence in favour of the latter.3 According to the LMC, Ḫammurapi of Babylon’s rule corresponds to the years 1784–1742 BCE, and the fall of Babylon to the Hittites to 1587 BCE (Tab. 1). The second important dataset comes from the Old Assyrian Eponym Lists from Kaneš, presently known from seven copies published since 2003.4 Six of them more or less correspond to each other, beginning with the first regnal year of Erišum I of Assur (1963 BCE LMC). In fact, it is believed that he invented the custom of giving the name of the limu-official serving a one-year term in the city hall of Assur to that year; therefore, no earlier eponyms appear on any of the lists.5 The longest of

the preserved early manuscripts, KEL A, contains 129 eponym names. The last, KEL G, is of extreme interest because it partly overlaps with the terminal section of KEL A – it starts with the name of Samāya, son of Šū-bēlum (KEL A110), and contains 143 preserved names, thus reaching quite deep into the 18th century BCE.6 The Reconstructed Old Assyrian Eponym List (henceforth REL), which combines the seven known lists and the Mari Eponym Chronicle7 (henceforth MEC), was published by Barjamovic, Hertel and Larsen in 2012.8 According to their reconstruction, it contains 255 names and covers a period from 1963 BCE to c. 1710 BCE, with one lacuna, nine years long, in the mid-18th century BCE.9 The absolute dating of a few eponyms from the REL allows us to assign a precise date to each eponym year, providing reliable absolute dates for these archaeological sites in the Jezirah which have yielded texts dated with eponym names (Tell Bi‘a/Tuttul, Tell Ḥariri/Mari, Tell Chagar Bazar/Ašnakkum, Tell Leilān/Šeḫna/Šubat-Enlil,

6 2 M anning

et al. 2016. 3 M anning, Barjamovic and Lorentzen 2017. 4 Publications: lists A, B, C, and E: Veenhof 2003; lists D and F: Günbattı 2008a; list G: Günbattı 2008b. 5 Veenhof 2003, 20–23.

7 8 9

Günbattı 2008b. See Birot 1985. Barjamovic, Hertel and Larsen 2012, 1–40. Some disputable points in this reconstruction have been indicated by the present author in his review of Barjamovic, Hertel and Larsen 2012 (Koliński 2014b).

85

Changing Clusters and Migrations in the Central Jezirah Region (NE Syria)

Reigns/event

Proposed date (LMC)

Erišum I, king of Assur

1964/3–1925/4 BC

Samsī-Addu, king of Assur

1839–1772 BC

Zimrī-Lîm, king of Mari

1772/1–1748/7 BC

Ḫammurapi, king of Babylon

1784–1842 BC

Ammi-ṣaduqa, king of Babylon

1638–1618 BC

Capture of Babylon by the Hittites

1587 BC

Tab. 1 Years of rule of some of the more important Mesopotamian kings of the first half of the 2nd millennium BC (Lower Middle Chronology) Event

Eponym

REL no.

Proposed date (LMC)

Enthronement of Erišum

Šu-Ištar

1

1964 BC

Birth of Samsī-Addu

Dādiya

126

1839 BC

Death of Samsī-Addu

Ṭāb-ṣilli-Aššur

197

1772 BC

Ṣabrum

218

1748/7 BC

Aššur-muttabbil (?)

249

1717/6 BC

Destruction of Mari by Ḫammurapi Samsu-iluna’s campaign against Šeḫna

Tab. 2 Eponymous dates and absolute chronology (Lower Middle Chronology) and Tell Rimaḥ/Qaṭṭarā)10 (Fig. 1). In consequence, the two most important synchronisms provided by the year formulas of the kings of Babylon11 can now be dated in absolute terms as well: the destruction of Mari in the 33rd year of Ḫammurapi of Babylon should now be dated to the year 1748/7 BCE, and the conquest of Šeḫna by Samsu-iluna to 1717/6 BCE (Tab. 2). As a result, a number of structures and levels exposed on NE Syrian sites can now be dated with very high precision, comparable to the one achieved, until recently, only by Egyptian archaeology. Consequently, it became clear that most of the Ḫabur Ware pottery assemblages considered representative of the entire Ḫabur Ware period belong to a relatively short time period, between 1775 and 1750 BCE. The pottery from the Eastern Lower Town Palace at Leilān is slightly later in date, and the pottery from the recently published graves discovered at Tell Chagar 10

11

Bazar12 and from the ‘Palace Kitchen’ of level C6a at Tell Rimaḥ13 is definitely later (though difficult to date precisely) (Tab. 3). C14 dates for the end of the 3rd and early 2nd millennium BCE contexts in North Mesopotamia are quite rare, probably because most excavators consider this period to be a historical one and thus rely exclusively on conventional historical chronology. In fact, 14C dates for the EJ 4c–5 and OJ I–III periods are only known from five sites: Tell Arbid, Tell Brak, Tell Chagar Bazar, Tell Mozan, and Tell Leilān.14 It is worth mentioning that some prominent sites with long settlement sequences, such as Tell Barri and Tell Muḥammad Diyab, lack both texts and 14C dates. Moreover, there is a remarkable scarcity of dates referring to the EJ 5 and OJ I periods.15 This is not an accident; in fact, only a few sites in the region were settled at this time. EJ5b levels, in particular, have not been identified beyond doubt at any site. The situation for the first half of the

Tuttul: K rebernik 2001; Mari: Charpin 1985; Ašnakkum:

Talon 1997; Lacambre and Millet A lbà 2008; Šeḫna/ Šubat-Enlil: Whiting 1990; Ismail 1991; Vincente 1991; Eidem 2012; Qaṭṭarā: Dalley, Walker and H awkins 1976. Pruzsinszky 2009.

12 13 14 15

Tunca and Mas 2018. Postgate, Oates and Oates 1997. Koliński and Goslar 2019. Koliński and Goslar 2019, 956, fig. 2.

86

Rafał Koliński

City (site)

Sector/structure

Years REL

Years BCE

Tuttul (Tell Bi’a)

Palace A

183–193

1782–1772

Mari (Tell Ḥariri)

Assyrian period

179–194

1786–1771

Zimri-Līm’s period

[193–215]

1770–1751

Ašnakkum (Tell Chagar Bazar)

‘Samsī-Addu’s palace’

185–194

1780–1771

Šubat-Enlil/Šeḫna (Tell Leilān)

Samsī-Addu’s palace (not excavated)

176–198

1789–1767

Temple, levels III–II

172–198

1783–1767

Northern Palace

202–204

1763–1761

Eastern Palace, level 3

203–221

1762–1745

Eastern Palace, level 2

239–241, Išme-AN

1727–1725, 1717

Temple

189, 212

1779, 1753

Temple Stairway

242–244

1726–1724

Palace, level 7

189

1779

Palace, level 6

214–218

1752–1748

Qaṭṭarā (Tell Rimaḥ)

Tab. 3 Eponymous and absolute (LMC) dates of North Mesopotamian contexts which have yielded tablets Site

Sector

EJZ 4c

EJZ 5a

EJZ 5b

OJ I

OJ II

OJ III

Tell Arbid

Sector P

2231–2145

2174–2051

-

1974–1880

1906–1787

-

Tell Brak

Sector TC

2460–2200

2290–2060

-

-

-

-

Tell Chagar Bazar

graves

2290–2120

-

-

-

-

1750–1600

Tell Mozan

Sector C

-

2191–2036

-

-

1782–1686

-

Tell Leilān

Acropolis

2254–2204

-

-

1964–1889

-

-

Tab. 4 Modelled radiocarbon dates for the terminal 3rd and early 2nd millennium BCE from sites located in the Jezirah region (all dates in cal BC) (based on Ristvet 2011, amended by dates published in: Emberling et al. 2012; Boudin and van Strydonck 2018; Pfälzner 2018; Koliński and Goslar 2019) 2nd millennium BCE is even more difficult. A few dates are known from Tell Arbid and Tell Mozan,16 but it seems that, at the latter site, some residual material found in particular archaeological levels, is distorting

16

Pfälzner 2018.

the chronology. Four dates, known from the graves excavated at Tell Chagar Bazar, belong to a distinctly later period, namely 1750–1530 cal BC17 (Tab. 4).

17

Boudin and van Strydonck 2018.

87

Changing Clusters and Migrations in the Central Jezirah Region (NE Syria)

Period

Years BCE

Sites

No. of names

Section

EJ 3b

2400–2340

Tell Beidar/Nabada

c. 500

A

EJ 4b

2275–2200

Tell Brak/Nagar, Tell Mozan/Urkeš, Tell Leilān/Šeḫna

c. 70

B

EJ 4c–5a

2200–2050

Tell Brak/Nagar, Tell Mozan/Urkeš

c. 10

C

EJ 5b OJ I

2050–1790

-

0

D

OJ II

1790–1715

Tell Bi’a/Tuttul, Tell Chagar Bazar/Ašnakkum,a Tell Ḥariri/ Mari,b Tell Leilān/Šubat-Enlil/Šeḫna,c Tell Rimaḥ/Qaṭṭarā

c. 5225

E

Tab. 5 Personal names in north Mesopotamian archives of the terminal 3rd and early 2nd millennium BC: a – only texts from Sir Max Mallowan’s excavations, cf. Talon 1997 b – only names present in Birot, Kupper and Rouault 1979 (covers ARM vols. I–XIV, XVIII) c – only names mentioned in letters (Eidem 2012)

Population Changes in the Jezirah at the Turn of the 3rd Millennium BCE

The above-mentioned settlement crisis which occurred towards the end of the 3rd millennium BCE was noticed in the late 1980s, and in 1993, Harvey Weiss suggested that it was the result of a significant environmental crisis, later linked by him to the 4.2 ky bp climatic event that was reflected, more or less clearly, in proxy climatic data from all over the northern hemisphere.18 It seems now that the central Jezirah may have seen a severe decrease in population,19 and that part of the populace moved west, to the riverine refugia along the Euphrates and Orontes (flourishing cities existed on the Middle Euphrates during the last centuries of the 3rd millennium), and/or east. The evidence for the latter stems from new research in Iraqi Kurdistan, however, the work is still in progress. Significant growth in settlement density and size was observed in several areas located between the Lesser Zab, in the south, and the Eastern Ḫabur, in the north, during the later 3rd millennium.20 In the early 2nd millennium BCE, the central Jezirah was repopulated, which resulted in the formation of a mosaic of densely settled agricultural zones and nomadic areas during the OJ II period, as revealed, first and foremost, by the texts from the Royal Archives of Mari.21 Consequently, it may be assumed that the central Jezirah region was subject to considerable population

18

Weiss et al. 1993, 999–1003; and most recently, Weiss 2017, 99–114.

Weiss 2012. 20 Morandi Bonacossi and I amoni 2015, 23–24, fig. 8; 19

21

changes at the turn of the 3rd millennium BCE. However, monitoring these changes and identifying human groups involved in them is difficult, especially because no satisfactory results of DNA analysis of the region’s ancient population have been obtained so far.22 Because of this I decided to turn my attention to the evidence found in personal names, assuming that they reflect the spoken language and the cultural background of particular human groups. However, this assumption is disputable since there is evidence that a cultural hybridisation may occur in mixed population societies, like the one in Kaneš during the Old Assyrian period or in North Mesopotamia during the Amorite period,23 leading to a weak link between cultural traditions and name-giving practices.24 Nevertheless, I believe that it may be assumed that the first appearance of personal names belonging to an entirely different linguistic tradition than the one evidenced in a given territory is the result of newly established contact between two population groups, most likely in consequence of their movement. Based on this assumption, and lacking a better tool to study potential population changes in the Jezirah, I have relied on the occurrence of personal names. The data is divided into five sub-periods, spanning the mid-3rd millennium BCE to c. 1700 BCE (namely, EJ 3b; EJ 4b/Late Akkadian; EJ 4c–5a/PostAkkadian; EJ 5b–OJ I/Transitional/Old Assyrian; OJ II/Old Babylonian). Besides the above-mentioned

Gavagnin, Iamoni and Palermo 2016, 134–138; Koliński 2018, 17–18; Pfälzner and Sconzo 2016, 26. R istvet and Weiss 2013, 265; Wossink 2009, 114–117.

Lazaridis et al. 2016, 421–423, fig. 1a. Lumsden 2008; R ichter 2016, 5–15. 24 For an extensive discussion on this issue with respect to 22 23

the Hurrians, see also the contributions by R ichter and by Wilhelm in this volume.

88

Rafał Koliński

Period

Site/name

Period

Western Semitic/ Amorite

Eastern Semitic/ Akkadian/Old Babylonian

Hurrian

Uncertain

TOTAL

A

Tell Beidar/ Nabada

EJ 3b/4

-

c. 400

-

?

400

A

Tell Ḥariri/ Mari

EJ 3b/4

-

c. 100

-

?

100

B

Tell Mozan/ Urkeš

EJ 4b

-

13

11

4

28

B

Tell Brak

EJ 4b

1

39

1

2

43

C

Tell Mozan/ Urkeš

EJ 4c

1

3

1

6

C

Tell Brak

EJ 4c

-

-

1

E

Tell Bi’a/ Tuttul

OJ II

338

113

18

177

646

E

Tell Chagar Bazar/ Ašnakkum

OJ II

123

149

168

115

555

E

Tell Leilān/ Šeḫna

OJ II

63

19

10

42

134

E

Tell Rimaḥ/ Qaṭṭarā Palace/Temple

OJ II

116

100

69

98

383

E

Tell Rimaḥ/ Qaṭṭarā Temple stairway

OJ II

70

35

42

48

195

E

Tell Ḥariri/ Mari

OJ II

880

1307

311

813

3311

E

TOTAL E

1590

1723

618

1293

5224

1

Tab. 6 Personal names recorded in the main archives discovered on north Mesopotamian sites Beidar: Ismail et al. 1996; Milano et al. 2004; Catagnoti 1998; Mari EJ3b/4: Charpin 1987; Catagnoti 1998; Mozan: Milano 1991; Brak: Eidem, Finkel and Bonechi 2001; Bi‛a: Krebernik 2001; Rimaḥ: my analysis of Dalley, Walker and Hawkins 1976; Chagar Bazar: my analysis of Talon 1997; Mari OJ II: Huffmon 1965; Sasson 1974; Birot, Kupper and Rouault 1979; Leilān: my analysis of letters, Eidem 2012 methodological reservations, it is important to mention that the evidence of names is very unevenly distributed in this time period (the EJ 4c–5a/Post-Akkadian period is represented by a dozen names, while the OJ II/Old Babylonian period by over five thousand) (Tab. 5). The earliest period under consideration is represented only by names from Beidar/Nabada.25 According to Catagnoti, they are exclusively Semitic, but differ significantly from those of Ebla or Mari, and despite having a local character, they are closer to

the Babylonian tradition.26 The linguistic background of about 20% of all names is unclear (Tab. 6, Section A). In the Akkadian period, a limited number of names is provided by texts from Tell Brak, Tell Mozan/ Urkeš, and Tell Leilān.27 Semitic names prevail, but a significant group can be described as Akkadian. One or two Hurrian names appear as well (Tab. 6, Section B).

26 25 Ismail

et al. 1996; Milano et al. 2004.

27

Catagnoti 1998. Brak: Eidem et al. 2001; Urkeš: Milano 1991; Leilān: Milano 2007.

Changing Clusters and Migrations in the Central Jezirah Region (NE Syria)

The subsequent period (Post-Akkadian) is very poorly evidenced: Tell Mozan, however, yielded several seal impressions of local kings featuring Hurrian names, which belong mainly to the Akkadian period. It is worth mentioning that while the site yielded a few texts written in Hurrian, including the ‘Lion Inscription’ concerning the foundation of a temple in Urkeš written by Atal-šen, their attribution to a particular period is uncertain (Tab. 6, Section C). Occasionally, Hurrian names also appear among the people from the North referred to in the South Mesopotamian texts mainly in the Ur III period.28 However, there is not enough data to estimate the ratios of Hurrian names to other components. There are no indigenous texts dating to the turn of the 3rd millennium BCE and the two subsequent centuries apart from some building and seal inscriptions from Mari. However, in the 18th century BCE, the situation changes. The evidence comes from several local archives discovered at Tell Bi‘a/Tuttul, Tell Ḥariri/ Mari, Tell Chagar Bazar/Ašnakkum, Tell Leilān/ Šeḫna/Šubat-Enlil, Tell Rimaḥ/Qaṭṭarā,29 and some dispersed texts from smaller sites. In general, Akkadian names are the most popular (1723 instances, constituting 43.8% of identified names), followed by Amorite (1590, 40.5%) and Hurrian names (618, 15.7%) (Tab. 6, Section E). Approximately 25% of all names are impossible to interpret in linguistic terms; this percentage is more or less the same in all the analysed archives. An interesting issue is whether the difference in proportions between the three main groups of names reflects some significant pattern. Amorite names constitute more than 50% of identified names in Tuttul, 40% in Mari, and about 30% at other sites, so this ratio does not seem to indicate any significant difference in spatial distribution. Hurrian names are present everywhere, but their number is lower in Tuttul (less than 3%) and Mari (9%) than in the central Jezirah (40% in Ašnakkum and 18 to 22% in Qaṭṭarā). Names belonging to the Akkadian tradition make up from 34% to 17% and are predominantly evidenced in Mari (Tab. 6, Section E, and Fig. 2).30

28 29

30

Steinkeller 1998. For publications of the texts, see note 10. Names from the Mari texts published in vols. I–XIV and XVIII of the Archive Royale de Mari series were collected in ARM XVI (Birot et al. 1979). For analyses of particular groups of names from Mari, see Huffmon 1965 (Amorite); R asmussen 1981 (Akkadian); Sasson 1974 (Hurrian). The situation in Šubat-Enlil/Šeḫna is difficult to assess. A small sample of names appears in the letters published by Eidem (n=134). It consists mainly of Amorite names (47%) followed by Akkadian (14%) and Hurrian ones (9%) (Eidem 2012). Conversely, economic texts from various contexts studied by Ismail yielded no Amorite

89

In conclusion, it appears that towards the end of the Early Jezirah 3 period, the population of Jezirah was homogenous and spoke a Semitic language showing affinities to northern Babylonia rather than to Syria. During the Akkadian period, people bearing Akkadian names appeared, probably as a consequence of the Akkadian conquest of the area. One or two Hurrian names also, presumably, mark an advent of Hurrian migration into the Jezirah. However, in the Late Akkadian period (EJ 4c), Hurrian kings were already ruling some of the cities with Urkeš being the most prominent (three rulers bearing the Hurrian title of endan are known: Tupkiš, Tiš-atal, and Sadar-mat). There is also evidence of the presence of Hurrian rulers in various parts of North-East Mesopotamia, especially in the last century of the 3rd millennium. At the beginning of the 18th century BCE, a new group is in evidence, namely the Amorites, constituting an important component of the population.31 The other two groups still present in the area, the Akkadians and the Hurrians, also comprised an important part of the populace. Finally, around 1760 BCE, the migration from the Zagros to the central Jezirah 32 of the Turukkeans,33 bearing mostly Hurrian names, may indicate the advent of a new Hurrian wave moving into the north Mesopotamian steppe,34 which finally led to the domination of the Hurrians in the LBAperiod Mittani state. Therefore, it is clear that two important new population groups arrived in the Jezirah region in the latter part of the 3rd millennium BCE: the Hurrians appeared in the Ḫabur region of the central Jezirah probably in the 24th/23rd century BCE, and the Amorites arrived in the 21st century BCE or slightly later.

31

32 33 34

names (sic!), 33% of Akkadian names, and nearly 44% of Hurrian ones (Ismail 1991, 8). Finally, texts dated to the year of Ḫabil-kēnu (REL 224, ie. 1739/8 BCE) studied by Vincente contained 29% of Amorite, 17% of Akkadian, and 31% of Hurrian names (Vincente 1991, 27). This last work seems to be more trustworthy than the others, at least the proportion of names seems to be analogous to the other sites in the central Jezirah area; as for the letters, they are certainly more influenced by the sender-addressee relationship than economic texts. Newly published book of Faruk Ismail (Ismail 2021), that I have no chance to consult, may help to resolve these discrepancies. Their arrival may be dated back to the 21st century BCE, based on the references to the Amorite threat to the kingdom of the kings of the 3rd dynasty of Ur. (Sallaberger 2009). Eidem 2014. K lengel 1962; 1985. This tendency, if real, is not reflected, however, by the texts discovered near the temple stairway in Qaṭṭarā, dated to c. 1730 BCE, and featuring only 21.5% Hurrian names, i.e. 3% more than in the earlier context of the Palace, maybe because of the short time distance (c. 20 years).

Šeḫna - letters Šeḫna - economic Ismail Šeḫna - economic Vincente Qaṭṭarā - temple/palace Qaṭṭarā - stairway 90

47,0 0,0 29,0 30,2 35,9

14,2 8,2 33,7 43,8 17,0 31,0 26,0 18,0 17,9 21,5 Rafał Koliński

31,3 22,5 23,0 25,5 24,6

Proportion of names belonging to particular linguistic groups 100% 90%

17,0 27,4

80%

20,7 31,3

70% 60%

17,5

30,3 33,6

40%

8,2 14,2

50%

31,0

25,5

24,6

18,0

21,5

26,0

17,9

43,8

17,0

26,8 52,3

20%

47,0

40,4

33,7

29,0

30,2

Šeḫna economic Vincente

Qaṭṭarā temple/palace

22,2

10% 0%

23,0

9,0 2,8

30%

22,5

Tuttul

0,0 Mari Ašnakkum Šeḫna - letters Šeḫna Rasmussen 1981 Mallowan's texts economic Ismail Amorite

Akkadian

Hurrian

35,9

Qaṭṭarā stairway

Uncertain

Fig. 2 Proportion of personal names belonging to particular linguistic groups in the archives of the early 2nd millennium BCE from North Mesopotamia

The MBA Burial Customs

The third topic under consideration in this paper concerns burial customs. The following overview is based on evidence from Tell Arbid, Sector P,35 and on data from other sectors analysed by Zuzanna Wygnańska.36 It also takes into account data from two recent publications of the graves on Tell Mozan/ Urkeš37 and those on Tell Chagar Bazar.38 Finally, some data from Tell Barri will also be used for comparison.39 The Tell Arbid graves fall into four basic categories: chamber graves,40 cist graves, shaft graves, and pit graves. The shaft graves are further divided into two subtypes, depending on whether a pottery vessel was used as a container for the body or not (Tab. 7). Chamber graves with a barrel vault, represented in Sector P by three structures (GP06, GP07, and GP26), are the most interesting of the first category.41

35

36 37 38 39 40 41

Published on the web: http://thegatetomesopotamia.

amu.edu.pl/amaz-on-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10graves. For particular graves cf. entries in the webpages section of the references. Wygnańska 2006; 2008. Wissing 2017. For data from Sector A see K harobi 2015. Tunca and Baghdo 2018. Valentini 2003. Most likely described with Akkadian word kimaḫḫum, see Jacquet 2015, 124–125. Six more graves of this type were discovered in sectors D, SD, and S of Tell Arbid.

They were constructed of dried bricks placed at the bottom of a substantial pit, with some space left on the shorter side of the chamber for a shaft leading to its entrance. The inner width of the chamber was c. 1 m, which allowed for the construction of a vault of radially set bricks over it. At one end of the vault, a permanent wall was constructed, while the other end served as an entrance. The wall over the entrance reached the surface and probably rose above it (in one instance, it was nearly 2 m high). It protected the shaft and marked the position of the grave. Both these features were crucial, as chamber graves were used for burying subsequent members of the same family, which required the chamber to be reopened. Older remains were pushed towards the far end of the chamber, and the new body was placed close to the entrance, with the head pointing inward. Burial gifts were not abundant, consisting of various categories of items, including, occasionally, weaponry. The other types of chamber graves in evidence at Tell Arbid have a very peculiar ceiling, which I call ‘in diamond’ (Fig. 3). In the case of the wider graves, the interior width was typically between 0.7 to 0.8 m, and the ceiling was composed of three rows of vertical bricks, two of which were supported by the side walls of the chamber, with a middle row locking the rest into position (GP05, GP10) (Fig. 3A). For the narrower variant (usually 0.4 m or less in width), a single row of bricks was used, whose corners rested on the opposite walls of the chamber. Graves of this type (GP02, GP12, GP13, GP18, GP19, and, to some

91

Changing Clusters and Migrations in the Central Jezirah Region (NE Syria)

Type of grave

Subtype

Characteristic

Chamber grave

barrel vaulted

chamber c. 2.0 x 1.0 m, mud-brick vault

4

4

triple ‘in diamond’

chamber c. 1.5 x 0.8 m, ceiling of 3 rows of brick (Fig. 3)

2

1

single ‘in diamond’

chamber c. 1.5 x 0.4 m, ceiling of 1 row of bricks (Fig. 3)

5+1b

7

Cist grave

-

4, 3, or 2 walls constructed of bricks, no remains of ceiling preserved

3

4

Shaft grave

in container

body deposited in a vessel placed in a niche in the wall of the shaft

6

1

inhumation

body deposited directly in a niche in the wall of the shaft

0

4

in container

body deposited in a container placed on the bottom of the pit

5

10

inhumation

body deposited directly on the bottom of the pit

2

4

Pit grave

Sector P

Other sectorsa

Tab. 7 Typology of MBA graves unearthed at Tell Arbid (a – source: Wygnańska 2006; 2008; b – grave GP32 represents a more complicated variant of “single in diamond” ceiling) extent, GP32) (Fig. 3B), with one exception (GP02), served to bury adults usually deposited with one or two vessels, some beads, a pin, and a meat offering. Chamber graves were generally intended as resting places for adults. However, some children were also deposited in the vaulted graves, for instance, eight adults and six children were found buried in GP26, the largest of the barrel-vaulted chamber graves. There are also two cases of children buried in small chamber graves of the single ‘in diamond’ type (GP02 and G2-SR-36/5942). Nearly all the chamber graves discovered at Tell Arbid follow the same general orientation, i.e. east-west, but there is no rule as to the location of the entrance/entrance shaft. The bodies were always placed with the head to the inside of the chamber. The deceased were accompanied by animal offerings and modest sets of burial gifts (one or two vessels, beads, bronze clothing pin(s), occasionally weaponry or jewellery); when there was more than one burial, usually some vessels were deposited in the shaft as well (GP10, GP32). The cist graves consisted of a low enclosure constructed on the bottom of a rectangular pit. The enclosure could have four, three, or two walls (in the latter case, these were always parallel walls on the

42

Wygnańska 2006; it belongs to the so-called Western

cemetery of Sector P, featuring several ‘in diamond’ graves.

longer sides of the pit). Three graves of this type were discovered in Sector P (GP25, GP51, G1-SR-37/60).43 All of them were found very close to the surface, which may have affected their state of preservation. Consequently, it is not clear how the ceiling was constructed, as no remains of structures of any kind were observed in Tell Arbid. However, it is usually assumed that the cist graves were provided with a flat ceiling. One grave (G1-SR-37/60) contained the body of an adult, without gifts, the second (GP25) one adolescent, four children, and a number of miniature vessels, while the third was a single child burial with one vessel. The shaft graves consisted of a rectangular or oval shaft with a niche cut into one of its walls where a pottery vessel, serving as a burial container, was placed. The vessel’s mouth was usually blocked with one or more mud-bricks; but in some cases, bricks were used to close the opening of the niche (GP04, GP21, GP22, GP23, GP27, GP28, and GP57). In Sector P of Tell Arbid, graves of this type belonged exclusively to children 0–3 years old. The deceased were provided with a relatively high number of pottery vessels (from 1 to 12), most often small painted jugs. Other categories of vessels included small cups or 43

At least one of them (G1-SR-37/60) belongs to the latest grave horizon, as it differs in orientation. GP11, which was found empty (as if it had never been used for burial) may belong to this type as well.

92

Rafał Koliński

Fig. 3 Schematic section across chamber grave with “in diamond” ceiling from Tell Arbid: A – with 3 rows of bricks, B – with a single row of bricks (plate by R. Koliński) bowls, usually absent from the adult graves. In two cases, a bigger jug was placed outside the burial vessel, and in one grave (GP22), a 3rd-millennium BCE cylinder seal was found adorned with a contest scene and probably used as an amulet. No animal offerings were present in graves of this kind. Surprisingly, adult shaft graves were relatively rare in Arbid, as evidenced by only two such graves, but outside Sector P. Finally, in the pit graves, the body was placed either in a vessel or directly inside the pit. This type was used mainly for child burials (GP03, GP17, GP20, GP31; in the case of GP2944 and GP56, without a container). However, there is evidence for two adult burials and, in one case, the bones were transported from elsewhere and reburied. In this group of graves, the number of burial gifts was limited to one vessel, or a few beads at most. An overview of the grave typology demonstrates that there is considerable diversity between sites (Tab. 8). Vaulted chamber graves, although known from all the sites, differ in the materials used and the execution techniques. For instance, in Arbid and Chagar Bazar, they are built of dried bricks, in Mozan of dried bricks and stone, while in Barri they are made of baked bricks. Barrel vaults were constructed either of vertical (Arbid, Chagar Bazar, Barri) or tilted rows of bricks (Barri, Rimaḥ, Assur). Shaft graves, however, are present at most of the sites, but again, there are differences. In Arbid, they were used mainly for child burials in vessels, while in Mozan and Chagar Bazar, most contained

44

The burial was deposited at the bottom of the shaft leading to the vaulted chamber grave GP26.

adult bones deposited directly in the niche (only two graves from Arbid may belong to this group). Finally, no graves of this type have been evidenced in Barri. I believe that bringing the time factor into consideration may help to better understand this heterogeneity. The Sector P graves in Arbid constitute an assemblage dating to the late 19th – early 18th century BCE and are clearly earlier than the graves from Tell Chagar Bazar (post-Samsī-Addu, i.e. after 1772 BCE). The Tell Mozan graves, from Sector C strata C6 and C5b, seem to be contemporary with the graves from Tell Arbid,45 while the finds from stratum C5a and two graves from stratum C4 are much closer in time to the ones from Chagar Bazar. Most of the graves uncovered in Sector A are dated to the ‘older’ period (c. 2000–1900 BCE) and may be contemporary with the ones from Sector P in Arbid, while the rest, belong to the ‘younger’ group (1900–1600 BCE), partly contemporary to the youngest of the Tell Arbid Sector P graves.46 Most of the Tell Barri graves also seem to belong to the early period, although the dating of level 31B, which yielded the most graves, is not very precise (Tab. 9). Consequently, it is tempting to propose that the adult shaft graves which dominate at Tell Chagar Bazar are typical of the latter part of the Middle Bronze Age, while in the earlier period, adults were buried, as a rule, either in chamber or cist tombs. Another variation concerns the meat offerings in the graves. Animal bones found in the graves of Arbid and Mozan belong exclusively to sheep or goat. In Chagar Bazar, however, offerings of pork

45

The same can be said about the graves from Sector A,

46

K harobi 2015, 70.

studied by Arwa Kharobi, K harobi 2015.

93

Changing Clusters and Migrations in the Central Jezirah Region (NE Syria)

Site/ Type

Chamber graves

Cist graves

Vaulted

Flat ceiling

Single ‘in diamond’

Triple ‘in diamond’

Tell Arbid

8

-

13

3

Tell Mozana

4

2

1

Tell Chagar Bazarb

1

-

Tell Barri

4

-

Shaft graves

Pit graves

Adult

Child

Vessel

Inhumation

7

4

7

15

6

2

20

3

-

20

22

1

6

-

77c

-

9

5

-

-

6

-

-

7

14

Tab. 8 Types of graves present on other MBA sites in the central Jezirah region: a –graves published both in Wissing 2014 and in Kharobi 2015, b – only graves published in Tunca and Mas 2018, c – including 50 tombes á cavite laterale, 11 tombes á palier laterale, plus additional 16 shaft graves of undetermined subtype

Period Before 1770 BC

After 1770 BC

Site/sector

Layer

Chamber graves

Cist graves

Shaft graves

Pit graves

child

adult

pot

inhumation

Tell Arbid, sector P

II

12

2

6

0

3

1

Tell Mozana sector A

“older”

3

10

0

0

17

20

Tell Mozan, sector C

6b–6a, 5b

5

2

0

3

1

18

Tell Barri, sector G

34B–31B

4

6

0

0

5

6

Tell Arbid, sector P

I

1

1

0

0

2

1

Tell Chagar Bazar

Post XIII

8

0

0

77

9

5

Tell Mozan, sector A

“younger”

0

5

0

0

1

4

Tell Mozan, sector C

5a, 4

2

0

0

0

0

5

Tell Barri, sector G

30

0

0

0

0

1

0

Tab. 9 Distribution of grave types in respect to the dated grave assemblages from the central Jezirah area. a – the “older” cemetery at Mozan, sector A is dated to OJ I period (2000–1900 BCE), while “younger” to OJ II period (1900–1600 BCE) – Kharobi 2015, 70

94

Rafał Koliński

appear, constituting c. 20% of cases. This may be interpreted as an indicator that the dead, or rather their families, had a different ethnic or cultural affiliation.47 Moreover, in Chagar Bazar, children were frequently provided with meat offerings, which was evidenced in Arbid only twice (but in both instances, the child was buried in a small chamber grave!). Yet another difference is that while the Mozan and Arbid graves seem to be located outside the households (but in such a way that it is possible to reconstruct the link between the house and its graves), the Barri graves are located predominantly inside houses, and chamber graves either in the main rooms or under courtyards paved with burned brick (the relationship of graves to houses in Chagar Bazar is not clear). On all the sites, the burials are occasionally accompanied by complete animal skeletons, deposited either in the shaft or in a separate pit adjacent to the grave. As far as species are concerned, these could be donkeys (in Mozan, Sector A, Grave A7.413; Sector C, Grab 37; in Arbid, grave G8/9-S37/55, in Chagar Bazar, chamber grave no. 126) 48 or dogs (Arbid: in the shaft of the already-mentioned chamber grave G8/9-S37/55 and in the shaft of GP26).49 In the case of GP26, the position of the skeleton (found in the upper layers of the fill in the central part of the shaft) may suggest that the dog was buried as a warden of the grave, which was in this way ritually closed. A dog burial was also discovered in Barri, but the details are unknown to me. The last point I would like to make concerns the continuation, or rather, the discontinuation, of burial customs typical of the EJ4c–5a, which are known from the discoveries in Tell Mozan and Tell Arbid.50 This period features only one type of grave, namely, pit burials. Very small children were buried in pits under the floors of structures, while older children were placed either in pottery vessels, in pottery sherds, or directly into pits, but in an extended position. Adult graves are characterised by the disarticulation of bones, which may suggest that the remains were buried after the decomposition of the body. Some of the children’s graves were relatively richly equipped (pottery vessels, jewellery – bracelets, earrings, beads), whereas adult burials, as a rule, were very poor in this respect. The difference in burial customs is striking, as if an entirely new burial tradition was introduced in the area at the turn of the 3rd millennium BCE. The analysis of the personal names presented above indicates the arrival of only

48

Koliński 2015, 70. K harobi 2015, 213; Wissing 2017, 63–64, pl. 32;

49

Wygnańska 2017, 150–153, tab. 2. Some donkey and dog

47

50

one new population group into the area, namely the Amorites. But, in my opinion, the conclusion that they are exclusively responsible for all the changes in burial customs is going too far. Taking into account that some cemeteries linked to transhumant Amorite population groups51 show entirely different types of graves, the most prominent being burial mounds, absent in the cities, the process of formation of burial customs typical of the early 2nd mill. BCE must have been much more complicated. The popularity of adult shaft graves in Tell Chagar Bazar is difficult to explain, especially since graves of this kind have been very rare at the other sites discussed. Again, there is evidence of change in the burial customs, concerning not only the type of grave but also the introduction of pig as an animal whose meat may have been used as a funerary gift for the deceased.52

Evolution of the Ḫabur Ware

Finally, I would like to make a few remarks concerning new developments in the study of the Ḫabur Ware, painted pottery typical of Middle Bronze Age North Mesopotamia. Traditionally, it was divided into two groups: older and younger, the latter continuing into the Mittani period.53 In 1990, a more precise division, into four periods, was introduced, two of which corresponded to the older and two to the younger group.54 However, while the latter division is accepted by most authors, the dating of particular sub-periods is challenged. I would like to introduce a new classification, which still consists of four groups, namely: Early, Classic, Elaborate, and Late Ḫabur Ware. Below, I characterise their typical features and propose a more precise chronology for each group (Tab. 10). Early Ḫabur Ware, between 2000 and 1850 BCE, known from Tell Arbid, Sector P, level III, and from Tell Barri, includes reddish-brown vessels with an angular profile, decorated with simple linear motifs, often executed with transparent paint, and with no or very little paint on the rim. Decoration is present mainly on open forms (cups and bowls) (Fig. 4). Classic Ḫabur Ware, present in Tell Arbid, Sector P level II, in Tell Mozan levels 6 and 5, and in Tell Rimaḥ consists of yellowish and greenish pottery and features a slightly different set of painted linear motifs, including decoration on the rim, and hatched 51 52

Wygnańska 2017, 151, fig. 4; Léon and Cordy 2018, 153.

bones have been found as well in the chamber of Grave 4 at Tell Mozan, Sector C (Wissing 2017, 84). Wygnańska 2019b.

53 54

Cf. discussion in Wygnańska 2019a, 399–403.

Léon and Cordy 2018. Archaeozoological samples from the MBA layers at sites located in the central Jezirah area yielded a significant number of pig bones, demonstrating that this species was bred in the area on a significant scale, though probably on the level of private households and not the institutional economy (Koliński 2012, 244– 245, tab. 5). Hrouda 1957; 1972–1975. Oguchi 1997, for a corrected date of the beginning of period 3, see Oguchi 2006.

95

Changing Clusters and Migrations in the Central Jezirah Region (NE Syria)

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

15

16

14

17

Fig. 4 Typical vessel shapes and decoration of the Early Ḫabur Ware from Tell Arbid (plate by A. Szczęsny)

96

Rafał Koliński

Ḫabur Ware phase

Vessel forms

Fig.

Decoration

Fig.

Ware and surface aspects

Early

- biconical cups with bead rim, - deep bowls with ledge rim, - squat jugs with straight shoulders

3

- rare rim decoration - painted overlapping chevrons - rare incised lines

3

- paint often transparent, red or violet in colour - surfaces pink, red or brown - heavy vegetal temper

Classical

- grooved cups with vertical sides, - rounded jugs with low neck

4

- lozenges and triangles on the top surface of ledge rims - jugs with 3 painted bands on the widest part of the body - single band of fine ribbing

4

- paint thick, red, brown, olive to black, - surface buff, orange brown - polished grey and brown ware - heavy and medium vegetal temper

Elaborate

- shouldered beakers - flaring rim beakers - grain measures

5

- combination of lines and solid squares and triangles - stylised bird motive - on beakers bands on rim and shoulders only

5

- paint nearly exclusively red - cups and beakers without vegetal temper

Tab. 10 Periodisation and characteristic features of the Early, Classic, and Elaborate Ḫabur Ware pottery triangles on the shoulders. Also typical of this period are grey and brown polished bowls and globular jars with three painted bands on the body. These assemblages date to c. 1850–1770 BCE (Fig. 5). Elaborate Ḫabur Ware is represented by assemblages from the Northern Lower Town Palace in Leilān, the Late Babylonian Kitchen (Level 6a) in Tell Rimaḥ, as well as the Chagar Bazar graves excavated in Area I. The assemblage from Leilān, discussed by Pulhan, features numerous painted bird motifs and is very precisely dated to the career of Qarni-Līm, king of Andarig, who ruled in the years 1769–1761 BCE.55 The graves, discovered in layers above the administrative structure of the Samsī-Addu period, which became defunct in 1771 BCE, must be later than that building.56 The date of the Late Babylonian Kitchen is unfortunately difficult to reconstruct. It belonged to a large structure, built on the top of a terrace, which has almost completely eroded. It can be dated only in relation to Aqba-ḫammu’s palace from level C6, which was destroyed in 1748 BCE. The recovered pottery assemblage is, thus, clearly younger in date.57 Elaborate Ḫabur Ware displays the following new features: the 55 56 57

Pulhan 2000; Oguchi 2006. For Qarni-Līm, see Charpin and Ziegler 2003, 267.

Tunca and Mas 2018, 96. Postgate, Oates and Oates 1997. Joan Oates informs

that rim sherd belonging to a beaker with bird decoration has been found in the Palace of level 6, together with tablets of the Iltani’s archive, thus shortly before 1751 BCE (Postgate, Oates and Oates 1997, 53).

appearance of ‘grain measures’ and ‘shouldered cups’ (not present in the Tell Arbid Classic Ḫabur Ware assemblage), the appearance of zoomorphic motifs on painted vessels, and the general change to a finer more slender pottery (Fig. 6). Unfortunately, a terminal date for the Elaborate Ḫabur Ware group cannot be proposed at the moment due to the lack of well-dated pottery assemblages reflecting this change. However, it may only be speculated that it took place sometime between 1600 and 1500 BCE. The last issue I would like to comment upon in this context is the origin of the Ḫabur Ware. The origin of Ḫabur Ware was already considered by Sir Max Mallowan, who pointed out the Iranian affinities of this decoration style. However, all the explanations published to date58 need to be re-evaluated given that the first appearance of Ḫabur Ware may be now pushed back into the first half of the 20th century BCE,59 if not earlier.60 Under the circumstances, the most plausible hypothesis seems to be one which assumes that Ḫabur Ware is a consequence of the local development of an earlier tradition (a view recently advocated by Peter Pfälzner).61 This claim was based on the fact that level C6b, characterised by the re-use of the socalled Puššam’s house, featured a mixed assemblage of Post-Akkadian and Ḫabur Ware pottery. While I

Summarised most recently in Bieniada 2009. Koliński 2014a. 60 Pfälzner 2018. 61 Pfälzner 2018. 58 59

97

Changing Clusters and Migrations in the Central Jezirah Region (NE Syria)

2

3

1

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Fig. 5 Typical vessel shapes and decoration of the Classic Ḫabur Ware from Tell Arbid (plate by A. Szczęsny)

98

Rafał Koliński

1

2

6 3

4

5

7

8

9

11

12

13

15

16

10

14

17

Fig. 6 Typical vessel shapes and decoration of the Elaborate Ḫabur Ware (5, 8–9, 15–17 – Tell Chagar Bazar: Tunca and Maas 2018; 1–4, 6–7, 10–14 – Tell Rimaḥ: Postgate, Oates, and Oates 1997) (plate by A. Szczęsny)

99

Changing Clusters and Migrations in the Central Jezirah Region (NE Syria)

1

2

3

4

5 4

6

8 7

9

0

5cm

Fig. 7 Possible predecessors of the Ḫabur Ware painted decoration and pie-crust pot-stands among the EJ4–5 pottery from northeastern Iraq (Upper Greater Zab Reconnaissance Project) (plate by A. Szczęsny)

100

Rafał Koliński

fully agree with the dating of level C7 in Mozan,62 I am sceptical about the interpretation of the presence of Ḫabur Ware in this level, apparently represented by 149 well-stratified fragments constituting a mere 0.7% of all sherds.63 What makes me doubt Pfälzner’s statement is the fact that most of the illustrated forms represent Classic Ḫabur Ware shapes and decoration, which are not typical of the Early Ḫabur group.64 The same can be said of the Ḫabur Ware assemblage from level C6.65 Moreover, the pottery contradicts the radiocarbon dates from the same level, which have to be interpreted as coming from residual plant material in the sample. Shifting the whole Ḫabur Ware sequence to earlier periods (compared to the interim reports) has one more consequence. Pfälzner dates the assemblages of level C4, representing, in my opinion, Elaborate Ḫabur Ware to 1850–1650 BCE),66 which is impossible given the arguments presented above. Of the four hypotheses concerning the origin of Ḫabur Ware, the Indigenous Origin Theory67 seems the most convincing. Consequently, the application of painted banded decoration was the result of cultural contacts with the Middle Euphrates zone and Northern Syria (as far as Ebla), where painted decoration occurs during the EB IVB period.68 It has to be mentioned, however, that the repertoire of forms on which painted motifs are present mainly includes beakers and jugs rather than cups and bowls, as in Early Ḫabur Ware. Another indication of the origin of painted Ḫabur Ware decoration is offered by a few sherds, from the central Jezirah EJ4c–5a period, which shows bitumen-painted decorations on the neck, or bitumen painted dots on the shoulder.69 Finally, some motifs, such as painted bands and cross-hatched triangles or superimposed chevrons, could have been copied from the EJ 4–5 pottery decoration repertoire, especially the vessels from the Transtigridian zone of North Mesopotamia (Fig. 7).70

62 63 64 65 66 67 68

69

70

Pfälzner 2018, 164–167. Schmidt 2013, 102–105, tab. 4.4; Pfälzner 2018, 168–

169, fig. 7.5. As defined in Koliński 2014a, 21–31. Schmidt 2013, 114–116, fig. 79; Pfälzner 2018, 179–180, figs. 7.15 and 7.16. Pfälzner 2018, 179, fig. 7.13, 186–187. Bieniada 2009, 166–168. The most common variant is banded decoration, sometimes accompanied by cross-hatched triangles and, very rarely, zoomorphic motifs, see M azzoni 2002; D’Andrea 2017; 2018a, 7–10, figs. 12–15; 2018b, figs. 6–7. Jezirah types 122–123, see Rova 2011, 79, pl. 23 with further references; Tigridian type 105, A rrivabeni 2019, pl. 19,11. Jezirah type 112, Rova 2011, 78, pl. 21.1; Tigridian type 107, A rrivabeni 2019, pl. 13,14–15, 15,15, 16,7, 19,13.

Conclusion

The discontinuity between the Early Jezirah and the Old Jezirah periods in North Mesopotamia was underscored by Harvey Weiss and a number of other authors.71 The considerable reduction of settlement density and size must have been the result of migration(s) out of the area, which affected both population groups in evidence during the EJ 4c–5a period, that is the Hurrians and the East Semitic tribes (including the Akkadians). This scenario also assumes a repopulation of the Jezirah before the 18th century BCE, when, once more, the region is full of cities, towns, and villages, visible both in the archaeological (excavations and surveys) and historical record.72 There is no indication as to when and how this repopulation happened. Did the people who had gone looking for better environmental conditions, towards the end of the 3rd millennium, return to their ancestral land? Or was the area settled by an entirely new group? The presence of people bearing either East Semitic or Hurrian names could have resulted from either of these scenarios or both. Only the arrival of the Amorites, who, according to textual evidence, were clearly absent from the area in the 3rd millennium, may be convincingly interpreted as a migration. Only two issues related to culture were discussed above: the evidence of burial customs and ancestral veneration, and changes in the pottery repertoire. There is no doubt that in both these aspects, an evident change took place between the end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 2nd millennium. As for the burial customs, the ones evidenced in the EJ4c–5a period are rather simple, with three types of graves corresponding to three different categories of the deceased. Both stillborn and newborn babies were buried in holes under the floors of houses. Older children were deposited in pottery vessels or pottery sherds, with jewellery (bracelets, earrings, and beads), while adult burials were typically pit graves with disarticulated bones and very limited funerary gifts.73 The 2nd millennium heralded change 71

72

73

Weiss et al. 1993; Weiss 2012; and, most recently, Weiss

2019. See as well Lebeau 2011, 377; R istvet and Weiss 2013, 262–265. It is hard to believe that there was no settlement in the area during the late 20th – early 19th century BCE, when it was frequently crossed by caravans of Assyrian merchants travelling to Anatolia and back (Koliński 2014a, 12–17). Two recent studies of the Middle Bronze Age geography of Jezirah list more than 400 geographical names provided by written sources (Ziegler and Langlois 2016) and over 1100 archaeological sites located in the area, confirmed either by surveys or excavations (Fink 2016). This statement is based on the evidence from Tell Arbid, Sector P, but Anne Wissing came to a similar conclusion when considering the evidence from Tell Mozan, Sector C (Wissing 2017, 344). However, contemporary graves from Mari tend to differ both in the form and richness of deposited burial gifts (Jean-M arie 1999).

Changing Clusters and Migrations in the Central Jezirah Region (NE Syria)

in Mesopotamia and Syria, including the introduction of family graves intended for multiple, subsequent burials (which required the grave to be reopened for each new burial).74 There is also evidence of meat offerings in the graves, various ritual funerary practices (resulting in the deposition of vessels and animal bones in the grave shafts), a secondary burial of bones taken from an abandoned family grave,75 and the veneration of ancestors through repeated offerings for the dead (akk. kispûm).76 Ancestral veneration and rituals related to the cult of ancestors have generally been associated with the Amorites,77 but as they constituted only a fraction of the population (Tab. 4), this interpretation seems oversimplified. Moreover, a few cemeteries discovered along the Euphrates, and usually connected with the transhumant Amorite population,78 have only a few features in common with burials discovered in settlements.79 Finally, it is also difficult to explain the high number of adult shaft graves in Chagar Bazar, a form of grave nearly absent from the other sites. A change in the pottery repertoire, namely the advent of painted Ḫabur Ware, is the most easily observable change in the material culture. I am not entirely convinced by the interpretation offered by Peter Pfälzner that the fully developed form of Early Ḫabur Ware occurs in conjunction with EJ4c–5a

74 75

76 77 78 79

pottery. None of the sites where the so-called ‘postAkkadian’ pottery was identified has yielded Ḫabur Ware from the same undisturbed stratigraphic context.80 The origin of the painted motifs, which were absent from the central Jezirah region for more than five centuries, is also not entirely clear. It seems that, to some extent, the inspiration might have come from the west (the Middle Euphrates valley and beyond) where local painted pottery was quite popular towards the end of the 3rd millennium and where some migrants from the central Jezirah could have moved due to environmental conditions. If they did indeed return, at least some of them, to their land of origin at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE, they could have brought this pottery decoration style with them. On the other hand, some motifs, such as cross-hatched triangles, crossing lines, and horizontal bands, might have been copied in a different technique from the local and Transtigridian pottery repertoire of combed or incised decoration.81 Again, the population escaping the central Jezirah might have come into contact with this local tradition and then brought it back when the environmental conditions improved. However, both elements of this reconstruction are speculative; moreover, the relation of Ḫabur Ware to the population changes outlined above remains obscure.

Wygnańska 2019a. Indicated by the presence of nearly complete but

disarticulated skeletons in the grave, for instance in GP18 and G8/9-SA-37/55 at Tell Arbid. Tsukimoto 1985; Hockmann 2010, 21–24; Jacquet 2012, 128–131. Galli and Valentini 2006, 59; Wissing 2017, 346–347. Wygnańska 2019a, 399–403. In fact, the two elements that they have in common are the organisation of graves around social (be it tribal or familial) relations, illustrated by graves clustered around a burial mound in ‘nomadic’ cemeteries and ‘household cemeteries’ on Tell Arbid, and variations in grave form.

101

80 81

See particular contributions in Weiss 2012. EJ4c–5a, Rova 2014; ET8–10, Arrivabeni 2019.

102

Rafał Koliński

Bibliography A rrivabeni, M. 2019 Ceramics, in: E. Rova (ed.), Tigridian Region, Associated Regional Chronologies for the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean 5, Turnhout, 45–129. Barjamovic, G., Hertel, T. and Larsen, M.T. 2012 Ups and Downs at Kanesh. Chronology, History and Society in the Old Assyrian Period, Old Assyrian Archives, Studies 5, Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stambul 120, Istanbul. Bieniada, M.E. 2009 Habur Ware – Where are the Stylistic and Functional Sources of the Painted Pottery of the Second Millennium BCE Habur River Basin?, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 46, 160–211. Birot, M. 1985 Les chroniques ‘assyriennes’ de Mari, Mari. Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 4, 219–242. Birot, M., Kupper, J.-R. and Rouault, O. 1979 Répertoire analytique (2e volume). Tomes I–XIV, XVIII at textes divers hors-collection. Première partie: Nomes propres, Archives Royales de Mari 16.1, Paris. Boudin, M. and van Strydonck, M. 2018 14C Dates from the Early and Middle Bronze Graves of Chagar Bazar (Syria), in.: Ö. Tunca and A. Baghdo (eds.), Chagar Bazar (Syrie) VIII. Les tombes ordinaires de l’Âge du bronze ancient et moyen des chantiers D-F-H-I (1999–2011). Études diverses, Louvain, Paris and Bristol, 1–10. Catagnoti, A. 1998 The III Millennium Personal names from the Ḫabur Triangle in the Ebla, Brak and Mozan Texts, in.: M. Lebeau (ed.), About Subartu. Studies Devoted to Upper Mesopotamia. Vol. 2: Culture, Society, Image, Subartu 4.2, Turnhout, 41–66. Charpin, D. 1985 Les archives d’époque ‘assyrienne’ dans le palais de Mari, Mari. Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 4, 243–268. 1987 Tablettes présargoniques de Mari, Mari. Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 5, 65–100. Charpin, D. and Ziegler. N. 2003 Mari et le Proche-Orient à l’époque amorrite. Essai d’historie politique, Florilegium Marianum 5, Paris. Dalley, S., Walker, C.B.F. and H awkins J.D. 1976 The Old Babylonian Tablets from Tell Rimah, Hertford. D’Andrea, M. 2015 Preliminary Notes on Some EB IVB Painted Simple Ware Shards from Ebla, Studia Eblaitica 1, 205– 209. 2018a The Early Bronze IVB pottery from Tell Mardikh/ Ebla. Chrono-typological and technological data for

framing the site within the regional context, Levant, DOI: 10.1080/00758914.2018.1449374 (last accessed January 2021). 2018b The Early Bronze IVB Pottery of Ebla: Stratigraphy, Chronology, Typology and Style, in: P. M atthiae, F. Pinnock and M. D’Andrea (eds.), Ebla and Beyond. Ancient Near Eastern Studies after Fifty Years of Discoveries at Tell Mardikh. Proceedings of the International Congress Held in Rome, 15th –17th December 2014, Wiesbaden, 221–255. Eidem J. 1992 The Shemshāra Archives 2. The Administrative Texts, Historisk-filosofiske Skrifter 15, Copenhagen. 2008 Apum: A Kingdom on the Old Assyrian Route, in: K. R. Veenhof and J. Eidem (eds.), Mesopotamia. The Old Assyrian Period, Annäherungen 5. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160.5, Fribourg and Göttingen, 267–352. 2012 The Royal Archives from Tell Leilan. Old Babylonian Letters and Treaties from the Lower Town Palace East, Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stambul 117, Leiden. 2014 The Kingdom of Šamšī-Adad and its Legacies, in: E. Cancik-K irschbaum, N. Brisch and J. Eidem (eds.), Constituent, Confederate and Conquered Space. The Emergence of Mittani State, Topoi Studies of the Ancient World 12, Berlin, 137–146. Eidem, J. and Læssøe, J. 2001 The Shemshara Archives, vol. 1. Letters, Historiskfilosofiske skrifter 23, Copenhagen. Eidem, J., Finkel, I. and Bonechi, M. 2001 The Third-millennium Inscriptions, in: D. Oates, J. Oates and H. McDonald (eds.) Excavations at Tell Brak. Vol. 2: Nagar in the Third Millennium BC, Cambridge and London, 99–120. Emberling, G., McDonald, H., Weber, J. and Wright, H. 2012 After Collapse: The Post-Akkadian Occupation in the Pisé Building, Tell Brak, in: H. Weiss (ed.), Seven Generations since the Fall of Akkad, Studia Chaburensia 3, Wiesbaden, 65–88. Fink, Ch. 2016 Fundorte und Karte, Matérieux pour l’étude de la toponimie et de la topographie 1, Paris. Frane, J.E. 1996 Tell Leilan Period I Habur Ware Assemblage, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of North Carolina, Ann Arbor. Galli, E. and Valentini, S. 2006 The Death Cult in the Middle Bronze Age Mesopotamia. Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence through the Cuneiform Texts: A Trial Approach, Orient-Express 2006.2, 57–61. Gavagnin, K., Iamoni, M. and Palermo, R. 2016 The Land of Nineveh Archaeological Project: The Ceramic Repertoire from the Early Pottery Neo-

Changing Clusters and Migrations in the Central Jezirah Region (NE Syria) lithic to the Sasanian Period, Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research 375, 119–180. Günbattı, C. 2008a A List of Eponyms from Kültepe (KEL D), in: C. Michel (ed.), Old Assyrian Studies in Memory of Paul Garelli, Old Assyrian Archives, Studies 4, Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stambul 112, Istanbul, 125–135. 2008b An Eponym List (KEL G) from Kültepe, Altorientalische Forschungen 35, 103–132. Hockmann, D. 2010 Gräber und Grüfte aus Assur von der zweiten Hälfte des 3. bis zur Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr., Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 129, Wiesbaden. Hrouda, B. 1957 Die bemalte Keramik des zweiten Jahrtausends in Nordmesopotamien und Nordsyrien, Istanbuler Forschungen 19, Berlin. 1972– Ḫābūr Ware, in: D.O. Edzard (ed.), Reallexikon 1975 der Assyriologie, Bd. 4, Ḫa-a-a – Hystaspes, Berlin and New York, 29–31. Huffmon, H.B. 1965 Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts. A Structural and Lexical Study, Baltimore. Ismail, F. 1991 Altbabylonische Wirtschaftsurkunden aus Tall Leilān (Syrien), PhD Dissertation, Eberhardt-Karls Universität Tübingen. 2021 Die Personennamen der altbabylonischen Texte aus Šubat-Enlil „Tall Leilān“, Gladbeck. Ismail, F., Sallaberger, W., Talon, P. and Van Lerberghe, K. 1996 Administrative Documents from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1993–1995), Subartu 2, Turnhout. Jacquet, A. 2012 Funerary Rituals and Cult of the Ancestors during the Amorite Period: The Evidence of the Royal Archives of Mari, in: P. Pfälzner, H. Niehr, E. Pernicka and A. Wissing (eds.), (Re-)Constructing Funerary Rituals in the Ancient Near East Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Tübingen Post-Graduate School “Symbols of the Dead” in May 2009, Qatna Studien Supplementa 1, Wiesbaden, 123–136. Jean-M arie, M. 1999 Tombes et nécropoles de Mari, Mission Archéologique de Mari V, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 153, Beyrouth. K harobi, A. 2015 Approche archéo-anthropologique des tombes de Tell Hamoukar et Tell Mozan (Syrie de 3700 à 1600 av. J.-C.). Taphonomie et diversité des pratiques funéraires, PhD Dissertation, University of Bordeaux. K lengel, H. 1962 Das Gebirgsvolk der Turukk, in den Keilschrifttexten altbabylonischer Zeit, Klio 40, 5–22.

1985

103

Nochmal zu den Turukkäern und ihrem Auftreten in Mesopotamien, Altorientalische Forschungen 12, 252–258.

Koliński, R. 2012 The Mountain Sheep are Sweeter…, in: N. Laneri, P. Pfälzner and S. Valentini (eds.), Looking North. The Socio-economic Dynamics of the Northern Mesopotamian and Anatolian Regions during the Late Third and Early Second Millennium BC., Wiesbaden, 237–251. 2014a XXth Century BC in the Khabur Triangle Region and the Advent of the Old Assyrian Trade with Anatolia, in: D. Bonatz (ed.), The Archaeology of Political Spaces. The Upper Mesopotamian Piedmont in the Second Millennium BCE, Topoi Studies of the Ancient World 12, Berlin, 11–34. 2014b Review of: G. Barjamovic, T. Hertel, M. T. Larsen, Ups and Downs in Kanesh. Chronology, History and Society in the Old Assyrian Period, PIHANS 120, Leiden 2012, Bibliotheca Orientalis 70.3, 2013, 736–742. 2018 An Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Greater Zab Area of the Iraqi Kurdistan (UGZAR) 2012– 2015, in: B. Horejs, Ch. Schwall, V. Müller, M. Luciani, M. R itter, M. Guidetti, R.B. Salisbury, F. Höflmayer and T. Bürge (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, April 25th –29th, Vienna, Vol. 2, Wiesbaden, 13–26. Koliński, R. and Goslar, T. 2019 Radiocarbon Dating of the Transition from the Early to the Middle Bronze Age in the North-East Syria, Radiocarbon 61.4, 953–970. K rebernik, M. 2001 Die altorientalischen Schriftfunde, Tall Bi‘a/ Tuttul 2, Saarbrücken. Lacambre, D. and Millet A lbà, A. 2008 Ménologie et chronologie, in: Ö. Tunca and A. Baghdo (eds.), Chagar Bazar (Syrie) III. Les trouvailles épigraphiques et sigillographiques du chantier I (2000–2002), Paris, Leuven and Dudley, 155–166. Langlois, A.-I. 2017 Les archives de la princesse Iltani découvertes à Tell Rimah (XVIIIe siècle av. J.-C.) et l’histoire du royaume de Karana/Qaṭṭara, Mémoires de N.A.B.U 18, Paris. Lazaridis, I., Nadel, D., Rollefson, G., Merrett, D.C., Rohland, N., M allick, S., Fernandes, D., Novak, M., Gamarra, B., Sirak, K., Connell, S., Stewardson, K., H arney, E., Fu, Q., Gonzalez-Fortes, G., Jones, E.R., A lpaslan Roodenberg, S., Lengyel, G., Bocquentin, F., Gasparian, B., Monge, J.M., Gregg, M., Eshed, V., Mizrahi, A.-S., Meiklejohn, Ch., Gerritsen, F., Bejenaru, L., Blüher, M., Campbell, A., Cavalleri, G., Comas, D., Froguel, P., Gilbert, E., K err, S.M., Kovacs, P., K rause, J., McGettigan, D., Merrigan, M., Merriwether, D.A., O’Reilly, S., Richards, M.B., Semino, O., Shamoon-Pour, M.,

104

Rafał Koliński

Stefanescu, G., Stumvoll, M., Tönjes, A., Torroni, A., Wilson, J.F., Yengo, L., Hovhannisyan, N.A., Patterson, N., Pinhasi, R. and R eich, D. 2016 Genomic Insights into the Origin of Farming in the Ancient Near East, Nature 536, 419–424. doi:10.1038/nature19310 (last accessed January 2021).

Oguchi, H. 1997 A Reassessment of the Distribution of Khabur Ware: an Approach from an Aspect of its Main Phase, Al-Rafidan 18, 195–224. 2006 The Date of the Beginning of Khabur Ware Period 3: Evidence from the Palace of Qarni-Lim at Tell Leilan, Al-Rafidan 27, 45–58.

Lebeau, M. 2011 Conclusion, in: M. Lebeau (ed.), Jezirah, Associated Regional Chronologies for the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean 1, Turnhout, 343–380.

Pfälzner, P. 2018 Ḫabur Ware and Social Continuity: The Chronology of the Early to Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Syrian Jezireh, in: F. Höflmayer (ed.), The Late Third Millennium in the Near East: Chronology, C14, Climate Change, Oriental Institute Seminars 11, Chicago, 163–203.

Léon, S. and Cordy J.-M. 2018 Les offrandes animales, in: Tunca and Baghdo (eds.), Chagar Bazar (Syrie) V. Les tombes ordinaires de l’Âge du bronze ancient et moyen des chantiers D-FH-I (1999–2011). Étude archéologique, Louvain, Paris and Bristol, 145–173. Lumsden, S. 2008 Material Culture and the Middle Ground in the Old Assyrian Period, in: C. Michel (ed.), Old Assyrian Studies in Memory of Paul Garelli, Old Assyrian Archives, Studies 4, Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stambul 112, Istanbul, 21–43. M anning, S.W., Griggs, C.B., Lorentzen, B., Barjamovic, G., R amsey, C.B., K romer, B. and Wild, E.M. 2016 Integrated Tree-Ring-Radiocarbon Resolution Timeframe to Resolve Earlier Second Millennium BCE Mesopotamian Chronology, PLoS ONE 11.7. e0157144. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157144 (last accessed January 2021). M anning, S.W., Barjamovic, G. and Lorentzen, B. 2017 The Course of 14C Dating Does Not Run Smooth: Tree-Rings, Radiocarbon, and Potential Impacts of a Calibration Curve Wiggle on Dating Mesopotamian Chronology, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 13, 70–81. M azzoni, S. 2002 The Ancient Bronze Age Pottery Tradition in Northwestern Central Syria, in: M. al-M aqdissi, V. M atoïan and Ch. Nicolle (eds.), Céramique de l’Âge du Bronze en Syrie, I. La Syrie du Sud et de la Vallée de l’Oronte, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 161, Beyrouth, 69–79. Milano, L. 1991 Mozan 2. The Epigraphic Finds of the Sixth Season, Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 5.1, Undena. 2007 The Epigraphic Finds from the “Tablet Room” of the Leilan IIb3 Akkadian Building and from Later Akkadian Layers, Kaskal 4, 54–64. Milano, L., Sallaberger, W., Talon, P. and Van Lerberghe, K. 2004 Third Millennium Cuneiform Texts from Beydar (Seasons 1996–2002), Subartu 12, Turnhout. Morandi Bonacossi, D. and Iamoni, M. 2015 Landscape and Settlement in the Eastern Upper Iraqi Tigris and Navkur Plains: The Land of Nineveh Archaeological Project, Seasons 2012– 2013, Iraq 77, 9–39.

Pfälzner, P. and Sconzo, P. 2016 The Eastern Ḫabur Archaeological Survey in Iraqi Kurdistan. A Preliminary Report on the 2014 Season, Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 9, 10–69. Postgate, C., Oates, D. and Oates, J. 1997 The Excavations at Tell Rimah. The Pottery, Iraq Archaeological Reports 4, Warminster. Pruzsinszky, R. 2009 Mesopotamian Chronology of the 2nd Millennium B.C.: An Introduction to the Textual Evidence and Related Chronological Issues, Vienna. Pulhan, G. 2000 On the Eve of the Dark Age: Qarni-Lim’s Palace at Tell Leilan, PhD Dissertation, Yale University. R asmussen, C.G. 1981 A Study of Akkadian Personal Names from Mari, PhD Dissertation, Dropsie University. R istvet, L. 2011 Radiocarbon, in: M. Lebeau (ed.), Jezirah, Associated Regional Chronologies for the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean 1, Turnhout, 301–326. R istvet, L. and Weiss, H. 2013 The Ḫābūr Region in the Old Babylonian Period, in: W. Orthmann, P. M atthiae and M. al-M aqdissi (eds.), Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie I. La Syrie de l’époque néolithique à l’âge du fer, Wiesbaden, 257–272. R ichter, T. 2016 Vorarbeiten zu einem hurritischen Namenbuch. Erster Teil: Personennamen altbabylonischer Überlieferung vom Mittleren Euphrat und aus dem nördlichen Mesopotamien, Wiesbaden. Rova, E. 2011 Ceramic, in: M. Lebeau (ed.), Jezirah, Associated Regional Chronologies for the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean 1, Turnhout, 49–128. Sallaberger, W. 2009 Die Amurriter-Mauer in Mesopotamien – der älteste historische Grenzwall gegen Nomaden vor 4000

Changing Clusters and Migrations in the Central Jezirah Region (NE Syria) Jahren, in: A. Nunn (ed.), Mauern als Grenzen, Mainz, 27–38. Sasson, J.M. 1974 Hurrians and Hurrite Names in the Mari texts, Ugaritische Forschungen 6, 353–400. Schmidt, C. 2013 Die Keramik der Früh-Ǧazīra V- bis Alt-Ǧazīra II-Zeit, Studien zur Urbanisierung Nordmesopotamiens, Serie A, Ausgrabungen 1998–2001 in der zentralen Oberstadt von Tall Mozan/ Urkeš, Bd. 4, Wiesbaden. Steinkeller, P. 1998 The Historical Background of Urkesh and the Hurrian Beginnings in Northern Mesopotamia, in: G. Buccellati and M. K elly-Buccellati (eds.), Urkesh and the Hurrians. Studies in Honor of Lloyd Cotsen, Urkesh/Mozan Studies 3, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 26, Malibu. Talon, P. 1997 Old Babylonian Texts from Chagar Bazar, Akkadica Supplementum 10, Liège. Tsukimoto, A. 1985 Untersuchungen zur Totenpflege (kispum) im alten Mesopotamien, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 216, Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Tunca, Ö., and Baghdo A. (eds.) 2008 Chagar Bazar (Syrie) III. Les trouvailles épigraphiques et sigillographiques du Chantier I (2000–2002), Leuven, Paris and Dudley. 2018 Chagar Bazar (Syrie) V. Les tombes ordinaires de l’Âge du bronze ancient et moyen des chantiers D-FH-I (1999–2011). Étude archéologique, Louvain, Paris and Bristol. Tunca, Ö., and M as, J. 2018 Chagar Bazar (Syrie) V. Les tombes ordinaires de l’Âge du bronze ancient et moyen des chantiers D-FH-I (1999–2011). La poterie, Louvain, Paris and Bristol. Valentini, S. 2003 Le pratiche e l’ideologia funeraria a Tell Barri/ Kaḫat durante il Bronzo Medio, in relazione all’area Siro-Mesopotamia Settentrionale, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 45.2, 273–305. Veenhof, K.R. 2003 The Old Assyrian List of Year Eponyms from Kārum Kanish and its Chronological Implications, Ankara. Vincente, C. 1991 The 1987 Tell Leilan Tablets Dated by the Limmu of Habil-Kinu, Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University.

105

Weiss, H. (ed.) 2012 Seven Generations since the Fall of Akkad, Studia Chaburensia 3, Wiesbaden. Weiss, H. 2017 4.2 ka BP Megadrought and the Akkadian Collapse, in: H. Weiss (ed.), Megadrought and Collapse: From Early Agriculture to Angkor, Oxford, 93–160. Weiss, H., Courty, M.A., Wetterstrom, W., Guichard, F., Senior, L., Meadow, R. and Curnow, A. 1993 The Genesis and Collapse of North Mesopotamian Civilisation, Science 261, 995–1008. Whiting, R. 1990 Tell Leilan/Šubat-Enlil. Chronological Problems and Perspectives, in: S. Eichler, M. Wäfler and D. Warburton (eds.), Tall al-Hamīdīya 2, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 6, Fribourg and Göttingen, 167–218. Wissing, A. 2017 Die Bestattungen der Frühen und Mittleren Bronzezeit in der zentralen Oberstadt von Tell Mozan/Urkeš. Eine vergleichende Analyse zu den Bestattungspraktiken des Oberen Ḫabūrgebietes, Studien zur Urbanisierung Nordmesopotamiens, Serie A, Ausgrabungen 1998–2001 in der zentralen Oberstadt von Tall Mozan/Urkeš, Bd. 5, Wiesbaden. Wossink, A. 2009 Challenging Climate Change. Competition and Cooperation among Pastoralists and Agriculturalists in Northern Mesopotamia (3000–1600 BC), Leiden. Wygnańska, Z. 2006 Obrządki grzebalne i związane z nimi rytuały w Mezopotamii i Syrii północnej w pierwszej połowie II tysiąclecia p.n.e. (Burial Customs and Related Rituals in Mesopotamia and in Northern Syria during the First Half of the 2nd Millennium BC), PhD Dissertation, University of Warsaw. 2008 Burial Customs at Tell Arbid (Syria) in the Middle Bronze Age. Cultural Interrelations with the Nile Delta and the Levant, Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 20 (Research 2008), 605–618. 2017 Equid and Young Dog Burials in a Ritual Landscape of Syria during the Bronze Age, ARAM Periodical 29, 141–160. 2019a A Break in Cultural Legacy: Childgrave Inventories from Tell Arbid, Syria, in Transition from EBA to MBA, Levant, DOI: 10.1080/00758914.2019.16661141 (last accessed January 2021). 2019b Burial in the Time of the Amorites. The Middle Bronze Age Burial Customs from a Mesopotamian Perspective, Ägypten & Levante 29, 381–422. Ziegler, N. and Langlois, A.-I. 2016 Les toponymes paleo-babyloniens de la Haute-Mésopotamie, Matérieux pour l’étude de la toponimie et de la topographie 1, Paris.

106

Rafał Koliński

Webpages Tell Arbid Excavations, Sector P: Grave GP02: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amaz -on-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/263-gp02 Grave GP03: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/40-gp03 Grave GP04: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amaz -on-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/41-gp04 Grave GP05: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/264-gp05 Grave GP06: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amaz -on-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/32-gp06 Grave GP07: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/32-gp07 Grave GP10: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/576-gp10 Grave GP12: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/54-gp12 Grave GP13: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/55-gp13 Grave GP17: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/57-gp17 Grave GP18: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/51-gp18 Grave GP19: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/52-gp19 Grave GP20: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amaz -on-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/48-gp20

Grave GP21: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/36-gp21 Grave GP22: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu. pl/amaz-on-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10 graves/479-inventory-of-graves/31-gp22 Grave GP23: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/47-gp23 Grave GP25: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/552-gp25 Grave GP26: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu. pl/amaz-on-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10 graves/479-inventory-of-graves/32-gp26 Grave GP27: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/34-gp27 Grave GP28: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/35-gp28 Grave GP29: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu. pl/amaz-on-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10 graves/479-inventory-of-graves/43-gp29 Grave GP31: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/45-gp31 Grave GP32: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/33-gp32 Grave GP51: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/647-gp51 Grave GP56: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/46-gp56 Grave GP57: http://thegatetomesopotamia.amu.edu.pl/amazon-assyrian-route-of-silver-wool/10-graves/479-inventory-of-graves/44-gp57

About a Particular Type of Tomb in the Syrian Jezirah and at Tell el-Dab‘a in Egypt

107

About a Particular Type of Tomb in the Syrian Jezirah and at Tell el-Dab‘a in Egypt Önhan Tunca1 and Sophie Léon2

Abstract12

Mud brick chamber tombs, covered with abutting bricks whose long edges form a gable roof, were excavated at Chagar Bazar and Tell Beydar in the Syrian Jezirah. These tombs can be dated to the second half of the Early Bronze Age II (Early Jezirah 2). The same type of roof is, apparently, also present in the tombs of the Middle Bronze Age IIA–B, excavated at Tell el-Dab‘a in the Egyptian Delta. The tombs of the Syrian Jezirah and Tell el-Dab‘a present puzzling typological similarities, as can be observed from the assembled documentation. Therefore, it is worth looking for explanations, and asking what relationships, if any, exist between these tombs.

Introduction

Amongst the Early and Middle Bronze age tombs excavated between 1999 and 2011, in the Areas D–F–H–I at Chagar Bazar in the Syrian Jezirah (Fig. 1), it was possible to distinguish eight main types with variants.3 Within the tombs encasing a mud brick chamber, there is a particular type showing a variant of the covering, built from abutting bricks whose long edges form a gable roof. The gable is wedged on top by bricks laid flat.4 This particular type of roofing is also seen at Tell Beydar, in the same region, and interestingly finds parallels in tombs excavated at Tell el-Dab‘a in Egypt’s Eastern Delta.5 However, this connection has not been investigated. In the present paper, we will discuss this parallelism in detail.

Fig. 1 Geographical map with the location of Syrian Jezirah and Tell el-Dab‘a

1 University

of Liège; [email protected]. 2 University of Lille, CNRS, UMR 8164 – HALMA (Histoire Archéologie Littérature des Mondes Anciens).

3

Léon 2018a.

See Fig. 2 for the terms used for the different parts of a

4

mud brick.

Léon 2018b, 188.

5

© by the author This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc by 4.0 license DOI: 10.13173/9783447117371.107

108

Önhan Tunca and Sophie Léon

Chagar Bazar

T.198

T.210

T.3

Preservation nearly complete

complete

upper part eroded

ge ed

N° Tomb

side ng lo

Three tombs of this type were excavated at Chagar Bazar (Tab. 1).6 Two tombs (T.198 and T.210) were well preserved. The third (T.3) was found in a sounding trench immediately below the tell’s surface; the upper part of the grave was eroded, but fortunately the lower part was intact, thereby preserving the skeleton and the funerary material. Because of the characteristics of these elements, the entire tomb can be reconstructed with near certainty. During excavation, these tombs were dismantled carefully, mud brick by mud brick, in order to understand both their layout and the original method of construction. It was discovered that these tombs were built in six steps. Step 1: A bell-shaped pit of sub-rectangular plan was dug, with a niche on the western side. Step 2: Mud brick paving was then laid on the floor of the pit (Fig. 3a). Step 3: The side walls of the chamber were built in mud brick. Step 4: Reed matting was spread on the paved floor. At this point a mud brick ‘pillow’ was also built, designed to support the head of the deceased.

short edge

Fig. 2 Designation of the different parts of a mud brick Step 5: The body (which was certainly dressed) and the associated funerary offerings were placed within the chamber (Figs. 3b, 4). Step 6: Finally, the mud brick chamber was covered with abutting mud bricks on edge, creating a gabled roof, which was stabilised by a row of half bricks placed on top (Figs. 3c and Section A-A’, 5).7

Skeleton

Content

child (c. 12 years)

pottery: 6 choker: 25 beads bracelet: 21 beads bronze pin: 1

female (40–44 years)

pottery: 6 bracelet: 30 beads cloth decoration: 374 beads indeterminate use: 1 bead bronze pin: 2

male (35–39 years)

pottery: 5 bracelet: 30 beads cloth decoration: 48 beads cloth indeterminate set: 2 beads indeterminate use: 1 bead bronze pin: 2

Tab. 1 Chagar Bazar. List of the mud brick chamber tombs covered with abutting bricks whose long edges form a gable roof wedged on top by bricks laid flat 7 To

6

Léon 2018a, 57–62; Léon 2018c, 209–211, pls. 66–79.

The tombs of Chagar Bazar are cited here with their excavation number in the field; for the publication, they have also been given a corpus number: see Léon 2018c, 191.

check our observations during the excavation, the experimental building of such a tomb was attempted on site at Chagar Bazar (see Léon 2018a, 38). A simplified version of the tomb was constructed according to the steps described above and the result seemed convincing. The whole operation was completed in approximately 30 min.; in antiquity the construction of a larger and more sophisticated tomb would have taken approximately one hour.

About a Particular Type of Tomb in the Syrian Jezirah and at Tell el-Dab‘a in Egypt

109

Fig. 3 Chagar Bazar. Reconstruction of the different steps of the building and section of mud brick chamber tomb covered with abutting bricks whose long edges form a gable roof wedged on top by bricks layed flat

110

Önhan Tunca and Sophie Léon

Fig. 4 Chagar Bazar. View of the inside of the Early Bronze Age tomb T.210

Fig. 5 Chagar Bazar. View of the roof of the Early Bronze Age tomb T.210

Tell Beydar

This particular type of tomb roofing is also attested in at least one other site in the Syrian Jezirah, Tell Beydar to be specific (Fig. 1). At least two tombs at Tell Beydar are almost surely of this type, even if their layout is misunderstood by the excavator (Tab. 2).8 Indeed, the position of the mud bricks, in the published photograph (see Fig. 6) and the description, undoubtedly indicate that the tombs’ roofing is similar to that of the above mentioned mud brick chamber tombs discovered at Chagar Bazar.9

8

9

Bretschneider 1997, 195. Another tomb (6138) excavated

at Tell Beydar might be of the same type (Debruyne 1997) but, as no photograph is published, it is difficult to be certain. As depicted on the unfortunately somewhat schematic drawings (Bretschneider 1997, 201–202, pls. I–II) and the published photograph (see Fig. 6), the bricks forming the roof had obviously collapsed into the cavity of the chambers. The same situation was also observed in the

Fig. 6 Tell Beydar. View of the roof of the Early Bronze Age tomb 8431 (after Bretschneider 1997, fig. 6)

tombs at Chagar Bazar. The bricks laid flat on top of the a butting bricks seem to be absent in the tombs at Tell Beydar but one can only speculate whether they were accidentally not recognized during excavation.

About a Particular Type of Tomb in the Syrian Jezirah and at Tell el-Dab‘a in Egypt

N° Tomb

Preservation

8429

complete ? (partly excavated)

no information available

pottery: 3 cylinder-seal: 1 indeterminate use: 1 bead bronze pin: 2

complete

no information available

pottery: 3 earring: 2 necklace (?): 19 beads bronze pin: 2

8431

Skeleton

111

Content

Tab. 2 Tell Beydar. List of the mud brick chamber tombs covered with abutting bricks whose long edges form a gable roof (wedged on top by bricks laid flat?)

The Dating of the Tombs of Chagar Bazar and Tell Beydar

The three tombs excavated at Chagar Bazar can be dated by the pottery discovered inside. Nearly all the pieces of pottery can be assigned to Early Jezirah 210 (following the periodisation used for the Syrian Jezirah) which corresponds to the second half of the Early Bronze Age II.11 This period falls between the dates 2750–2550 BCE following the middle chronology, or 2600–2500 BCE according to the short chronology. The tombs of Tell Beydar were also dated to Early Jezirah 2,12 meaning they are contemporaneous with the tombs at Chagar Bazar.

Remarks on the Tombs of the Syrian Jezirah

At Chagar Bazar, the abutting mud bricks, creating a gable roof with a stabilising row of bricks placed on top, are a distinctive independent feature in the construction of Early Bronze Age tombs. This distinctiveness manifests itself in two aspects. First, this type of roof exists simultaneously with corbelled vaults seen in other mud brick chamber tombs.13 Second, it was also used as a covering in the tombs of small children where the bodies were placed directly on a mud brick pavement installed in the pit (without erecting a mud brick chamber within the pit).14 If we are not mistaken, the five tombs presented above are the only ones identified of this type during the Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Near East.15 In the current state of publications, it seems difficult 10 11 12 13 14 15

See Tunca and Mas 2018, 95. See Lebeau 2011, 379, tab. 1. Rova 2011, 88; Valentini 2011, 268. Léon 2018c, 208 (tombs T.43 and T.197). Léon 2018c, 207–208 (tombs T.201 and T.202). A parallel in Babylon (R euther 1926, 259, fig. 119) cited

by Forstner-Müller (2008, 29) is erroneous as the tomb in question is not of the Old Babylonian period (first half of the 2nd millennium BCE) but Seleucid or Parthian (end of the 1st millennium BCE). In addition, this tomb is of another well-known type in the Near East, i.e. covered with bricks set vertically on their corner (the so-called

to find a satisfactory explanation for the rareness of this type. Two suggestions can, however, be made to explain this: first, it is possible that this type of tomb was misunderstood and not recognized by the excavators; second, the rareness could reflect a real situation, meaning that this type of tomb was confined to sites in the Syrian Jezirah during the Early Bronze Age.

Typology of the Mud Brick Chamber Tombs Covered with Abutting Bricks Forming a Gable Roof Excavated at Tell el-Dab‘a

The initial typology of the tombs discovered at Tell elDab‘a was published in 1982 by E. van den Brink.16 This typology was followed, with some improvements, by the authors who subsequently published the tombs of Areas A/II and F/I.17 Of the types established by E. van den Brink, type III (with variants a and b) is of particular interest within the scope of the present paper. This type corresponds to a “small rectangular tomb-chamber covered with a

Fig. 7 Tell el-Dab‘a. Reconstruction of a mud brick chamber tomb covered with abutting bricks whose sides form a gable roof (after van den Brink 1982, fig. 16)

‘diamond’ shaped arrangement); for a description of this type of tomb, see Léon, 2018a, 61 (“Couvertures formées de briques de chant posées sur pointe”). 16 Van den Brink 1982. 17 Bietak 1991; Forstner-Müller 2008; Schiestl 2009.

112

Önhan Tunca and Sophie Léon

N° Tomb

Preservation

Skeleton

Content

A/II-n/13, tomb 9

complete

female (30–40 years)

pottery: 3

A/II-n/12, tomb 1

only the Western part conserved

skeleton lost

pottery: 3

F/I-n/21, tomb 1

upper part eroded

child

pottery: 2 necklace: 13 beads

Tab. 3 Tell el-Dab‘a. List of the mud brick chamber tombs covered with abutting bricks whose long edges form a gable roof wedged on top by bricks laid flat

Fig. 8 Tell el-Dab‘a. A/II-n/13, tomb 9 (after Bietak 1991, fig. 49)

About a Particular Type of Tomb in the Syrian Jezirah and at Tell el-Dab‘a in Egypt

113

tomb 6, 27 A/II-n/10, tomb 4,28 A/II-p/14, tomb 4,29 and A/II-p/21, tomb 11.30 However, the typology proposed by E. van den Brink should be adjusted because, according to his description of type III, he confuses two types of roofing. His type III includes (except for the above mentioned construction using bricks laid on their sides to form the roof) the type of roof constructed with bricks, whose long edges form a gable, which is comparable to the tombs of the Syrian Jezirah. This kind of covering is also found on the following tombs at Tell el-Dab‘a (Tab. 3):

Fig. 9 Tell el-Dab‘a. A/II-n/12, tomb 1 (after Bietak 1991, fig. 229) gabled roof built on its side walls” and “on top of which a single course of headers might be placed”.18 The distinction between variants a and b is solely based on the actual size of the tomb.19 In the reconstruction proposed by E. van den Brink (Fig. 7),20 the sides of the bricks formed the gable roof (and not the long edges as described above for the tombs at Chagar Bazar and Tell Beydar).21 Considering the published plans, sections, photographs and descriptions, the tombs that can be attributed to this type are:22 A/II-l/15, tomb 3,23 A/II-l/16, tomb 5,24 A/II-m/11, tomb 11,25 A/II-m/13, tomb 10,26 A/II-m/17,

• A/II-n/13, tomb 9 (Fig. 8): The tomb is incorporated by E. van den Brink in his type IIIb,31 and was republished later in detail by M. Bietak.32 There is no plan of the roof but considering the size of the mud bricks as shown in the section and the photographs,33 it is quite certain that the covering is made of mud bricks whose long edges form a gable roof wedged on top by bricks laid flat. • A/II-n/12, tomb 1 (Fig. 9): The tomb is published by M. Bietak.34 The size of the mud bricks is 38 × 19 × 10 cm. The roof should be interpreted as built with abutting bricks whose long edges form a gable roof wedged on top by bricks laid flat. • F/I-n/21, tomb 1 (Fig. 10): The tomb is published by R. Schiestl.35 The top of the tomb was destroyed, but the published plan, the section and the photograph clearly show that the roof is made of mud bricks whose long edges form a gable roof.

27 28

18 19

Van den Brink 1982, 20. Variant a is small and “used for single child burials”

and the bigger tombs of variant b “were applied for adolescents and adults as well” (van den Brink 1982, 20). 20 It must be pointed out that the published drawing is not complete because the bricks on the top are missing. 21 See Fig. 2 for the terms used for the different parts of a mud brick. 22 The numbering of the tombs excavated at Tell el-Dab‘a is composed of three parts: indication of the Area of excavation, indication of the square inside the Area of excavation and the number of the tomb inside the square. 23 Forstner-Müller 2008, 338–339, fig. 262. 24 Van den Brink 1982, 29–30; Forstner-Müller 2008, 152, fig. 89. 25 Bietak 1991, 229–230, fig. 195. 26 Bietak 1991, 202, fig. 157.

Forstner-Müller 2008, 273–274, fig. 197. Bietak 1991, 145–148, fig. 105. The published plan of

the roof is puzzling. Following the description, the “Gewölbe ... bestand aus vermutlich 4 Paar firstdachartig gegeneinander gespreizten Ziegeln ...” (our italics) but 7 pairs of mud bricks are drawn on the plan of the roof. K. Kopetzky kindly double-checked and re-measured the original field drawing and considers that this tomb is covered with “a gabled roof, where the bricks are lying on their short side, not on the long edges.” 29 Forstner-Müller 2008, 239–241, fig. 171. 30 Van den Brink 1982, 30–31, fig. 36. 31 Van den Brink 1982, 31, figs. 37–38. 32 Bietak 1991, 90–93, fig. 49. 33 For providing the original photographs of this tomb in the field our thanks go to K. Kopetzky. 34 Bietak 1991, 260–261, fig. 229. No plan or photograph of the tomb with the roof is published and the description is ambiguous. The type is deduced from the drawing of the section and the field sketch (supplied by K. Kopetzky) because the bricks of the roof (38 × 19 × 10 cm) were apparently set on edge. 35 Schiestl 2002, 339–341, fig. 7; Schiestl 2009, 297–299, figs. 236–238, pl. Vc–d.

114

Önhan Tunca and Sophie Léon

Fig. 10 Tell el-Dab‘a. F/I-n/21, tomb 1 (after Schiestl 2009, figs. 236–238)

Considering these observations, we must assume that the roofs of at least three tombs at Tell el-Dab‘a

were constructed similarly to that of the tombs in the Syrian Jezirah.36

The 11 mud brick chamber tombs mentioned here and excavated at Tell el-Dab‘a are those that were published with relevant illustrations (drawings or photographs) to decide with sufficient certainty if the gable roof is made with bricks set on the sides or bricks set on the long edges. Further published tombs at Tell el-Dab‘a might have had a gable roof as well but were not taken into consideration in the present paper as a possible attribution is either hypothetical or relevant illustrations

are missing (for A/II-m/11, tomb 3, A/II-m/13, tomb 6, A/II-n/10, tomb 2: Bietak 1991, 133–144, 252–253, 274–275; for A/II-k/14, tomb 4, A/II-l/13, tomb 3, A/II-m/17, tomb 8, A/II-p/14, tomb 6, A/II-q/21, tomb 1: Forstner-Müller 2008, 140–141, 191–192, 220, 291, 382; for F/I-l/20, tomb 57: Schiestl 2009, 357–359). Nevertheless, this intentional omission does not affect the general observations presented here.

36

About a Particular Type of Tomb in the Syrian Jezirah and at Tell el-Dab‘a in Egypt

The Dating of the Mud brick Chamber Tombs Covered with Abutting Bricks at Tell el-Dab‘a

The stratigraphical sequence of the tombs, listed earlier, goes from Stratum d/2 in Area F/I37 to Stratum E/1 in Area A/II.38 This sequence covers the late 12th Dynasty and the first half of the 2nd Intermediate Period in Egypt (approximately between 1800–1590 BCE)39 and, with respect to the archaeological periods, it corresponds to the Middle Bronze Age IIA–B.40

Is there any Relationship between the Tombs of the Syrian Jezirah and Similar Tombs Found at Tell el-Dab‘a?

The premise, for investigating this matter, assumes that the typological similarity between the tombs is a relevant criterion. In archaeological research, this criterion is commonly used and will be considered valid in the context of this discussion. However, the limited number of tombs examined, in this paper, hinders our ability to reach significant conclusions. Our aim is to point out avenues for further research, in the guise of working hypotheses. According to I. Forstner-Müller and R. Schiestl, the mud brick chamber tombs covered with a gable roof already existed in Egypt earlier than the tombs excavated at Tell el-Dab‘a.41 In the catalogue he published, S. el-Naggar notably listed gable roof tombs dating from the 3rd Dynasty to the 6th Dynasty (between c. 2592–2118 BCE).42 In the light of the illustrations we consulted, we divided the attestations in two categories following the typological distinction introduced above for the tombs of Tell el-Dab‘a, i.e. between the bricks whose sides or long edges form a gable roof: • the mud brick chamber tombs covered with abutting bricks whose sides form a gable roof are attested, at least, at Matmar (5th–6th Dynasty),43 Mostagedda

37

38 39 40 41 42

43

Tomb F/I-n/21, tomb 1 (Schiestl 2009, 297–299). Stratum

d/2 in Area F/I is contemporaneous with Stratum H in Area A/II (Bietak 1991, 25). E.g. A/II-m/17, tomb 6 (Forstner-Müller 2008, 273–274). Bietak 1991, 25; see Hornung, K rauss and Warburton (eds.) 2006, 492. See Mumford 2014, 70, table 5.1. Forstner-Müller 2008, 29; Schiestl 2009, 44. El-Naggar (1999, 69) called this category “les voûtes en chevron”; the term is of course very inappropriate because this kind of covering is surely not a vault stricto sensu. For the dates, see Hornung, K rauss and Warburton (eds.) 2006, 490–491. El-Naggar 1999, 73, Doc. 49–49 A; see Spencer 1979, 33, fig. 24, type 9A.

115

(6th Dynasty?),44 Qau (5th Dynasty)45 and Edfu (5th–6th Dynasty?).46 • the mud brick chamber tombs covered with abutting bricks whose long edges form a gable roof are attested at least for two unpublished tombs at Saqqarah (3rd Dynasty?)47 and for one tomb at Mostagedda (6th Dynasty?).48 Even if these coverings are not evidently wedged on top by bricks laid flat, they look quite similar to the types known from Tell el-Dab‘a and could be their forerunners.49 Therefore, the particular way of covering tombs used at Tell el-Dab‘a should be considered as local and Egyptian without any influence from abroad. If this is the case, the similarities between the mud brick chamber tombs covered with abutting bricks whose long edges form a gable roof excavated in the Syrian Jezirah and at Tell el-Dab‘a could be considered as a phenomenon of convergence, the same type of tomb being invented and used independently in two distinct areas and in two distinct periods. From a theoretical point of view, this hypothesis certainly could not be dismissed. However, the similarities between the gable roof coverings discovered in the Syrian Jezirah and at Tell el-Dab‘a seem really puzzling (see Figs. 3, 8–11). To propose a complementary path for interpretation, we would also like to suggest a possible ethnic (or cultural?) background. It is usual, in Near Eastern archaeology, to look for a link between a funerary custom and an ethnic group.50

44

Brunton 1937, pl. LXIII.532; El-Naggar 1999, 74, Doc.

45

El-Naggar 1999, 74, Doc. 51 B, fig. 86; see Spencer

46

Michalowski et al. 1950, 9, fig. 2; see Spencer 1979, 32,

50 B, fig. 85; see Spencer 1979, 33, fig. 24, type 9A. 1979, 33, fig. 24, type 9A. fig. 23.

El-Naggar 1999, 73, Doc. 48, fig. 84. 48 Brunton 1937, pl. LIX.6; El-Naggar 1999, 74, Doc. 50 C. 49 The tombs of Tell el-Dab‘a are listed by el-Naggar 47

50

(1999, 77–78) with the others in the same category called “les voûtes en chevron”. For the Ancient Near East, the criterion to identify an ethnic group is the language attested in the cuneiform texts, in particular the language of the anthroponyms. The method is of course only indicative of the ethnicity and not entirely reliable because of cultural loans and acculturation in the multicultural context of the Ancient Near East (see R ichter 2004, 268–271). Compare as well the contributions by R ichter, Wilhelm and Koliński in this volume,

116

Önhan Tunca and Sophie Léon

Many such tentative links exist in the literature.51 We can also look at the context in the Syrian Jezirah and at Tell el-Dab‘a for elements to support such an approach. Concerning the Syrian Jezirah, we have clues to the ethnic groups present in the region in the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE thanks to the cuneiform texts discovered at Tell Beydar, which are roughly contemporaneous with the tombs presented here. Thus, the population of the Syrian Jezirah in the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE seems to consist mainly of a Semitic group, probably speaking Akkadian, but also of Hurrians.52 Unfortunately, it is impossible to suggest a precise link between this particular type of tomb and one of these ethnic groups. At Tell el-Dab‘a, “The excavations ... show a continuous Western Asiatic presence from the late Twelfth Dynasty to the end of the Hyksos Period.” Moreover, “These settlers from the Levant exhibit highly Egyptianised features from the earliest stage, which shows that they had already been in the country for some time.”53 However, even if the ‘Asiatics’ at Tell el-Dab‘a were ‘highly Egyptianised’, some non-Egyptian material and features are present in the Tell elDab’a tombs, which testify to the above mentioned links with Syria-Palestine.54 In particular, the so-called ‘equid burials’, probably originating in Mesopotamia, might have arrived via the Levant to Egypt, where they are attested at Tell el-Dab‘a and other Eastern Delta sites during the late Middle Kingdom and 2nd Intermediate Period.55 Similarly, according to S. Prell, the so-called ‘warrior burials’ (i.e. burials including weapons), the intramural burials and the tombs built from mud brick,

51

52 53 54 55

E.g. Cooper 2006, 247–250 (for a general discussion);

Gasche and Cole 2018 (for a Babylonian influence on the intra-muros graves at Susa, Elam); Schiestl 2009, 200 (for comments on the ethnicity in archaeology). For a critical discussion of this approach, considering in particular the cultural aspects of the funerary customs, see Novák, 2003 (74-75: “Stattdessen ist es erforderlich, von Fall zu Fall die kulturimmanenten Umstände, vor denen bestimmte Bestattungskonzepte enstanden sind, zu analysieren sowie die chronologischen une regionalen Spezifika als Korrektur zu berücksichtigen.”). R ichter 2004, 275–280, with a list of previous publications and discussion. Bietak 2010, 139. Schiestl 2002, 2008 and 2009, 44, 201–202. See Kopetzky 2014, 137–139. Forstner-Müller 2002, 172 and 2010, 132; Bietak 2010, 159; Kopetzky 2014, 138; see the plan Schiestl 2008, 251, fig. 12. See Prell 2019a for a general survey and discussion (citing previous literature). As pointed out by Prell (2019a, 110) “the first equid burials in relation to tombs are known from Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt (EB I), where they are associated with elite burials at several sites located in the Nile Valley”.

attested in the Delta sites from the Middle Bronze Age, originated, in all likelihood, in the Near East.56 On the whole, the funerary customs at Tell el-Dab‘a are indeed multi ethnic. In this context, is it possible to suspect some ethnic influence in the use of gable roof tombs at Tell el-Dab‘a? For instance, the use of gable roofs could be regarded as a mixing of local Egyptian tradition with some improvement imported from abroad, by ‘Asiatics,’ improvements like wedging a tomb’s roof with bricks laid flat.57 But, unfortunately, the tombs that have a gable roof at Tell el-Dab‘a cannot be equated to any particular type of tomb in the Levant.58 So creating a link between the gable roof tombs in the Syrian Jezirah and those of Tell el-Dab‘a, through the Levant, is impossible with the available archaeological data. Even if we could admit the presence of some hypothetical ‘Asiatic touch’ in the use of the gable roof tombs at Tell el-Dab‘a, we face two problems. The first is the chronological interval between the two clusters of tombs: the tombs of the Syrian Jezirah date some seven or eight centuries earlier than the tombs excavated at Tell el-Dab‘a (see above). The second problem is geographical: between the Syrian Jezirah and the Nile Delta, there is a distance of some 1500 km (Fig. 1). To fill this double gap, we would need to imagine how an ethnic group, speaking either a Semitic language or Hurrian, (who built the mud brick chamber tombs discussed in this paper in the Syrian Jezirah in the 3rd millennium), migrated to the West, slowly over a period of several centuries, as far as Tell el-Dab‘a in the Egyptian Delta, bringing with them this particular type of tomb.59 Such a scenario is difficult to prove with our current state of knowledge.

56 57

Prell 2019b. A foreign influence is not always easy to detect. Van

Brink (1982, 93), for instance, has thought that the tombs described by Schiestl (2009, 45, Type 5b) as “Kammergräber mit einfachem Ringschichtengewölbe mit Widerlagerziegel” could have their origin in Mesopotamia. But, following Schiestl (2009, 45–46), this kind of vault must be linked with an Egyptian tradition. The analogies with some type of Levantine tombs built in stone underlined by Schiestl (2009, 44) seem to us not very relevant because, from the typological point of view, the known Middle Bronze Age Levantine stone tombs are different from the gable roof tombs of Tell elDab‘a; the tombs of Megiddo (Guy 1938, fig. 54) or Ras el-‘Ain (Ory 1938, 102–104, figs. 3–5), for example, are cist burials covered with sub-horizontal stone slabs. Even if many valuable goods (as silver, lapis-lazuli, tin, bitumen or cedar wood, etc.) were surely imported during the 3rd millennium BCE from the Near East via the Levant into Egypt (Biga, 2017), an unprovable hypothesis should be the importation of some tomb types from the Near East into Egypt, such as the tombs discovered at Saqqarah (3rd Dynasty?) and at Mostagedda (6th Dynasty?) mentioned above. den

58

59

About a Particular Type of Tomb in the Syrian Jezirah and at Tell el-Dab‘a in Egypt

The observations presented above do not allow us to reach any reliable conclusions on the origin of the gable roof tombs at Tell el-Dab‘a. We can only hope to refine the approach in the future in the light of new discoveries, particularly in Syria and the Levant.

Acknowledgements

We warmly thank Manfred Bietak (Austrian Academy of Sciences) and Silvia Prell (Austrian Academy of Sciences) for the invitation to participate in the Vienna workshop; Silvia Prell for providing us with

117

some publications during the Covid-19 confinement in Belgium and France; K. Kopetzky (Austrian Academy of Sciences) for providing us with the original field photographs of many tombs of Tell el-Dab‘a. The first draft of the paper was read by Silvia Prell, K. Kopetzky, and R. Schiestl (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich); their remarks and corrections allowed us to improve the text. For the final revision of our English text, we extend our heartfelt thanks to Silvia Prell and, last but not least, to Daria Tunca (University of Liège).

118

Önhan Tunca and Sophie Léon

Bibliography Bietak, M. 1991 Tell el-Dab‘a V. Ein Friedhofsbezirk der Mittleren Bronzezeitkultur mit Totentempel und Siedlungsschichten, Teil I, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 8, Vienna. 2010 From Where Came the Hyksos and Where Did They Go?, in: M. M arée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192, Leuven, Paris and Walpole (MA), 139–181. Biga, M.G. 2017 Voies commerciales, ports et marchands de Syrie, Anatolie et Méditerranée orientale au IIIe millénaire av. J.-C., Pallas 104 (Ékklèsia. Approches croisées d’histoire politique et religieuse. Mélanges offerts à Marie-Françoise Baslez), 51-59. Bretschneider, J. 1997 Untersuchungen an der äußeren Wallanlage (Feld H), in: M. Lebeau and A. Suleiman (eds.), Tell Beydar, Three Seasons of Excavations (1992–1994). A Preliminary Report. Trois campagnes de fouilles à Tell Beydar (1992–1994). Rapport préliminaire, Subartu 3, Turnhout, 193–207. Brunton, G. 1937 Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture, British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt, First and Second Years 1928, 1929, London. Cooper, L. 2006 Early Urbanism on the Syrian Euphrates, New York and London. Debruyne, M. 1997 A Corbelled Akkadian Grave (Field F), in: M. Lebeau and A. Suleiman (eds.), Tell Beydar, Three Seasons of Excavations (1992–1994). A Preliminary Report. Trois campagnes de fouilles à Tell Beydar (1992– 1994). Rapport préliminaire. Subartu 3, Turnhout, 145–154. Forstner-Müller, I. 2002 Tombs and Burial Customs at Tell el-Dab‘a in Area A/II at the End of the MB IIA Period (Stratum F), 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, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna, 163–184. 2008 Tell el-Dab‘a XVI: die Gräber des Areals A/II von Tell el-Dab‘a, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 28, Vienna. 2010 Tombs and Burial Customs at Tell el-Dab‘a during the Late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period, in: M. M arée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192, Leuven, Paris and Walpole (MA), 127–138.

Gasche, H. and Cole, S.W. 2018 Elamite Funerary Practices, in: J. Á lvarez-Mon, G. Pietro Basello and Y. Wicks (eds.), The Elamite World, London and New York, 739–760. Guy, P.L.O. 1938 The Megiddo Tombs, Oriental Institute Publications 33, Chicago. Hornung, E., K rauss, R. and Warburton, D.A. (eds.) 2006 Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 1. The Near and Middle East 83, Leiden and Boston. Kopetzky, K. 2014 Burial Practices and Mortuary Rituals at Tell elDab‘a, Egypt, in: P. Pfälzner, H. Niehr, E. Pernicka, S. Lange and T. Köster (eds.), Contextualising Grave Inventories in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of a Workshop at the London 7th ICAANE in April 2010 and an International Symposium in Tübingen in November 2010, Both Organised by the Tübingen Post-Graduate School “Symbols of the Dead”, Qatna-Studien Supplementum 3, Wiesbaden, 123–140. Lebeau, M. 2011 Conclusion, in: M. Lebeau (ed.), Jezirah. Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean I, Turnhout, 343–380. Léon, S. 2018a Classement typologique des tombes, in: Ö. Tunca and A.-M. Baghdo (eds.), Chagar Bazar (Syrie) IV. Les tombes ordinaires de l’âge du Bronze ancien et moyen des chantiers D-F-H-I (1999–2011). Étude archéologique, Leuven, Paris and Bristol (CT), 37– 79. 2018b L’apport des tombes de Chagar Bazar à l’archéologie funéraire, in: Ö. Tunca and A.-M. Baghdo (eds.), Chagar Bazar (Syrie) IV. Les tombes ordinaires de l’âge du Bronze ancien et moyen des chantiers D-FH-I (1999–2011). Étude archéologique, Leuven, Paris and Bristol (CT), 175–189. 2018c Corpus des tombes ordinaires des chantiers D-F-H-I (1999–2011), in: Ö. Tunca and A.-M. Baghdo (eds.), Chagar Bazar (Syrie) IV. Les tombes ordinaires de l’âge du Bronze ancien et moyen des chantiers D-FH-I (1999–2011). Étude archéologique, Leuven, Paris and Bristol (CT), 191–266. Michalowski, K., Desroches, Ch., de Linage, J., Manteuffel, J. and Żejmo-Żejmis, M. 1950 Tell Edfou 1939. Fouilles franco-polonaises. Rapports III, Cairo. Mumford, G.D. 2014 Egypt and the Levant, in: M.L. Steiner and A.E. K illebrew (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant c. 8000–332 BCE, Oxford, 69–89.

About a Particular Type of Tomb in the Syrian Jezirah and at Tell el-Dab‘a in Egypt

119

El-Naggar, S. 1999 Les voûtes dans l’architecture de l’Égypte ancienne, Bibliothèque d’étude 128, Cairo.

Rova, E. 2011 Ceramic, in: M. Lebeau (ed.), Jezirah. Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean I, Turnhout, 49–127.

Novák, M. 2003 Divergierende Bestattungskonzepte und ihre sozialen, kulturellen und ethnischen Hintergründe, Altorientalische Forschungen 30, 63-84.

Schiestl, R. 2002 Some Links between a Late Middle Kingdom Cemetery at Tell el-Dab‘a and Syria-Palestine: The Necropolis of F/I, Strata d/2 and d/1 (= H and G/4), 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, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna, 329–352. 2008 Tomb Types and Layout of a Middle Bronze IIA Cemetery at Tell el-Dab‘a, Area F/I. Egyptian and Non-Egyptian Features, in: M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds.), The Bronze Age in the Lebanon. Studies on the Archaeology and Chronology of Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 17, Vienna, 243–256. 2009 Tell el-Dab‘a XVIII: die Palastnekropole von Tell el-Dab‘a. Die Gräber des Areals F/I der Straten d/2 und d/1, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 30, Vienna.

Ory, J. 1938 Excavations at Ras el-‘Ain II, Quaterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 6, 99–120. Prell, S. 2019a A Ride to the Netherworld: Bronze Age Equid Burials in the Fertile Crescent, in: M. Bietak and S. Prell (eds.), The Enigma of the Hyksos, Vol. I, ASOR Conference Boston 2017 − ICAANE Conference Munich 2018 – Collected Papers, Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant 9, Wiesbaden, Vienna, 107–123. 2019b Burial Customs as Cultural Marker: a ‘Global’ Approach, in: M. Bietak and S. Prell (eds.), The Enigma of the Hyksos, Vol. I, ASOR Conference Boston 2017 − ICAANE Conference Munich 2018 – Collected Papers, Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant 9, Wiesbaden, 125–147. R euther, O. 1926 Die Innenstadt von Babylon (Merkes), Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Babylon III, Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft 47, Leipzig. R ichter, Th. 2004 Die Ausbreitung der Hurriter bis zur altbabylonischen Zeit. Eine kurze Zwischenbilanz, in: J.-W. M eyer and W. Sommerfeld (eds.), 2000 v. Chr. Politische, wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Entwicklung im Zeichen einer Jahrtausendwende. 3. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 4.–7. April 2000 in Frankfurt/Main und Marburg/Lahn, Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 3, Saarbrücken, 263–311.

Spencer, A.J. 1979 Brick Architecture in Ancient Egypt, Warminster. Tunca, Ö. and M as, J. 2018 Chagar Bazar (Syrie) V. Les tombes ordinaires de l’âge du Bronze ancien et moyen des chantiers D-F-H-I (1999–2011). La poterie, Leuven, Paris and Bristol (CT). Valentini, S. 2011 Burial and Funerary Practices, in: M. Lebeau (ed.), Jezirah. Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean I, Turnhout, 267–286. van den

1982

Brink, E.C.M. Tombs and Burial Customs at Tell el-Dab‘a and their Cultural Relationship to Syria-Palestine during the Second Intermediate Period, Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien 23. Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 4, Vienna.

The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analysis of their Sacred Architecture II

121

The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analysis of their Sacred Architecture, Part II 1

by Manfred Bietak

Abstract

The best parallels, in the Middle Bronze Age, of the major broad-room temple (Temple III) in Tell el-Dab‘a, point to the far north of Syria, especially the centres of Aleppo and Alalakh, while the Tell el-Dab‘a tripartite bent-axis temple (Temple II), has its best parallels in Ebla and Tell Brak extending to Mesopotamia as far as Assur in the Tigris region. Both types of temples were constructed in Tell elDab‘a in the 14th Dynasty (c. late 18th and first half of the 17th century BCE) which preceded the Hyksos Period. Three main questions arise: first, who decided which type of temple to construct in Avaris? Second, what did these two types of temples mean? Without doubt, the decision makers were part of the elite responsible for cult and religion. And third, was it a takeover of specific architectural forms alone, or did the appearance of Near-Eastern sacred architecture reflect the veneration of specific divinities to whom these types of temples were dedicated in their places of origin? If the latter is true, the evidence shows that northern Syria, and to some extent northern Mesopotamia, were the most dominant cult centres in the Middle Bronze Age. This influence is felt, albeit differently, in the southern and middle Levant, but it can be strongly recognised in the eastern Nile Delta where it can be connected to Western Asiatic immigrants. This does not mean, however, that these people came from northernmost Syria, it means that high-status, influential people seem to originate from this region or were at least strongly influenced by its religious centres and culture. The first part of this essay2 dealt with the broad-room temples. This second part concentrates on the bent-axis temples, and on the combination of both types of temples, their gender relationship, and their distribution in the Near East.

Introduction

Part of the large international ERC Advanced Grant project titled ‘The Enigma of the Hyksos’, is a comparative analysis of sacred architecture built by a Western Asiatic community living at Avaris in the eastern Nile Delta, preceding Hyksos rule in Egypt. Strictly speaking, these creative minds belonged to another series of local Asiatic rulers before the Hyksos – the 14th Dynasty.3 Temples, palaces and even houses of Near Eastern type have been found in Tell el-Dab‘a, ancient Avaris, and later capital of the Hyksos.4 Most of these buildings, therefore, predate the takeover of power by the Hyksos to the period of the 13th and the 14th Dynasties. Some of the temples, however, continued to be in use in the Hyksos Period (Figs. 1–2). In the previous part of this study, we offered a preliminary view of the broad-room temples in Tell el-Dab‘a together with their parallels in the Ancient Near East.5 In this second part we discuss the bent-axis temple in Tell el-Dab‘a (Temple II, Fig. 3) and its parallels. Finally, we look at where and when combinations of broad-room and bent-axis temples occur. The outcome of this study is unexpected and is presented in the following essay, before final publication. A typical long, bent-axis temple6 (Temple II)7 limited the holy precinct on its west-south-west side to the profane world (Fig. 3). The temple, built of sandy mud-bricks, consisted of three elements: a cella with an adjoining sacristy in the south-south-east and a long rectangular procella with an entrance and exit in its eastern façade. The third element, a freestanding tower north-north-west of the procella, was aligned to the western façade of the temple. The entrance to the procella was flanked by two antae on the far right (northern end) of the eastern façade. The exit door was close to the Holy of the Holies, in the south. The entrance to the cella was positioned asymmetrically through the small wall in the south of the procella, with an asymmetrically positioned cult podium to the left of the south wall. The cult podium gave way to a door leading to another room, which could perhaps

3 4 1 Austrian

2

Archaeological Institute at the Austrian Academy of Sciences and University of Vienna (manfred. [email protected]). This is a continuation of an article in Bietak 2019a. I would like to thank Mirko Novák of Bern for advice. All mistakes, however, are mine. Bietak 2019a.

5 6

7

For the 14th Dynasty see Bietak 1984 and 2022. About the site see; Habachi 1954; 2001; Van Seters 1966, Bietak 1986; 1996; 1997; 2013.

Bietak 2003; 2009; 2016; 2019a. Andrae 1930, 18–19, and Heinrich 1982, 14–15, call

this type of shrine Herdhaus (Hearth-house) as in the procella frequently a big hearth was installed and as it also bears a resemblance to secular houses. Bietak 2003; 2009, 218–220; 2016, 230–233, figs. 5, 12.

© by the author This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc by 4.0 license DOI: 10.13173/9783447117371.121

122

Manfred Bietak

Fig. 1 The temple precinct of Area A/II at Tell el-Dab‘a (after Bietak 2019a, fig. 3) be identified as a sacristy. This arrangement made the cult podium barely visible from the procella. Later, the door to the sacristy was closed, and the cult podium rebuilt against the centre of the cella’s south wall. The sacristy may have become an adyton. The temple was abandoned in the early Hyksos Period (Phase E/1), and all cult objects removed. No ex-votos were found buried in the ground. The only artefact buried within the podium was a bronze harpoon. No cult paraphernalia except for a few potsherds were left behind. Furthermore, this temple, it seems, had access to a burnt offering altar, in front of the broad-room Temple III, which was simultaneously, close to and in alignment with the south wall of the cella of the bent-axis temple (Figs. 2, 4). The altar was made of rectangular blocks of mud-bricks covered with ash and burnt acorns (Quercus pubescens Willd.).8 To the south of the altar, round pits were discovered which could be tree-pits, therefore, it is possible that oak trees were introduced by the Canaanite community, as oak is not indigenous to Egypt. The name of the oak tree or its trunk is homonymous with

the Canaanite goddess Ashera,9 whose epithets were ‘Mistress of the Sea’, ‘Ashera of the Sea’, or ‘the one who walks on the Sea’.10 A cult with connections to the sea is meaningful for a harbour town like Avaris. During Phase E/2, east of Temple III and aligned with it, an Egyptian type of temple (Temple V) was added to the precinct (Fig. 1). It had a tripartite sanctuary, a slim procella, and was accessible from the front by two consecutive courtyards. The courtyard closest to the temple also had, in its midst, a burnt offering altar, similar to the ones of Temples II and III. The ‘Egyptian Temple’, parallel to and originally aligned with the south wall of Temple III, was rebuilt, at the same time as its larger neighbour, with its south wall in line with the new south wall of Temple III. This ‘Egyptian Temple’ shows that the cult performed in this sacred precinct served a syncretist religion. Because the precinct was surrounded by cemeteries of modest size with a cult chapel of Egyptian type in each, one may conclude that an Egyptian goddess, such as Hathor, was the tutelary divinity of the ‘Egyptian Temple’. Hathor was considered a necropolis goddess in Thebes, and the ‘mistress of 9

8

Identification by Friedrich Bachmayer of the Museum of Natural History in Vienna.

10

A part from the abundant literature: Bernhardt 1967; De

Moor 1974; Day 1986; Olyan 1988; Binger 1997; K eel 1999; K eel and Uehlinger 2001, 74–76; H adley 2000; Wiggins 1993; Cornelius 2004; Ackerman 2008; R ich 2012; Ziffer 2010. R ahmouni 2007, 281–284, Epitheton 94; R ich 2012.

The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analysis of their Sacred Architecture II

Fig. 2 The inner temple precinct at Tell el-Dab‘a (after Bietak 2003, fig. 3)

123

124

Manfred Bietak

Fig. 3 The bent-axis Temple II at Tell el-Dab‘a consisting of three to four elements (after Bietak 2003, figs. 4–5) the mines’ in the Sinai and in other fringe zones.11 As such, she shared features, and to some extent identity, with the goddess Ba‘alat of Byblos and the Serabit elKhadem mines.12 Hathor was also known by the epithet ‘Mistress of Byblos,’ making her analogous with the goddess Ba‘alat of Byblos, the principal divinity of Egypt’s most important ally in the Levant.13 The three

11 12

13

Fig. 4 Altar belonging to Temples II and III with charred acorns (after Bietak 1996, pl. 14)

Allam 1963, 132. As mistress of Byblos, Hathor was already known from

the Coffin Texts of the Middle Kingdom (CT I, 262, spell 61) (see A llam 1963, 132; Fischer 1968, 139–140). A scribe statue of the Middle Kingdom, found in the eastern part of the Temple of Ba‘alat in Byblos mentions, in an offering formula, “Hathor of Dendera in the midst of Byblos”, which means, that there was in the Middle Kingdom a cult installation for Hathor in the Temple of Ba‘alat in Byblos (Dunand 1937–1939, 181–182, pl. XL; Chéhab 1969, 14, pl. II). Hollis 2009, 1, n. 4 incorrectly dates this statuette and confuses the scribe’s inscription with an inscription on an offering tablet with the name of king Pepi (I or II) on which Hathor of Dendera is also mentioned, but without the name of Byblos. A lid of calcite with a very similar inscription has been found in Ebla (Scandone-M atthiae 1979). Erman 1905; Montet 1962, 83; Stadelmann, 1967, 11, n. 2; Jidejian 1968, 16–19; Chéhab 1969; Bleeker 1973, 72–74; Saghieh 1983, 36–37; Redford 1986, 140–141; A ndrassy 1991, 135; Scandone-M atthiae 1991; Lipinski 1992, 56; Espinel 2002; Hollis 2009; Sowada 2009, 8; Zernecke 2013.

The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analysis of their Sacred Architecture II

125

Fig. 5 Bent-axis temple at Tell Ibrahim Awad, developed from a broad-room temple, 4th–5th Dynasty (after Bietak 2016, figs. 13a–b) temples, although only identified tentatively by their typology, seem to have served divinities with a strong relationship to the sea. This is to be expected from a harbour town like Avaris. Already in the Old Kingdom, one can find a bentaxis temple at Tell Ibrahim Awad in the Eastern Nile Delta, less than 9 km from Tell el-Dab‘a (Fig. 5).14 It developed from a series of broad-room temples and was transformed during the 4th or 5th dynasty into a bent-axis temple. Similar transformations, approximately at the same time between the Early Bronze II and Early Bronze III Periods, can be found at Bab edh-Dhra‘ (Fig. 6)15 and Khirbet el-Batrawy (Fig. 7)16 in Jordan. This shift seems to have gone

15

Eigner 2000; 2007; Bietak 2003; 2010, 143, fig. 3. R ast and Schaub 2003, 157–166, figs. 8.1, 8.2, 10.1; Sala

16

Nigro 2008, 285–293, figs. 7.22–7.33, plan IV; Nigro and

14

2008a, 179–186, figs. 49–50, pl. 14. Sala 2009, 381–383, figs. 15–19.

hand in hand with a change of religious practices in the southern Levant. Tell Ibrahim Awad was, therefore, not only a part of the Egyptian culture of the Early Dynastic Period and the Old Kingdom, but was also connected to the world of the Early Bronze Age in the Levant. One becomes thus aware that ancient Egypt, in the Old Kingdom, was not an isolated self-sufficient culture, but one that participated in fringe zones and in the development of neighbouring regions. Is it a coincidence that 600– 700 years later, the same type of temple reappeared in the Eastern Delta within walking-distance of Tell Ibrahim Awad? Is it possible that the same divinity was still remembered in this region?

126

Manfred Bietak

Fig. 6 Bent-axis temple at Bab edh-Dhra‘, developed from a broad-room temple, EB II–EB III (after R ast and Schaub 2003, figs. 8.1, 8.2)

Fig. 7 Bent-axis temple at Khirbet el-Batrawy, developed from a broad-room temple, EB II–EB III (after Nigro and Sala 2009, 381–383, fig. 17)

The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analysis of their Sacred Architecture II

127

Fig. 8 Scatter of bent-axis temples in the Early Dynastic and the Early Bronze Age Periods‚ (illustration P. Aprent and D.P. Fill) Discussion of Parallels and Distribution of the BentAxis Temples Taking Temple II in Tell el-Dab‘a as a starting point (Fig. 3) for comparison with other bent-axis temples, an even stronger connection to northernmost Syria, and adjoining Mesopotamia can be recognised in the distribution pattern. Our shrine has a slim rectangular plan and is tripartite with a cella, a long procella, and a tower. It has two doors (an entrance and an exit) in the eastern façade, while the cult target is – parallel to Temple III – in the south-south-east.17 The eastern façade of the cella recedes in comparison to the eastern front of the procella. The entrance to the cella is positioned asymmetrically. The cult podium is left of the axis against the back wall of the cella. Another attribute of our temple is its position behind a courtyard. Two doors can be identified; one an entrance through the northern door, and the other an exit through the southern door, according to the position of the thresholds. The first threshold is at the outer side and shows that the door was opened to the interior, and the second threshold, close to the inner side, shows that

17

Bietak 2019a, 49, figs. 3–4. The cult target is tied to that

of the main Temple III, which is believed to have been a shrine of the Syrian storm god, identified, however, in an interpretatio aegyptiaca with the Egyptian storm god Seth whose main abode was at Nubt (Naqada) in Upper Egypt (Bietak 2019a, 60). This would explain that Temple III was oriented towards the south.

the door was opened to the exterior. One can conclude that the congregation, which officiated the cult, entered through the northern door on the right side of the façade and proceeded towards the Holy of the Holies, before exiting through the southern door without getting a good view of the cult image, which was hidden behind the separation wall due to the asymmetric position of the door to the sanctuary. We will see that this was not always the case in other bent-axis temples, because the doors, of some of them, were positioned directly in front of the image of the tutelary divinity. But even then, a veil may have shrouded the image. Not all bentaxis temples had two doors. In those cases, the door, mainly positioned on the far right of the façade, served both as entrance and exit. The bent-axis temples cluster in the Early Dynastic Period, especially in the region of the Tigris river (Fig. 8). Approximately at the same time, in the Early Bronze Age Period, we find examples in the Middle Euphrates region, and in a few examples in the Southern Levant and the Eastern Nile Delta. From the Early Bronze IV Period onwards, they disappeared from the southern

128

Manfred Bietak

Fig. 9 Scatter of bent-axis temples in the Early Bronze IV, Middle and Late Bronze Age Periods (illustration P. Aprent and D.P. Fill)

Fig. 10 Scatter of bent axis temples with three elements in the Ancient Near East (illustration P. Aprent and D.P. Fill)

The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analysis of their Sacred Architecture II

129

Fig. 11 The so-called Priests Barracks of the Middle Bronze Age, next to the Great Temple of Ishtar in Ebla, south of the Northern Palace (after Matthiae 2016, 79, fig. 18) Levant. From that point onwards they can be found in a crescent-shaped scatter from Byblos,18 to Ebla,19 Tell Brak,20 Assur,21 Nuzi,22 Nippur23 and in an unusual design at Ur (Fig. 9).24 To sharpen our search for prototypes, we mapped bent-axis temples with three building elements 18

The “antichambre” of the Obelisk Temple has all the

properties of a single-room bent-axis temple: It has a slim rectangular plan, the façade is east-facing, the entrance is on the right side of the façade. There is a cult podium near the southern end wall. Before the cult podium, there is a second door leading to the adjoining Obelisk Temple which may be a broad-room shrine (Dunand 1950, pls. XXII–XXIII; Dunand 1954–1958, 649, fig. 767; Finkbeiner 1981, 60–61, Beilagen IV–V; Bietak 2019b, 173–177, fig. 5). It is, however, a question if it was not an open building without a roof. 19 Matthiae 1993, fig. 21; 2016, 24–27, figs. 9, 18; Marchetti and Nigro 1997, fig. 1; Bietak 2018, 17*-18*, fig. 7. 20 M allowan 1947; Ziegler 1950; Werner 1994, 123, pl. 42/1–43/1; Oates, Oates and McDonald 2001, 73–98, figs. 91, 129. 21 A ndrae 1922, 97–99, 111–112, pls. 2–5, 7; H einrich 1982, 126–128, 165, fig. 243; Bär 2003, figs. 10, 18, 19. See fn. 18. What is defined as cella is in our terminology a procella. 22 Starr 1937, plans 6–7, 12–14; 1939, 62–122; H einrich 1982, 152–153, figs. 213, 216, 294. 23 Crawford 1959, 74–83; H ansen and Dales 1962, 74–84; Heinrich 1982, 133–134, fig. 211. 24 See fn. 40.

(Fig. 10) and found them in the Middle Bronze Age Period in two instances: in Ebla in the so-called ‘Priests-Barracks’ (Fig.11),25 and in Temple B2 (Fig. 12).26 In the Akkad-Period there is an example in Tell Brak (Fig. 13) 27which developed from a bentaxis temple with two elements by adding a tower in the south. In Assur, Temples H–F, of the older series of the Temples of Ishtar, also have a tripartite plan 28 (Fig. 14). We find two doors, at the same front as in Tell el-Dab‘a, in a wider scatter from Ebla,29 to Mari,30 to Assur,31 and in the Giparu of Ur, in the residence of the Entu-priestess32 (Fig. 15). 25

26

27

28 29 30 31 32

Matthiae 1993, fig. 21; 2016, 24–27, figs. 9, 18; M archetti and Nigro 1997, fig. 1; Bietak 2018, 17*–18*, fig. 7. Matthiae 1990b, 350–362, figs. 1–2; 2012, 981–983, fig. 24; 2016, 72, fig. 10; Matthiae, Pinnock and ScandoneM atthiae 1995, 174–175, 178. Mallowan 1947; Ziegler 1950; Oates, Oates and McDonald 2001, 73–98, figs. 91, 129; Werner 1994, 123, pl. 42/1–43/1. Andrae 1922, pl. 4; Heinrich 1982, 126–128, 165, figs. 193–195, 243; Bär 2003, figs. 10, 12, 14, 19. Matthiae 1993, fig. 21; 2016, 24–27, figs. 9, 18; Marchetti and Nigro 1997, fig. 1; Bietak 2018, 17*–18*, fig. 7. Parrot 1967, 22–34; Heinrich 1982, 130–132, fig. 197; M argueron 2004, 241–248. Only with Temple D: Andrae 1922, pl. 4; Heinrich 1982, 126–128, 165, figs. 193–195, 243; Bär 2003, fig. 22. Bietak 2018, 12*–16*, fig. 5. See also fn. 41.

130

Manfred Bietak

0 0

5 5

10

20m

10

20

Fig. 12 The sacred complex B2 at Ebla of the Middle Bronze Age with an integrated bent-axis temple with three elements (after Matthiae 2013, pl. 84)

The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analysis of their Sacred Architecture II

131

Fig. 13 A bent axis temple with three elements within a sacred compound at Tell Brak (after Oates et al. 2001, figs. 91, 129) The so-called ‘Priests-Barracks’ (Fig. 11),33 of Middle Bronze Age I, share a series of attributes with Temple II at Tell el-Dab‘a. Not only is this building an elongated tripartite with a staircase tower to the right of the procella, but the façade of the cella recedes in comparison to the one of the procella. It seems that this building was furnished with two doors in the front façade. The door frames were looted, leaving funnel shaped breaches behind, exactly where the doors should have been. The entrance, on the far right of the façade, narrows towards the inside, and the breach of the exit door narrows to the outside. The so-called ‘Priests Barracks’ must have been a temple preceding the great Temple of Ishtar, which cut away the west wall of the cella.34 As most of the bent-axis temples were dedicated to female divinities (Fig. 16), it follows that the building called the ‘Priests Barracks’ preceded the Great Temple of Ishtar, and may have been dedicated to the same goddess.35

33

Matthiae 1993, fig. 21; 2016, 24–27, figs. 9, 18;

34

More detailed plans show a tight-fitting foundation pit

35

M archetti and Nigro 1997, fig. 1.

of the Temple of Ishtar which is not overbuilt by the north wall of the ‘Priest-Barrack’s. It seems clear that the missing west wall of the supposed cella has been cut off by the foundation ditch of the Ishtar Temple, s. M atthiae 1990a, fig. 1/VII3, especially fig. 2d; see also M atthiae 1990c, fig. 13 above, right corner. Bietak 2018, 17*–18*.

In principle, and in a similar scheme, are the older series of Ishtar temples (H–D) in Assur from the Djemdet Nasr, Early Dynastic, and the Akkad Periods.36 They consist of a long rectangular procella, a cella in the north and a side room in the south which, however, was not a tower or a staircase-element. They were attached to a courtyard in the west with subsidiary buildings in the north and south. Except for Temple D, they seem to have had only a single entrance on the far right of the front wall, in the west. The door to the cella was wide, but asymmetrical. The cult podium was attached asymmetrically to the north wall and the west wall. The entrance to the southern side-room was also positioned asymmetrically. Narrow benches were found along all the walls, inside the procella, except the one in the north. They were most likely used to deposit votive objects. The Ishtar temples are already much older than Temple II at Tell el-Dab‘a. Therefore, the nearest parallels to Temple II are located at Ebla and Tell Brak. According to the eminent architectural historian Ernst Heinrich, the bent-axis temple may have developed from the middle-room scheme of the Uruk type temples, which consisted of three stripes with a long cella in the centre, and with up to three entrances

36

Bär 2003, 15–19, 41–81, figs. 9–19, plan 1.

132

Manfred Bietak

Fig. 14 Examples of the old Ishtar temples H–F at Assur with three space elements (after Bär 2003, figs. 10)

Fig. 15 The old Ishtar Temples E and D at Assur, Temple E with three building elements, Temple D as a single room temple with entrance and exit (after Bär 2003, figs. 19, 22)

The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analysis of their Sacred Architecture II

on the long, side façade of the temple.37 In the example of the series of Sin Temples at Djemdet Nasr, which continued through to the Early Dynastic I–III Periods, Heinrich explains their development by the reduction of the lateral stripes of the Uruk temple-types.38 However, single room bent-axis temples already existed from the Uruk Period onwards. As an example, one may cite the temple of Sheikh Hassan.39 On the other hand, the bent-axis temples embedded within a three-stripe scheme continued to be in use throughout the second millennium BCE. A good example is the abode of the Entu-priestess in the Old Babylonian Giparu of Ur which also consists, within its middle stripe, of three elements (cella, procella and side room) and has two rabbeted doorways, which can be considered as an entrance and an exit (Fig. 20).40 Another example is the Middle Assyrian temple of Ishtar Assuritu of Tukulti Ninurta I. 41 The doors of the bent-axis temple (Temple II) at Tell el-Dab‘a open to the east while the cult target is directed to the southern sphere. This may be a local trait, however, we can see the same alignment in Byblos,42 Tell Fray,43 Tell Chuera,44 Tell Brak,45 Tell

37

38 39 40

41

42

43 44 45

Heinrich 1982, 14–15. Good examples are the twin

temples of Jebel ‘Aruda which stand on the eastern side of a platform so that they could be accessed only from the western side (lit. in Werner 1994, 116–118, pl. 34–36). More recently, see especially Novák 2001, 367–369. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942, 6–78, pls. 2–13; Heinrich 1982, figs. 148–149. Boese 1990; Werner 1994, 121, pl. 40. Lenzen 1955; Weadock 1958; 1975; Woolley and M allowan 1976, 40–63, pls. 1–11, 117–118; Heinrich 1982, 185–188, figs. 248–251. See also Breniquet 2006; Battini 2012. http://www.odysseyadventures.ca/articles/ ur%20of %20the%20chaldees/ur_article02gip.html#, Bietak 2018. A ndrae 1935, 15–35, pls. 1–3; Haller and Andrae 1955, 86–87, pl. 17; Heinrich 1982, 233–234, fig. 316; Schmitt 2012, 26–66; pl. 2, 9–13, plans 1–3. The “antichambre” of the Obelisk Temple has all the properties of a bent-axis temple: It has a slim rectangular plan, the façade is facing east, the entrance is on the right side and it has a cult podium near the southern end wall. Before the cult podium, there is a second door in the western long wall, leading to the Obelisk Temple which is a broad-room shrine (Dunand 1950, pls. XXII–XXIII; Dunand 1954–1958, 649, fig.767; Finkbeiner 1981, 60– 61, Beilagen IV–V; Bietak 2019b, 173–177, fig. 5). Bounni and Matthiae 1974; Bounni 1988; Matthiae 1980/1981; Werner 1994, 128. Moortgat 1962, plan IV; Werner 1994, 127–128, pl. 46/2. Mallowan 1947; Ziegler 1950; Oates, Oates and McDonald 2001; Werner 1994, 123, pl. 42/1–43/1.

133

Mozan,46 Nuzi,47 and Nippur.48 Encased in Middle Room buildings, the doors of the bent-axis shrines of both Tell ‘Agrab49 and Ur,50 also open towards the east. These examples may be an indication that east-facing entrances may not be coincidence. Further examples of east-facing shrines include: the northern shrine in the Giparu of Ur, which was the residence of the Entupriestess, and the temple of the goddess Ningal, also in Ur (Figs. 20-21).51 This orientation is combined on the plot of Fig. 18 with the position of the principal door of the shrine on the right side of the front wall, as one of the indicators of proximity. The scatter of the named attributes of the bent-axis temples covers, besides Byblos, mainly northernmost Syria and Mesopotamia (Fig. 15). The proximity and distance analysis (Fig. 17) shows that Ebla, Tell Brak, and the shrines H–F of the older temples in Assur show a 64% agreement with 11 specific features of Temple II at Tell el-Dab‘a. Taking the most similar temples into account, it is again the region of northernmost Syria and northern Mesopotamia to which we have to look as the spiritual breeding ground of the elite in Avaris, in the period just preceding the Hyksos dynasty (Phase E/3–2). Another matter of interest is the gender relationship of the two temple types discussed in this paper. Of course, the identification of the tutelary divinity is often a subject of uncertainty, as the attribution depends on inscribed ex-votos, some of them of obscure origin. The majority of cases, however, can be credibly identified. While most of the broad-room temples were dedicated to male divinities,52 the majority of bent-axis temples were built for female divinities (Fig. 16).53 The images of the former were visible from the exterior, as soon as the temple doors were opened, the images of the latter, however, were hidden behind a bend in the approach track and in some cases, were even more concealed behind an asymmetrically positioned door to the cella. This may reflect gender roles in Ancient Near Eastern society.

46

47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Bucellati and K elly-Buccellati 1988; Werner 1994,

126-127, pls. 45-46/1; Pfälzner 2008; Pfälzner and Dohman-Pfälzner 2011, 33–55. Starr 1937, plans 6–7, 12–14; 1939, 62–115; 1939, Heinrich 1982, 152–153, figs. 213, 216, 294. Crawford 1959, 74–83; Hansen and Dales 1962, 74–84; Heinrich 1982, 133–134, fig. 211. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942, 218, pls. 25–27; Heinrich 1982, 119–121, figs. 170–172. Woolley 1939, 53–58, pl. 73; Heinrich 1982, 226–227, fig. 301; Bietak 2018, 12*, fig. 4. See previous fn. Bietak 2019a, 60, 63, fig. 23. Only in the Tigris region is a cluster of bent-axis temples dedicated to male divinities (Fig. 16).

134

Manfred Bietak

Fig. 16 Scatter of bent-axis temples with gender dedication (illustration P. Aprent and D.P. Fill)

The Combination of Broad-Room and BentAxis Temples

Separate temples, built side-by-side, are a concept of the Ancient Near East, while in Egypt, divine couples with their divine infant were regularly united in one temple, usually within a tripartite sanctuary. But in very big sacred precincts, from the New Kingdom onwards, the gods also had separate temples, for instance, at Karnak or, as an imitation of the Theban religious topography, at Tanis. This could have been an influence from the Near East, as experienced in Egyptian territory in the 14th and 15th Dynasties at Avaris.54 The principle of the plan of Egyptian temples remained the same for both genders and the infant god. However, with the addition of the so-called mammisi pr-msy, in the Late Period, the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods, gender relationships were also identified by specific sacred architecture in Egypt. In the Ancient Orient, we know of instances where, for example, two long-room temples in antis such as at ‘Emar,55 or two broad-room temples as at Tell Harmal,56 or two bent-axis temples as at Nuzi,57 or two Uruk type temples as at Jebel ‘Aruda58 stood side by side in a sacred precinct. The identity of the

Bietak 2009; 2016; 2019a. Margueron 1995; Sakal 2012. 56 H einrich 1982, 189–190, fig. 255. 57 Heinrich 1982, 152–153, figs. 213, 216, 294. 58 Van Driel 1991, fig. 1; Werner 1994, pl. 36/1.

tutelary god is not clear, but in each of these cases, the divinities could have been of the same or of different genders. They signal the abodes of two divinities in close contact with each other. This applies even more so to the combination of broad-room and bent-axis temples. The gender identification of the two temple types shows that broad-room temples were built mostly for male59 and bent-axis temples mostly for female divinities (Fig. 16). It is therefore most likely that when this combination appears side by side, that we are dealing with a divine couple. In order to investigate the roots of the combination of broad-room and bent-axis temples, we have to go further back in time. The first indication we have of a combination of a broad-room and bent-axis concept in cultic architecture is in the Eanna/Inanna- and the Anuprecincts at Uruk, dating back to the Uruk Period.60 The precincts are separate but in proximity. Both precincts had developed Ziqqurats. The temples, at that time, were typical Uruk temples. On the western side of both precincts, parallel to the Ziqqurats, one finds buildings which are not temples but may have been a type of cenotaph.61 They were constructed in pits. The one belonging to the precinct of the goddess Inanna

54 55

60

Bietak 2019a, 63, fig. 23. Lenzen 1959, pl. 35; 39 a-d; 40 c. d; Heinrich 1982, 35–

61

Heinrich 1982, 67–68.

59

60, 61–68; Eichmann 2007, s. fn. 65–66.

The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analysis of their Sacred Architecture II

135

Fig. 17 Scatter of bent-axis temples with proximity and distant analysis of bent-axis temples in comparison to Temple II at Tell el-Dab‘a (illustration P. Aprent and D.P. Fill)

Fig. 18 Scatter of bent-axis temples with two doors and separate cella (illustration P. Aprent and D.P. Fill)

136

Manfred Bietak

(Eanna), called by the excavators “Riemchengebäude,” has a clear bent-axis plan surrounded by a corridor.62 The other, belonging to the Anu precinct, has a simple broad-room plan surrounded by two enclosure walls with openings to the south-west of the inner enclosure, and to the north of the outer enclosure, while the cella opens to the north,63 thus creating the effect of a maze. A combination of a broad-room and a bent-axis temple in its purest form, standing side-by-side within an extended sacred precinct, was excavated at Nippur, dating to the Early Dynastic II and III periods (Fig. 19).64 The tutelary divinity of the single room bent-axis temple was identified by inscriptions on votive bowls as belonging to the goddess Inanna. The god of the broad-room temple could not be identified by ex-votos, but it was most likely the shrine of Inanna’s consort, Dumuzi. In Ur, two such combinations can be found. The so-called Giparu was the palatial compound of the Entu-priestess, who served as the living image of the goddess Ningal, and lived in theogamy with the moon god Nanna Sin (Fig. 20).65 Surrounded by a thick wall, the compound, dating from the 3rd Dynasty of Ur, the Old-Babylonian Period, and rebuilt in the Kassite Period, is divided into two sections, north and south. In the northern section, the residence of the Entu-priestess is planned like a bent-axis temple inside a middle-room building, with two rabbeted doors leading to a procella. The bent-axis is to the right, leading to a squat cella, which is identified as such by its rabbeted doorway. Located in the southern section is a broad-room temple of Mesopotamian type with a cella with cult niche and a procella of the same size. In front of the temple are two courtyards. This temple should be considered as the shrine of the god Nanna Sin living with the Entu-priestess, acting as the goddess Ningal, under the same roof.

62

63

64

Fig. 19 The sacred precinct of Nippur during the Early Dynastic II–III Period (after Hansen and Dales 1962, fig. 2)

65

Lenzen 1958, 24–26; 1959, 8–10, pl. 35; 39 a-d; 40 c. d;

Schmid 1977; Heinrich 1982, 72–73, figs. 106, 110, 111; Eichmann 2007, 388–393, pl. 85, 89a, c; plans 255, 256, 286. Schmid 1970; 1972, 18–30; 1978 rejected the identification as cenotaph. Using the term cenotaph to bury objects related to cult seems to me, however, appropriate; Heinrich 1982, 67–68, figs. 81, 83, 101, 103; Eichmann 2007, 438–459, figs. 190–197; pls. 123–124a–b, plans 110, 262–263. Crawford 1959, 74–83; Hansen and Dales 1962, 74–84; Heinrich 1982, 133–134, fig. 211. Lenzen 1955; Weadock 1958; 1975; Woolley and M allowan 1976, 40–63, pls. 1–11, 117–118; Heinrich 1982, 185–188, figs. 248–251. See also Breniquet 2006; Battini 2012; Bietak 2018. http://www. odysseyadventures.ca/articles/ur%20of %20the%20 chaldees/ur_article02gip.html#

The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analysis of their Sacred Architecture II

137

Fig. 20 The Giparu of Ur, showing the residence of theEntu-priestess acting as goddess Ningal, constructed as a bent-axis temple with two doors within a middle-room building (after Woolley and Mallowan 1976, fig. 118) Leonard Woolley reconstructed a simple, broad-room temple on top of the Ziqqurat. The temple, dedicated to the god Nanna-Sin, dates to the Early Dynastic Period. Its main building phase occurred in the Ur III Period, however, it was repaired and rebuilt right up to the Neo-Babylonian Period.66 To the south of NannaSin’s temple is a temple dedicated to his consort, the goddess Ningal (Fig. 21). It dates only to the Kassite Period, but may have had an earlier predecessor.67

66

Woolley 1939, 98–121, pls. 79–84; Heinrich 1982, figs.

67

Woolley 1939, 53–58, pls. 72–73, 75; 1965, 32–42, pls. 47,

223–224, 226.

52, 57; Heinrich 1982, 154–155, figs. 223–224, 226, 228.

Ningal’s temple is very unusual. It has a squat plan and was ranged by Heinrich as a “Hürdenhaus”temple with a central court and a forecourt in front.68 Two rooms could have been the cella, which puzzled Heinrich. Room No. 6 was accessible by a corridor from the middle of the back wall of the central room, or, according to Heinrich, of the courtyard (5). Room 6 also has a cult niche and a cult podium. It could, therefore, have been a broad-room. However, the asymmetry of the room, which was accessed from the northern end, speaks against this. The narrow corridor also made this room dark. The other candidate for cella 68 Heinrich

1982, 226–227, figs. 301, 309.

138

Manfred Bietak

0 0

5 5

10

10 20

20m 40

Fig. 21 The Temple of Ningal in Ur from the Kassite Period (after Woolley 1939, pl. 73; Heinrich 1982, fig. 301) is Room No. 8, positioned symmetrically in the north of the central room, with a wide entrance. The room is broad, but has little depth and a broad cult podium. It is much more suitable as the Holy of the Holies and would create a bend in the cult axis. What speaks against a broad-room temple is the asymmetric access into the central room (5), located on the left side of its façade, which opens to the east. This would be typical of a bent-axis temple. The continuation to Room 6 also constitutes a broken axis and would be highly atypical. Altogether, the features are those of a bent-axis temple within a tripartite squat building. What is atypical is the square central room and the squat form of the building. We may explain this atypical temple by the takeover of the Kassite Dynasty, who might have had different concepts of sacred space.

Another pair of temples, which fit chronologically with Tell el-Dab‘a, but offer a different setting from an architectural point of view, are to be found in Lebanon. The first is the Obelisk Temple at Byblos (Fig. 22).69 It has the plan of a broad-room temple, but may have been an open-air shrine. It was dedicated to the Egyptian god Herishef-Re‘, and because of a similar phonetic appearance, it is thought to be the

69

Dunand 1950, pls. XXXVII–XLII; 1954–1958, 895–898,

fig. 1007; Finkbeiner 1981, 52–60, plans 1–2; Saghieh 1983, 14–24, fig. 7a, pls. II–III; Lauffray 2008, 101–104, 217–220, 333–338; Sala 2008b; 2015, 39–41, figs. 9–11, 13; Bietak 2019b, 174–182.

The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analysis of their Sacred Architecture II

139

Fig. 22 The ‘antichambre’ and the Obelisk Temple in Byblos (after Bietak 2018b, fig. 5) interpretatio aegyptiaca of Reshef.70 In front of it, serving as an entrée, was a bent-axis-temple with a single entrance on the right side of the eastern façade leading, in front of the cult target, to an exit to the Obelisk Temple. The titulary divinity of this shrine, serving as an “antechambers en chicane” for the Obelisk Temple, is unknown. A similar constellation of a bent-axis temple in front of a broad-room from the “période sableux” (EB I–III?) can be found in the predecessor of the so-called “temple orientale” in Byblos, but the remains are so damaged that this is mentioned only as a doubtful example.71 Another doubtful combination of broad-room and bent-axis temples can be found in Ebla. In area B, north of the Temple of Reshef,72 there is a building which could fulfil the plan of a bent-axis temple and may even have a third element. The problem is that the Reshef Temple is not a broad-room but a long-room temple, most probably in antis.

70 71 72

Montet 1923; Stadelmann 1967, 8, n. 2; Bietak 2019b, 178–179. Lauffray 2008, 142–144, fig. 74; Bietak 2019b, 180, fig. 7. Matthiae 2012, 977, 983, figs. 22, 25; 2016, 27, fig. 23.

In the palace of Mari during the Old-Babylonian Period, the section of the ‘throne room’ needs special consideration. The ‘vestibule,’ with a podium in the middle of its back wall, is designed in the shape of a broad-room temple accessible from the great courtyard in the north, through a door located in the middle of the north wall.73 As the majority of the famous statue of the water goddess was found broken and scattered west of the podium, it is suggested that this statue was positioned on the podium (Fig. 23).74 The ‘throne room’ has the concept of a bent-axis temple with three building elements and two doors, which we may interpret as an entrance and an exit. On the western end of the ‘throne room’ one finds a low stone socle, which may have been for the throne of the king.75 The bend, from the entrance to the left, leads to stairs rising to an elevated small open room or alcove, which is identified by the excavators as the position

73 74 75

Parrot 1958, pl. XXVII–XXXI, plan; Margueron 2004, pl. 63–64.

Parrot 1959, 5–11. Parrot 1958, 120–121.

140

Manfred Bietak

Fig. 23 Left: The design of broad-room and the tripartite bent-axis-space combination of the throne room and its vestibule, right: the Palace Temple of the Palace of Mari (after Parrot 1958, plan) of the throne. One wonders, however, if the statue of the water goddess was not originally set up there, more likely than to expose the image of the deity to the public in the large courtyard in front of the ‘vestibule’ – a place more fitting for the king to be presented like a god in a broad room. The so-called ‘Mitanni Temple’ at Tell Brak, unites within the same building a broad-room with a niche in its back wall, in all likelihood, dedicated to the Hurrian storm god Teshub (Fig. 24). From the back, a two-room constellation can be accessed, which resembles a bentaxis temple with a long rectangular procella and a

small separate cella.76 This interpretation is supported by the succession of the ‘vestibule’ and the ‘throne room at Mari’. The date of the Mitannian Temple is, however, too late for it to have served as a model for our Tell el-Dab‘a Temple II. Altogether, the combination of broad-room and bent-axis temples, standing side by side, seems to be, in its purest setting in Nippur, a Mesopotamian custom (Fig. 25). In northern Syria and in Byblos, such combinations are either doubtful or were planned in such a way that the bent-axis temple stood in front of the broad-room temple or behind it.

76

Oates, Oates and MacDonald 1997, 13–18, figs. 4, 28.

The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analysis of their Sacred Architecture II

22

141

21

20

Fig. 24 The Mitanni Temple at Tell Brak showing possibly a combination of a broad-room and a bent-axis temple (after Bietak 2018, fig. 8)

Conclusions

This survey of sacred architecture, as excavated and documented at Tell el-Dab‘a, from the 14th and 15th Dynasty, shows that fundamental sacred buildings were already extant in the Pre-Hyksos Period, during the 14th Dynasty. The decision-makers, who may have been the rulers themselves or, more likely, their counsellors, took their religious inspirations from the far north of Syria and from Mesopotamia. All the evidence shows that their spiritual homeland was the area between Aleppo, Alalakh,77 the Ḫabur region,

77

The temple attached to the palace of Alalakh VII is certainly not the Temple of Ishtar, known from cuneiform tablets (see however Na’man 1980 and Lauinger 2008). As the Dynasty of Jarim-Lim originated from Hammurabi I. from Yamkhad/Aleppo, it is more likely that this temple was dedicated to the storm god of Aleppo in order to protect the residence of the offspring of this dynasty. This god is also mentioned on the tablets but as

and northern Mesopotamia. Taking the type of broadroom temples from northern Syria as models, there is no doubt that the cult of the storm god, who was also the patron of sailors, was brought over from there. The transmission may have been achieved by sea-faring immigrants, residing in the harbour town of Avaris, as suggested by a locally cut cylinder seal, which is a copy of northern Syrian glyptic art.78 The best parallels of our tripartite bent-axis temple can be found in northernmost Syria, especially at Ebla, in the

he is the god of Aleppo he did not get the epithet ‘Lord of Alalakh’ as Ishtar. The temple attached to the palace of Alalakh VII was provisioned from the household of the palace while the temple of Ishtar, Lady of Alalakh, had to get provisions separately as it was an independent institution. This temple has not yet been found. 78 Bietak 2019a, 60, fig. 20.

142

Manfred Bietak

Fig. 25 Scatter of combinations of broad-room and bent-axis temples in the Near East (illustration P. Aprent and D.P. Fill) Ḫabur region, and less obviously, in Assur. In Ebla and Assur, the tutelary goddess in all likelihood was Ishtar, while Temple II in Tell el-Dab‘a may be associated, through indirect evidence, with the Canaanite goddess Ashera of the Sea. While the material culture found in Tell el-Dab‘a, in the pre-Hyksos Period, can be associated with the region known today as Lebanon,79 the spiritual background of the 14th Dynasty decision makers

can be found in northernmost Syria and northern Mesopotamia – a region which was the home of both Western Semitic-speaking peoples and the Hurrians who played an important part in this region. One should, therefore, not exclude the possibility that the Hurrians participated in the establishment of the pre-Hyksos elites at Avaris. The establishment of the following 15th Dynasty – the Hyksos – is, however, a different story.

‘This project received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 668640)’

79

Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004. The results

presented by McGovern 2000 are due to serious and unacceptable methodological shortcomings (see the reviews by Goren 2003 and Aston 2004).

The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analysis of their Sacred Architecture II

143

Bibliography Ackerman, S. 2008 Asherah, the West Semitic Goddess of Spinning and Weaving?, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 67.1, 1–30. A llam, S. 1963 Beiträge zum Hathorkult, Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 4, Berlin. A ndrae, W. 1922 Die archaischen Ischtar-Tempel in Assur, Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 38, Leipzig. 1930 Das Gotteshaus und die Urformen des Bauens im Alten Orient, Studien zur Bauforschung 2, Berlin. 1935 Die jüngeren Ischtar-Tempel in Assur, Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 58, Leipzig. A ndrassy, P. 1991 Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien bis zum Ende des Alten Reiches, in: E. Endesfelder (ed.), Probleme der frühen Gesellschaftsentwicklung im Alten Ägypten, Berlin, 103–54.

1986

1996

1997

2003 2009

2010

Aston, D.A. 2004 Review of McGovern 2000, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 90, 233–237. Bär, J. 2003 Die älteren Ischtar-Tempel in Assur: Stratigraphie, Architektur und Funde eines altorientalischen Heiligtums von der zweiten Hälfte des 3. Jahrtausends bis zu Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr., Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 105, Saarbrücken. Battini, L. 2012 “Gipar”, in: R. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C.B. Champion, A. Erskine and S.R. Huebner (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, https://doi. org/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24085 (last accessed March 2021).

2013

2016

2018

2019a

Bernhardt, K.H. 1967 Aschera in Ugarit und im Alten Testament, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 13, 163– 174. Bianchi, A., Dohman-Pfälzner, H., Geith, E., Pfälzner, P. and Wissing, A. 2014 Die Architektur und Stratigraphie der zentralen Oberstadt von Tall Mozan/Urkeš, Studien zur Urbanisierung Nordmesopotamiens: Serie A: Ausgrabungen in der zentralen Oberstadt von Tall Mozan/Urkeš, Wiesbaden. Bietak, M. 1984 Zum Königreich des ‘A-zḥ-R‘ Nehesi, in: H. A ltenmüller und D. Wildung (eds.) Festschrift für Wolfgang Helck, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 11, 59–78.

2019b

2022

Avaris and Piramesse, Archaeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta, Ninth Mortimer Wheeler Archaeological Lecture, The British Academy, Oxford 1981 (published first in the Proceedings of the British Academy London, vol. LXV (1979), 225–290. 2nd enlarged edition Oxford. Avaris, The Capital of the Hyksos – Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dab‘a, The First Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation Distinguished Lecture in Egyptology, London. The Center of the Hyksos Rule: Avaris (Tell elDab‘a), in: E.D. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, Philadelphia, 78–140. Two Near Eastern Temples with Bent Axis in the Eastern Nile Delta, Ägypten & Levante 13, 13–38. Near Eastern Sanctuaries in the Eastern Nile Delta, in: A.-M. M aïla-A feiche (ed.), Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean, Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium Beirut 2008, Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises Hors-série 6, Beyrouth, 209–228. The Early Bronze Age III Temple at Tell Ibrahim Awad and his Relevance for the Egyptian Old Kingdom, in: Z. H awass, P.D. M anuelian and R.B. Hussein (eds.), Perspectives on Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of Edward Brovarski, Supplément aux Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte 40, Cairo, 65–77. Avaris/Tell el-Dab‘a, in: R. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C.B. Champion, A. Erskine and S.R. Huebner (eds.), Encyclopedia of Ancient History, vol. 2, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 985–994. Les sanctuaires cananéens dans le delta oriental du Nil, in: P. M atthiae (ed.), L’archeologia del sacro e l’archeologia del culto. Ebla e la Siria dall’Età del Bronzo all’Età del Ferro, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome, 223–256. The Giparu of Ur as a Paradigm for Gender-Related Temple Types in the Ancient Near East, Eretz Israel 33, The Lawrence E. Stager Volume, Jerusalem, 9*–24*. The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analysis of their Sacred Architecture, Part I, in: M. Bietak and S. Prell (eds.), The Enigma of the Hyksos, Vol 1, ASOR Conference Boston 2017 − ICAANE Conference Munich 2018 – Collected Papers, Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant 9, Wiesbaden, 45–64. The Obelisk-Temple in Byblos and its Predecessors, in: T. Waliszewski, D. Szeląg and A. Pieńkowska (eds.), Stories Told Around the Fountain. Papers Offered to Piotr Bieliński on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, Warsaw, 165–185. The 14th Dynasty in Tell el-Dab‘a and a Traumatic Transition to the Hyksos Period, in: M. Bietak, E. Czerny and K. Kopetzky (eds.), 50 Years of Excavation and Research in Tell el-Dab‘a, Ancient Avaris (1966-2016), Vienna (in preparation).

Binger, T. 1997 Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament, Sheffield.

144

Manfred Bietak

Bleeker, C.J. 1973 Hathor and Thoth: Two Key Figures of the Ancient Egyptian Religion, Leiden. Boese, J. 1990 Tell Sheikh Hassan 1990, Vorläufiger Bericht über eine Grabungskampagne am Euphrat-Stausee, Saarbrücken. Bounni, A. 1988 Découvertes archéologiques récentes en Syrie, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 1988, 368–369. Bounni, A. and M atthiae, P. 1974 Tell Frey 1973, Antiquités de l’Euphrate, Aleppo. Breniquet, C. 2006 Une fosse de tisserand dans le Giparu d’Ur ?, in: P. Butterlin, M. Lebeau, J.-Y. Monchambert, J.L. Montero Fenollós and B. Muller (eds.), Les espaces syro-mésopotamiens. Dimensions de l’expérience humaine au Proche-Orient ancien, Volume d’hommage offert à Jean-Claude Margueron, Subartu 17, Turnhout, 313–322. Buccellati, G. and K elly-Buccellati, M. 1995 Mozan, Tall, in: M.P. Streck, A. Bramanti, J. Fechner and M. Greiner (eds.), Reallexikon der Assyrologie, Berlin und New York, 386–393. Chéhab, M. 1969 Noms de personnalités egyptiennes decouverts au Liban, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 22, 1–47. Cohen-Weinberger, A. and Goren Y. 2004 Levantine-Egyptian Interactions during the 12th to the 15th Dynasties based on the Petrography of the Canaanite Pottery from Tell el-Dab‛a, Ägypten & Levante 14, 69–100. Cornelius, I. 2004 The Many Faces of the Goddess. The Iconography of the Syro-Palestinian Goddesses Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet, and Asherah c. 1500-1000 BCE, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 204, Fribourg and Göttingen. Crawford, V.E. 1959 Nippur, the Holy City, Archaeology 12, 81–82. Day, J. 1986 Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature, Journal of Biblical Literature 105.3, 385–408. Delougaz, P. and Lloyd, S. 1942 Pre-Sargonid Temples in the Diyala Region, Oriental Institute of Chicago Publications 58, Chicago. De Moor, J.C. 1974 ’ashērāh, in: G.J. Botterweck and H. R inggren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, translated by J.T. Willis, rev. edition, vol. I, Grand Rapids, MI, 438–444. Dunand, M. 1937 Fouilles de Byblos, vol. I, 1926–1932, (atlas), Paris.

1939 1950 1954– 1958

Fouilles de Byblos, vol. I, 1926–1932, (texte), Paris. Fouilles de Byblos, vol. II, 1933–1938, (atlas), Paris. Fouilles de Byblos, vol. II, 1933–1938, (text, parts I–II), Paris.

Eichmann, R. 2007 Uruk. Architektur I. Von den Anfängen bis zur frühdynastischen Zeit, Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, Endberichte 14, Rahden. Eigner, D. 2000 Tell Ibrahim Awad: Divine Residence from Dynasty 0 until Dynasty 11, Ägypten & Levante 10, 17–36. 2007 Design, Space and Function: The Old Kingdom Temple of Tell Ibrahim Awad, in: B. H aring und A. K lug (eds.), 6. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung, Funktion und Gebrauch altägyptischer Tempelräume, Königtum, Staat und Gesellschaft früherer Hochkulturen, Königtum, Staat und Gesellschaft früher Hochkulturen 3.1, Wiesbaden, 83–104. Erman, A. 1905 Zur ägyptischen Religion, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 42, 106–110. Espinel, A.D. 2002 The Role of the Temple of Baalat Gebal as Intermediary between Egypt and Byblos during the Old Kingdom, Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 30, 103–120. Finkbeiner, U. 1981 Untersuchungen zur Stratigraphie des Obeliskentempels in Byblos: Versuch einer methodischen Auswertung, Baghdader Mitteilungen 12, 13–69. Fischer, H.G. 1968 Dendera in the Third Millennium BC, New York. Goren, Y. 2003 Rez. P.E. McGovern, The Foreign Relations of the “Hyksos”, BAR International Series 888, Oxford 2000, Bibliotheca Orientalis 60.1–2, 105–109. Habachi, L. 1954 Khata‘na-Qantir: Importance, Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte 52, 443–559. 2001 Tell el-Dab‘a I, Tell el-Dab‘a and Qantir, The Site and its Connection with Avaris and Piramesse.II, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 2, Vienna. H adley, J.M. 2000 The Cult of the Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 57, Cambridge. H aller, A. and Andrae, W. 1955 Die Heiligtümer des Gottes Assur und der SinŠamaš-Tempel in Assur, Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 67, Berlin. H ansen, P.D. and Dales, G.F. 1962 The Temple of Inanna Queen of Heaven at Nippur, Archaeology 15, 75–84.

The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analysis of their Sacred Architecture II

145

Heinrich, E. 1982 Die Tempel und Heiligtümer im Alten Mesopotamien, Typologie, Morphologie und Geschichte, Denkmäler antiker Architektur 14, Berlin.

M archetti, N. and Nigro, L. 1997 Cultic Activities in the Sacred Area of Ishtar at Ebla during the Old Syrian Period: The Favissae F.5327 and F.5238, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 49, 1–44.

Hollis, S.T. 2009 Hathor and Isis in Byblos in the Second and First Millennia BCE, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 1.2, 1–8.

Margueron, J.-C. 1995 Emar, Capital of Aštata in the Fourteenth Century BCE, Biblical Archaeologist 58.3, 126–138. 2004 Mari: Métropole de l’Euphrate au IIIe et au début du IIe millénaire av. J.-C. Paris.

Jidejian, N. 1968 Byblos through the Ages, Beyrouth. K eel, O. 1999 Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh, Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible, Old Testament Studies 261, Sheffield. K eel, O. and Uehlinger, Ch. 2001 Göttinnen, Götter, Gottessymbole. Neue Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen, Quaestiones disputatae 134, Freiburg5. Lauffray, J. 2008 Fouilles de Byblos VI, L’urbanisme et l’architecture, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 182, Beyrouth. Lauinger, J. 2008 The Temple of Ištarat at Old Babylonian Alalakh, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 8, 181–217. Lenzen, H.J. 1955 Mesopotamische Tempelanlagen von der Frühzeit bis zum zweiten Jahrtausend, Zeitschrift für Assyrologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie (NF) 51, 1–36. 1958 XIV. Vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, Winter 1955/56, mit Beiträgen von Ch. Ziegler und B. Kienast, Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 3, Berlin 1958. 1959 XV. Vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, Winter 1956/57, Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 4, Berlin. Lipinski, E. 1992 Baalat Gubal, in: E. Lipinski (ed.), Dictionnaire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique, Brepols, 56. McGovern, P. 2000 The Foreign Relations of the ‘Hyksos’, BAR International Series 888, Oxford. Mallowan, M.E.L. 1947 Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar, Iraq 9, 1–87, 9–259.

M atthiae, P. 1980/ Ittiti ed Asiri a Tell Frey, Lo scavo di una città 1981 Medio Siriana sull’Eufrata, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 22, Rome, 35–51. 1990a A New Monumental Temple of Middle Bronze II at Ebla and the Unity of the Architectural Tradition of Syria-Palestine, Les Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes 40, 111–121. 1990b A Class of Old Syrian Bronze Statuettes and the Sanctuary B2 at Ebla, in: P. M atthiae, M.N. van Loon and H. Weiss (eds.), Resurrecting the Past: A Joint Tribute to A. Bounni, Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instuut, Istanbul, 345–362. 1990c Nouvelles fouilles à Ebla en 1987–1989, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 1990, 384–431. 1993 L’aire sacrée d’Ishtar à Ebla: Résultats des fouilles de 1990–1992, CRAIBL 1993, 613–662. 2012 L’archéologie du Culte à Ébla, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres 2012.2, 951–992. 2013 Studies on the Archaeology of Ebla 1980–2010, ed. by F. Pinnock, Wiesbaden. 2016 Archeologia del culto ad Ebla: residenze degli dèi e ideologia della regalità, in: P. M atthiae and M. D’A ndrea (eds.) L’archeologia del sacro e l’archeologia del culto. Sabratha, Ebla, Ardea, Lanuvio. Ebla e la Siria dall’età del bronzo all’età del ferro, Atti dei Convegni Lincei 304, Rome, 17–95. M atthiae, P., Pinnock, F. and Scandone-Matthiae, G. (eds.) 1995 Ebla, Alle origini della civiltà urbana. Trent’anni di scavi in Siria dell’Università di Roma , Milano. Montet, P. 1923 Le pays de Negaou près de Byblos, Syria 4, 181. 1962 Notes et documents pour servir à l’histoire des relations entre l’Egypte et la Syrie, Kêmi 16, 76–96. Moortgat, L. 1962 Tell Chuera in Nordost-Syrien, Vorläufiger Bericht über die dritte Grabungskampagne 1960, Cologne. Na’man, N. 1980 The Ishtar Temple at Alalakh, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 39, 209–214. Nigro, L. 2008 Khirbet al-Batrawy II, The EB II City-Gate, the EB II–III Fortifications, the EB II–III Temple Preliminary Report of the Second (2006) and Third Seasons of Excavations (2006-2007), «La Sapienza» Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan 6, Rome.

146

Manfred Bietak

Nigro, L. and Sala, M. 2009 Preliminary Report of the Fourth Season (2008) of Excavations by the University of Rome “La Sapienza” at Khirbat al-Batrawi (Upper Wādī az-Zarqā’), Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 53, 371–384. Novák, M. 2001 Hofhaus und Antentempel, Überlegungen zur Entwicklung des assyrischen Tempelbaus, in: J.-W. Meyer and M. Novák (eds.), Beiträge zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Winfried Orthmann gewidmet, Frankfurt, 367–385. Oates, D., Oates, J. and McDonald, H. 1997 The Excavations at Tell Brak 1: The Mitanni and Old Babylonian Periods, McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge. 2001 The Excavations at Tell Brak 2: Nagar in the Third Millennium BC, McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge. Olyan, S.M. 1988 Ashera and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel, The Society of Biblical Literature, Monograph Series 34, Atlanta, Georgia. Parrot, A. 1958 Mission Archéologique de Mari II.1  : Le Palais, Architecture, Paris. 1959 Mission Archéologique de Mari II.3  : Le Palais, Documents et Monuments, Paris. 1967 Mission Archéologique de Mari III  : Les temples d’Ishtarat et de Ninni-Zaza, Paris. Pfälzner, P. 2008 Das Tempeloval von Urkeš. Betrachtungen zur Typologie und Entwicklungsgeschichte der mesopotamischen Ziqqurrat im 3. Jt. v. Chr., Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 1, 396–433. Pfälzner, P. and Dohman-Pfälzner, H. 2011 Die räumliche Struktur der zentralen Oberstadt von Tall Mozan, in: A. Bianchi, H. Dohmann-Pfälzner, E. Geith, P. Pfälzner and A. Wissing (eds.), Die Architektur und Stratigraphie der zentralen Oberstadt von Tall Mozan/Urkeš, Studien zur Urbanisierung Nordmesopotamiens, Serie A: Ausgrabungen, 1998–2001 in der Zentralen Oberstadt von Tall Mozan/Urkeš 1, Wiesbaden 2011, 27–75. Rahmouni, A. 2007 Divine Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts, translated by J.N. Ford, Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section 1: The Near and Middle East 93, Leiden. R ast, W.E. and Schaub, R.T. 2003 Bâb edh-Dhrâ‘: Excavations at the Town Site (1975–1981), Part. 1: Text, vol. 2, Part 2: Plates and Appendices, Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan, Winona Lake, IN. Redford, D.B. 1986 Egypt and Western Asia in the Old Kingdom, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 23,125–143.

R ich, S. 2012 ‘She who treads on Water’: Religious Metaphor in Seafaring Phoenicia, Ancient West & East 11, 19–34. Saghieh, M. 1983 Byblos in the Third Millennium B.C. A Reconstruction of the Stratigraphy and a Study of the Cultural Connection, Warminster. Sakal, F. 2012 Der spätbronzezeitliche Tempelkomplex von Emar im Lichte neuer Ausgrabungen, in: J. K amlah (ed.), Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture and Cult Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. Mill. B.C.E.), Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 41, Wiesbaden, 79–96. Sala, M. 2008a L’architettura sacra della Palestina nell’Età del Bronzo Antico I–III, Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 13, Rome. 2008b Il Temple en L a Byblos, Vicino Oriente 14, 59–84. 2015 Early and Middle Bronze Age Temples at Byblos: Specificity and Levantine Interconnections, in: A.-M. M aïla-A feiche (ed.), Cult and Ritual on the Levantine Coast and its Impact on the Eastern Mediterranean Realm. Proceedings of the International Symposium Beirut 2012, Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises, Hors-Série 10, 31–58. Scandone-M atthiae, G. 1979 Vasi inscritti di Chephren e Pepi I nel Palazzo Reale G di Ebla, Studi Eblaiti 1, 33–43. 1991 Hathor signora di Biblo e la Baalat Gebal, in: E. Acquaro (ed.), Atti del II congresso internazionale di studi fenici e punici: Roma, 9-14 novembre 1987, Rome, 401–406. Schmid, H. 1977 Zur Nordwestaußenmauer des archaischen Heiligtums Eanna in Uruk und zur Wiederverwendung des Baumaterials aus dem Steinstifttempel, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 109, 35–48. Schmid, J. 1970 Uruk-Warka. Zusammenfassender Bericht über die 27. Kampagne 1969, Baghdader Mitteilungen 5, 51–96. 1972 26. und 27. Vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, 1968 und 1969, Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 16, Berlin, 18–30. 1978 28. Vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, 1970, Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 28, Berlin. Schmitt, A.W. 2012 Die Jüngeren Ischtar-Tempel und der Nabû-Tempel in Assur: Architektur, Stratigraphie und

The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analysis of their Sacred Architecture II Funde, Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 137, Wiesbaden. Sowada, K.N. 2009 Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Old Kingdom: An Archaeological Perspective, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 237, Fribourg and Göttingen. Stadelmann, R. 1967 Syrisch-palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten, Probleme der Ägyptologie 5, Leiden. Starr, R.F.S. 1937 Nuzi II: Report on the Excavation at Yorgan Tepe near Kirkuk, Iraq, Conducted by Harvard University in Conjunction with the American Schools of Oriental Research and the University Museum of Philadelphia, 1927–1931, Plates and Plans, Cambridge, Ma. 1939 Nuzi I: Report on the Excavation at Yorgan Tepe near Kirkuk, Iraq, Conducted by Harvard University in Conjunction with the American Schools of Oriental Research and the University Museum of Philadelphia, 1927–1931, Text, Cambridge, Ma. Van Driel, G. 1991 Een reconstructive van de tempels op de Jebel Aruda, Phoenix 37.2, 21–31. Van Seters, J. 1966 The Hyksos, A New Investigation, New Haven and London. Weadock, P.N. 1958 The Giparu of Ur: A Study of the Archaeological Remains and Related Textual Material, Dissertation, University of Chicago.

1975

147

The Giparu at Ur, Iraq 37.2, 101–128.

Werner, P. 1994 Die Entwicklung der Sakralarchitektur in Nordsyrien und Südostkleinasien, vom Neolithikum bis in das 1. Jt. v. Chr, Münchner vorderasiatische Studien 15, Munich and Vienna. Wiggins, S.A. 1993 A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’: A Study According to the Textual Sources of the First Two Millennia B.C.E., Alter Orient und Altes Testament 235, Neukirchen-Vluyn. Woolley, L. 1939 Ur-Excavations V, The Ziggurat and its Surroundings, London. 1965 Ur-Excavations VIII, The Kassite Period and the Period of the Assyrian Kings, London. Woolley, L. and M allowan, M.E.L. 1976 Ur Excavations 7, The Old Babylonian Period, London. Zernecke, A.E. 2013 The Lady of the Titles: The Lady of Byblos and the Search for her “True Name”, Die Welt des Orients 43.2, 226–242. Ziegler, Ch. 1950 Die Tempelterasse von Tell Brak, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 82, 1–18. Ziffer, I. 2010 Western Asiatic Tree Goddesses, Ägypten & Levante 20, 411–430.

148

Manfred Bietak

Fig. 1 Kamid el-Loz, Lebanon and Tell el-Dab‘a, Egypt (All figures are property of M. Heinz and A. Catanzariti, unless specified otherwise, maps made by K.-D. Uhe)

The Role of Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa‘a Plain of Lebanon in the History of Avaris

149

The Role of Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa‘a Plain of Lebanon in the History of Avaris or Did the Hinterland of the Northern Levant Have Any Bearing on the Delta Affairs? by Marlies Heinz 1 and Antonietta Catanzariti 2

Abstract

Characterized by a settlement history of more than 2000 years, Kamid el-Loz in Lebanon experienced a variety of socio-cultural, socio-economic and political developments. In the course of this settlement history, the inhabitants of Kamid el-Loz have continuously interreacted with their local and regional neighbors, three times as an autonomously governed city, several times under imperialist rule and also as a village community. In the present contribution, the focus of our research interest is twofold: The first concerns the political orders and economic activities that shaped the life of the Levant and of its neighboring regions, including Egypt, during the Middle Bronze Age. The second is the pursuit of the question of how Kamid el-Loz participated in the local, regional and supraregional political and economic events.

Our Subject and Research Interests

Kamid el-Loz in Lebanon (Fig. 1) is characterised by more than two millennia of eventful history,2 during which it has seen various changes of political conditions, settlement systems, social orders and economic activities associated with these factors. In the present contribution our focus is twofold: First we review the political orders and economic activities that shaped life in the Levant and neighbouring regions – especially in Middle Bronze Age Egypt. Second, we pursue the question of the role of Kamid el-Loz (Fig. 2) in the local, regional and supra-regional political and economic events (Fig. 3). The political relations between the Levant and the Egyptian Delta region during the late Middle Bronze Age (MB II, c. 1750–1550 BC) – specifically at the time of the Hyksos (1640–1530 BC) – represent a unique development in the longer history of these regions (Fig. 4).

1 Albert-Ludwigs-University 2

Freiburg; science.heinz@gmx.

de. Smithsonian Institution; catanzaritiantonietta@gmail. com. For details concerning the history and sociocultural development at Kamid el-Loz, see Heinz 2016, as well as our preliminary excavation reports in BAAL (Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaise).

Fig. 2 Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa‘a Plain The political dominance of a formerly Levantine neighbouring population over the Egyptian Delta can be stated only for the latter phase.3 This epoch from MB II to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age is also characterised by a unique development at Kamid el-Loz, exclusive to this site during its lifetime: According to our present state of knowledge, Kamid el-Loz became a prosperous urban society unparalleled in its history. We postulate that the city had an autonomous ruling political elite and we will show here that its inhabitants established a variety of relationships with local, regional and supra-regional populations. The question we ask 3

See both the results of the thorough excavation project

headed by Manfred Bietak at Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris (http://www.auaris.at/html/index_en.html) and the comprehensive research project on the history of the Hyksos by Manfred Bietak (https://thehyksosenigma. oeaw.ac.at/; https://www.orea.oeaw.ac.at/forschung/ the-hyksos-enigma/); on both home pages you will also find a list of the publications of all staff members.

© by the author This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc by 4.0 license DOI: 10.13173/9783447117371.151

150

Marlies Heinz and Antonietta Catanzariti

Period

Historical period/event

Date

Roman period

Roman imperialistic rule

c. 30 BC–AD 300

Hellenistic period

Hellenistic imperialistic rule

c. 332–30 BC

Iron Age III

Persian imperialistic rule

c. 539–332 BC

Iron Age I/II

Rural life at Kamid el-Loz

c. 1200–1000 BC/1000–539 BC

LB I–II

City 3 under Egyptian rule. Ends with city abandonment and cessation of urban life

c. 1550–1200 BC

MB II

City 2’s violent end and beginning of Anomie 2

c. 1550 BC

MB II

City 1’s violent end and beginning of Anomie 1

c. 1750 BC

Fig. 3 The socio-political development at Kamid el-Loz

Development at Kamid el-Loz

Period

Development in the Egyptian Delta region

City 3

LB I–II, c. 1550–1200 BC

New Kingdom

City 2

MB II, ends c. 1550 BC

1530 BC Hyksos period

City 1

MB II, c. 1750 BC

–

Fig. 4 Socio-political development at Kamid el-Loz and in the Egyptian Delta region

is whether the urban population of Kamid el-Loz was involved in the unique political setting during the Hyksos period as well. If so, did the so-called hinterland of the northern Levant also play a role in these ‘global’ events?

Gaining Insights into our Research Interests

First, we will present a historical overview of Kamid el-Loz (see A Walk through History), examining the development of the settlement and how its population forged connections with their immediate and more distant neighbours in the course of about 2,000 years, from MB II to the Roman period (c. 1750 BC– c. AD 300). This review will provide us, inter alia, with the first hint that Kamid el-Loz, located between

the Lebanon Mountains in the west and the AntiLebanon Mountains in the east, was not an isolated village ‘beyond the mountains’ but rather a so-called global player throughout its known history. That is, the site’s geographical setting in a hinterland by no means hindered its engagement in international trade. Subsequently, we will deal with the local development of Kamid el-Loz during MB II (see Kamid elLoz: Development in the Middle Bronze Age). It is this phase in which the urban and politically autonomous society was established at Kamid el-Loz, in which the seemingly prosperous City 1 and City 2 were founded. The level of socio-cultural sophistication that the inhabitants of both cities had established provided the people of Kamid el-Loz potentially

The Role of Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa‘a Plain of Lebanon in the History of Avaris

with the required infrastructure to become active participants in international events as early as the Middle Bronze Age, the ‘dawn of internationalism’.4 This development leads us to the question whether urbanisation at Kamid el-Loz and the establishment of or engagement in contacts were mutually dependent, without at the same time having to be a mandatory requirement and, if so, to what extent. Though seemingly prosperous, however, it was during this period that the population of Kamid elLoz experienced not only the advantageous facets of the urban way of life but also its downsides – the phases of anomie in which the settlers at Kamid elLoz had to cope with difficult changes to the way of life they were accustomed to. Our findings on the Middle Bronze Age development and, especially, on the detrimental aspects of the urban mode of life at Kamid el-Loz lead us to ask what the reasons were for which the inhabitants left the site. What push factors could have triggered emigration? Emigration from Kamid el-Loz and reflections on its possible connection with the postulated emigration from the southern Levant to the Egyptian Delta have been the subject of earlier research on the site. Anthropological investigations have been carried out in relation to the history of Avaris and the political development of the Hyksos period in the Delta, such as those of Eike Winkler and Harald Wilfing5 conducted in 1991 at Tell el-Dab‘a. They connected their findings with the insights of Manfred Kunter,6 the anthropologist who studied the skeletons from Kamid el-Loz in 1977, pointing to parallels in the skeletal remains from these two sites. The basis for this postulated connection is notable as is the question whether these results could point to a migration from Kamid el-Loz to the Delta. We find this study and its reference to migration intriguing and will return to them at the end of our presentation. Our reflections on what might have triggered migration from Kamid elLoz are related to another topic currently investigated in the Hyksos research – the impetus of Levantine people leaving the Levant and settling down in the Egyptian Delta and the question of whether they did so as migrants. The follow-up question is how these newcomers rose to become the rulers of the Delta. The presentation of the socio-cultural and political conditions at Kamid el-Loz in MB II forms the basis for our subsequent exploration of Kamid el-Loz’s interactions with its neighbours during this period (see Kamid el-Loz and its Ties with its Neighbours). This exploration and our search for Kamid el-Loz’s

role in the historical events of the time, particularly in relation to events that occurred in the Egyptian Delta, are based on the pottery studies carried out by Antonietta Catanzariti on the assemblages from Kamid el-Loz with comparisons to Middle Bronze Age inventories from nearby and more distant sites.7 Due to the limited scope of this paper, her findings can only be presented here briefly and concisely. We conclude our contribution with a review of the aspects we have already elaborated regarding the historical development and the open questions that arise when considering Kamid el-Loz as a participant in the interregional Middle Bronze Age interactions, and by introducing an outlook on the questions we will address with our future research (see Outlook and Future Research).

Walk through History8

Throughout roughly two millennia the inhabitants of Kamid el-Loz experienced several modes of life: · · ·

Three phases of urbanization, de-urbanization and re-urbanization (Figs. 5, 6) Two phases of collapse following the irreversible dissolution of urban life Four episodes of imperialist rule

The people of Kamid el-Loz set up urban structures three times: City 1 and City 2 were built during MB II (1750–1550 BC) and City 3 was founded during the Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 BC). Each of the cities was characterised by a palace and a temple and had an administrative complex, residential quarters and workshop areas. Function-wise, all three cities were thus more or less identically equipped and the architectural infrastructure indicates, in all cases, a functionally differentiated and socially stratified community. Intramural burials in residential houses and in the palace demonstrate the significance of social bonds even after death – or, perhaps, especially then. The urban communities at Kamid el-Loz, or at least their political representatives, wanted the social order of the cities to be known and expressed them visually using the most effective means of political representation: iconic buildings. However, the designs of the iconic buildings did not bear close resemblance to those of their forerunners in the earlier city. We ask why changes were made to buildings at all, especially to the iconic buildings. Why did those in political and religious power choose not to represent themselves as guardians of a local tradition seeing that this was 7

Catanzariti 2011; 2015.

8 The 4 I lan

1998, 297–319. and Wilfing 1991. Kunter 1977.

5 Winkler 6

151

following remarks on the historical development of Kamid el-Loz have been published in a modified format at http://asorblog.org/2017/03/14/kamid-el-loz-short-story900-words/. For a detailed description and analysis of the historical events, see Heinz 2016.

152

Marlies Heinz and Antonietta Catanzariti

Fig. 5 The site of Kamid el-Loz and the plans of City 1 and City 2 a powerful tool for earning political legitimacy in ancient Near Eastern societies? Furthermore, who were the founders of the three cities, and whose tradition did they manifest when setting up these seats of religious and secular power? The iconic buildings of both City 1 and 2 were set on fire (Fig. 7). Although the residential areas did not burn down, their inhabitants left them. They abandoned their homes and urban life ceased temporarily. Anomie spread and the site was occupied only intermittently. The few inhabitants who stayed at the site re-used the burnt and decayed buildings, transforming their functions. They installed provisional homes for the living and final resting places for their deceased in the ruins. The abandonment of City 3 and the developments that followed were different. The city was not put to the torch, and its buildings, iconic and residential, were simply abandoned and then decayed. Whether coincidental or incidental, the abandonment of Kamid el-Loz was contemporaneous with the collapse of the Egyptian empire and with the consequent end of its foreign rule over Kumidi. City 3 was the last urban settlement at Kamid el-Loz. What followed was a 700-year period of modest rural life (Iron Age I–II, c. 1200–540 BC, Fig. 8). Permanent and semi-nomadic settlers lived together

at the site and no iconic buildings were constructed, which means that either there was no elite class at all, or that the elite’s demands produced no substantial, visibly identified evidence . A shift of Kamid el-Loz urban center into the neighbourhood in the course of the Iron Age would be quite conceivable. However, at the present stage of research we have no evidence for this or indications of such a shift.Imperial rule was reinstated in the Levant around 540 BC. It began with the rise of the Persian Empire (c. 540–330 BC) that expanded from modern Iran as far west as Greece. A far-reaching cultural break at Kamid elLoz coincided with this era: all previously settled areas of the site were transformed into cemeteries, a habitat exclusively reserved for the dead (Fig. 9). The deceased were all buried in simple pits, some with no burial gifts and others accompanied by exceedingly rich inventories. The cultural break at Kamid el-Loz began with the rise of the Persian Empire, raising the question of whether this was mere coincidence or something more than that. The Persian Empire declined after about two centuries, but not so the imperial domination over the Near East, which was replaced by that of the Greeks (c. 332–30 BC). Consequent with this political change was a cultural one: Kamid el-Loz saw the reestablishment of a settlement and the continuation of

The Role of Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa‘a Plain of Lebanon in the History of Avaris

Fig. 6 Plan of City 3

153

154

Marlies Heinz and Antonietta Catanzariti

Fig. 7 The burnt remains of Middle Bronze Age Palace 2 (MBP 2), City 2

Fig. 8 The site of Kamid el-Loz and the location of the Iron Age I–II rural settlement

The Role of Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa‘a Plain of Lebanon in the History of Avaris

155

Fig. 9 Plan of the Persian cemetery and a richly furnished burial the onsite cemetery. The funerary practices, however, were new – in particular the entombment of deceased in clay coffins, unaccompanied by burial gifts (Fig. 10). The new settlers maintained close connections with the Aegean, as shown by Aegean pottery and Greek inscriptions found at the site.9 The Greek inscriptions pose further questions: Who were the settlers residing at Kamid el-Loz during this period, what languages did they speak and who amongst them was literate? Hellenistic domination succumbed to growing Roman imperialism (30 BC–AD 300) and, in turn, almost all aspects of culture at Kamid el-Loz changed again. New house forms, burials in stone sarcophagi, new types of pottery and metal and glass objects, as well as coins, appeared at Kamid el-Loz for the first time, hinting at an entirely new cultural orientation of the residents (Fig. 11, 12). Only the site’s rural way of life which housed both the living and the dead recall prior occupations. What brought about these fundamental changes at Kamid el-Loz and who were their initiators? So far, our walk through the history of Kamid elLoz has provided us with first insights into local developments at the site, which had been multifaceted and eventful, though not without plight. It has also provided an overview of the political order in the region between the Middle Bronze Age and the Roman period, alongside initial information on the circumstances of Kamid el-Loz’s integration into the 9 Kulemann-Ossen,

Leicht and Heinz 2007.

interregional networks for a period of c. two millennia. This integration took place in varying political constellations, in urban and non-urban modes of life and under very different economic conditions, but it was, at the same time, almost continuously for about 1,500 years, characterised by a single factor: foreign domination. In times of imperialist dominance over Kamid el-Loz, the advantages of the site and location for the imperialist powers had probably lain in the welldeveloped local, as well as regional, urban infrastructure at least in the Late Bronze Age (City 3) – and also in the natural favourable factors of the site. Fertile arable land and pastures, perennial water sources and hunting and fishing opportunities were available. The site’s location, accessible by major routes from south and north, as well as by passageways to the west and east, made it an effective hub of supra-regional interactions. In short: the location of Kamid el-Loz was characterised by favourable economic, political and military conditions that were relevant and extremely useful for exercising power and authority. The functions and roles of Kamid el-Loz during these times, under these political circumstances, remain undetermined and are a topic of our ongoing research. Notably, during Iron Age I–II, Kamid el-Loz seems to have had no urban structure and we have been unable to identify any iconic buildings dating to this time. The site’s connections with settlements along the coast of the northern Levant and with sites in the southern Levant, however, were uninterrupted by

156

Marlies Heinz and Antonietta Catanzariti

Fig. 10 Evidence of habitation and burials from the Hellenistic period

Fig. 11 Evidence of habitation from the Roman period

The Role of Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa‘a Plain of Lebanon in the History of Avaris

157

Fig. 12 Evidence of a sarcophagus burial of the Roman period the change of circumstances.10 This seems relevant when we ask who it was at the site that maintained contacts with neighbouring sites and established new international relations. There is no evidence of palace and temple elites residing at Kamid el-Loz at that time, and these visible signs, therefore, were probably not necessary for the implementation of supra-regional contacts.

Kamid el-Loz: Development in the Middle Bronze Age

The Middle Bronze Age settlements of Kamid el-Loz were urban.11 City 1 and City 2 (see Figs. 5, 15) were founded consecutively and life in both seemed, at first, to be thriving – at least for some of the residents. Based on the current state of research, we can say the following about the infrastructure, architecture and fates of both cities: We have uncovered two living areas in the north and west of City 1 and three areas with official buildings, a temple, a palace and an administrative area. Despite the initial impression of prosperous 10 Research

on Iron Age ceramics is currently being conducted on an interdisciplinary basis by Wolfgang Zwickel, Department of Old Testament and Biblical Archaeology, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz and Jihad al-Daire, Department of Archaeology, University of Jordan, Amman. 11 For details on the Middle Bronze Age development at Kamid el-Loz, see Heinz 2016, 47–127.

life in City 1, in reality, there must have been many problems as the city saw a violent end. The three official building complexes were burnt down (Figs. 13, 14) and the living quarters were abandoned and decayed. Urban life had come to an end and the first phase of anomie began (see, also, Fig. 3). The site of the settlement, however, was not forsaken. In fact, it was still partly inhabited and its remains re-used. The decaying houses in the north were re-used for burials; rooms and fireplaces were built over the burnt remains of the temple and a stone-built tomb was sunk into its rubble. After this phase of Anomie 1 (whose duration we cannot yet determine) re-urbanisation began with the founding of City 2 (Fig. 15). We see, again, evidence of two residential areas and three official functions: a temple, a palace and an administrative area. Notwithstanding the settlement disruption, the settlers of City 2 rebuilt the buildings of official functions in the same locations they had occupied before the anomie. The new settlement exhibits continuity in the design of spaces and public functions. Though City 2 was off to a good start, it suffered the same fate as City 1. A fire destroyed parts of it: the political area – the palace and the administrative building – were again affected. Temple T4 and the northern residential area were partly damaged by fire, but not burnt down. What followed seems to be a repetition of history: Anomie 2 began. The town of Kamid el-Loz was abandoned but, once again, its site not not forgotten

158

Marlies Heinz and Antonietta Catanzariti

Fig. 13 City 1: the burnt remains of the administrative area (top, right) and evidence of the earliest palace, Middle Bronze Age Palace 3 (MBP 3) (bottom, right)

Fig. 14 The site and the re-used temple area in Section I-f–16

The Role of Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa‘a Plain of Lebanon in the History of Avaris

159

Fig. 15 Buildings of City 2 (superimposing remains of City 1)

Fig. 16 Temporary use of the former palace area during the phase of Anomie 2 (building in orange) and new-born burial (blue circle in WP33) but rather used intermittently for various activities. A small house was built on the rubble of the former palace. A new-born was buried in a hollow in the southern wall of this house (Fig. 16). The administrative area now served for household activities and at the same time a child was buried

there too (Fig. 17). A fireplace was installed in the rubble of Temple T4 (Fig. 18). In one of the abandoned houses in the western settlement area a pit was dug (Fig. 19). Ten deceased people were thrown into it: male and female adults as well as children. Two of the adult skeletons presented severe injuries – one

160

Marlies Heinz and Antonietta Catanzariti

Fig. 17 The administrative area during Anomie 2

area IV: temple T4

Fig. 18 Plan of the re-used temple area had a spearhead wedged between its ribs and the other had several holes in the skull. The picture of the Middle Bronze Age political and cultural development of Kamid el-Loz is an ambiguous one. Evidence from City 1 and City 2 testifies to economically potent settlements; at least for some social groups in the city urban life had probably been a prosperous one. However, the floruit

of urban life was radically interrupted twice – for all inhabitants. The anomies are a powerful testimony to this. These anomies raise a number of questions. The first regard how and why these disruptions occurred. With regard to the research interests we address in this contribution, we ask also if the anomies had impacted the opportunities of Kamid el-Loz’s inhabitants to participate in the regional

The Role of Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa‘a Plain of Lebanon in the History of Avaris

161

Fig. 19 The burial pit and supra-regional interactions during this era of internationalism. In what follows (see Kamid el-Loz and its Ties with its Neighbours) we aim to provide some preliminary insights into this last question. Notably, Anomie 2 did not lead to the abandonment of the settlement site, nor did it permanently end urban life in it, as is shown by the Late Bronze Age development at Kamid el-Loz, which we can only touch on very briefly here. Following the second anomie, City 3 was constructed – the third and last phase of urban life at Kamid el-Loz. This city was known by the name of Kumidi, as we learn from the Amarna texts, which teach us also that the Egyptians had temporarily seized power in the site at that time. City 3 was provisionally governed by an Egyptian administrator. In our walk through history we have already mentioned the intermural burial of two children and one adult in the palace (Fig. 20). The abundance of luxurious grave goods, including Egyptian objects, was striking, and one may wonder why such effort was invested in the burial of children.

Kamid el-Loz and its Ties with its Neighbours

As shown earlier, the site was the home of a wellequipped community with a complex infrastructure, a social order and community members with various specialisations that included craftsmen and farmers and an autonomous political and religious administration. Despite the turbulent times that the inhabitants of Kamid el-Loz had experienced throughout the Middle Bronze Age urbanisation phases, it is possible that the settlement was in a position to participate actively, both geographically and structurally, together and at an equal level, with its neighbours in cultural and economic exchanges. The MB II site’s infrastructure,12 which enabled Kamid el-Loz to partake in the supra-regional network at the time of imperial foreign rule, will be one of the topics of our future research. Here follows some preliminary evidence that attests to Kamid el-Loz’s complex interactions, the extent of which is reflected in its ceramic production and shared technologies.

12

Heinz et al. 2010; 2011; Heinz 2016.

162

Marlies Heinz and Antonietta Catanzariti

Fig. 20 The so-called Schatzhaus burial in Palace P4d

The ceramic collection revealed during the 2008– 2011 excavation seasons, as well as the corpus of Middle Bronze Age ceramic material excavated earlier at Kamid el-Loz,13 supports the presence of a dynamic cultural exchange environment in the Beqa‘a Plain. At least three levels of such interactions can be traced: the first is on a local level with the

13

Marfoe et al. 1998; Metzger 2012.

settlements in the Beqa‘a Plain; the second is with sites located along the coast of the northern Levant; and the third interaction is that which developed to the east with south-western Syria and to the south with the southern Levant.14 Within these three forms of neighbouring interactions, Kamid el-Loz was 14 Compare

volume.

as well the contribution by Charaf in this

163

The Role of Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa‘a Plain of Lebanon in the History of Avaris

Orontes

Sin el-Fil Sin el-Fil

ns tai

© GoogleDE, Data SIO, NOAA, U.S Navy, NGA, GEBCO Landsat/Copernicus

Baalbek Baalbek Tell TellHizzin Hizzin Tell el-Ghâssil Tell el-Ghâssil

Lebanon Mountains

tiL M eba ou no nta n ins

Kamid el-Loz Litani

Anti-Lebanon Mountains

Mt. Hermon

Tell Dan

Kamid el-Loz Kamid el-Loz Majdalouna Majdalouna Sidon Sidon Lebe‘a Lebe‘a Kafr Garra/Ruweise Kafr Garra/ Tellel-Burak el-Burak Tell Qrayė Qrayė Sarepta Sarepta Tyre Tyre

ou n

Yanouh Yanouh

Byblos Byblos

Yabroud

An

Mgharet el Hourriyé Mgharet el Hourriyé

Fadous Fadous Kfarabida Kfarabida

M

Or on t es

Tell TellArqa Arqa Ardé/Ardata Ardé/Ardata

Beirut Beirut

Mediterranean Sea

Humaira Humaira

Le ba no n

Mediterranean Sea Mediterranean Sea

Kabri

Hazor Lake Tiberias

Litani

Litani

Beth Shan Megiddo

Jordan

Tell Ifshar Lake Tiberias © GoogleDE, Data SIO, NOAA, U.S Navy, NGA, GEBCO Landsat/Copernicus

N N

0 10 20 30 40 50 km

Shechem Aphek Jericho

Jordan

N 0 10 20 30 40 50 km

Fig. 21 Local and coastal interactions

Fig. 22 Interactions with the southern Levant with indication of a circulation route running from the southern Beqa‘a to the southern Levant

also exposed to more supra-regional interaction, for example, with Egypt. This relationship was conceivable due to the developed circulation routes already active in the area and in the eastern Mediterranean region.15 To illustrate the three levels of interactions, we will use only selected types of ceramic vessels to exemplify an interconnected network of ceramic production. The first form of interaction was at the local level (Fig. 21), within the valley. The entire ceramic corpora of Kamid el-Loz displays a cultural tradition common at other sites in the valley as well. Tell elGhassil and Tell Hizzin, located in the Beqa‘a Plain just further north of Kamid el-Loz, documented a Middle Bronze Age ceramic assemblage that evidences a ceramic production tradition similar to that of Kamid el-Loz. This is particularly visible in the vessel types (Figs. 24, 25 nos. 2–4: carinated bowls with everted rim; nos. 5, 6: platters) and in the decorative and treatment techniques applied to the vessel surfaces (e.g., Levantine Painted Ware; Figs. 24, 25 nos. 9, 10 and burnishing). The second form of interaction, as indicated by the ceramic collection of Kamid el-Loz, seems to suggest

similarities with coastal sites of the central and northern Levant (Fig.21). Circulation between these sites and the valley was feasible, although it would have entailed crossing the Lebanon Mountains and, therefore, would have presented a challenge for the regular circulation of goods between coastal sites and the inner valley settlements. However, the mountains did not prevent the development of circulation routes between regions, as exemplified by the ceramic vessels found at Kamid el-Loz. It is possible to observe close comparisons with the painted vessels (Figs. 24, 25 nos. 7–9), carinated bowls (Figs. 24, 25 no. 1) and the burnishing techniques used to treat many of the vessel surfaces produced during this time period at sites along the Levantine coast. More specifically, the painted juglets of Kamid elLoz (Figs. 24, 25 nos. 7, 8), characterised by series of painted parallel bands applied on the upper part of the shoulder of the vessel and painted ticks on the lower section of the neck, have close comparisons with the coastal sites of Sidon and Beirut, further north with Ugarit and Sukas and further south with Tel Kabri. The third form of interaction that Kamid el-Loz was entertaining was toward the south and the east neighbouring regions (Figs. 22, 23). This was mainly facilitated by the site’s geographical location, which

15

Bader 2015; Catanzariti 2015.

164

Marlies Heinz and Antonietta Catanzariti

Eu ph

Mediterranean Sea

t ra

Le Mo bano un n tai ns An Mo ti-L un eba tai no ns n

Nebi Mend Tell Arqa

Mari Baghouz

Palmyra

Yabroud

Eu

ph

ra

Kamid el-Loz es-Salihiyah Damascus Sakka

Litani

Kom Chraya I-II Khirbet ed-Dabab Khirbet el-Umbashi Debbeh Dhibin Besra

t

Mtoune Ashtara Labwe Tayybeh

N 0

Jordan

100 km

© GoogleDE, Data SIO, NOAA, U.S Navy, NGA, GEBCO Landsat/Copernicus

Fig. 23 Interactions with south-western Syria Contacts in the Syrian area

enabled the development of relationships with southwestern Syria and the southern Levant. The crossing of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains was possible and would have permitted access to what is today the Damascus region in Syria. Our best evidence for the presence of such forms of relationships is visible through the shared technologies adopted in the production of Kamid el-Loz’s ceramic vessels, such as the carinated bowls (Figs. 24, 25 nos. 1, 2, 4) and Levantine Painted Ware (Figs. 24, 25 nos. 9, 10). The connections that Kamid el-Loz had with the southern Beqa‘a region and with the settlements located in the southern Levant were without a doubt strong due to the vicinity and accessibility of these sites to Kamid el-Loz, and a circulation route running through the valley and further south could easily have developed. These connections are again visible in the ceramic vessels that derive from Kamid elLoz and, more specifically, in platters (Figs. 24, 25 nos. 5, 6) with parallels from sites such as BethShean, Shechem and Megiddo, and carinated bowls (Figs. 24, 25 nos. 2, 3) with parallels from Jericho and Shechem. The aforementioned types are only some examples that have comparisons in the southern Levant; other vessel types from Kamid el-Loz have parallels with Hazor, Jericho and Beth-Shean, just to mention a few. Of relevance is also the presence at Kamid el-Loz of Levantine Painted Ware vessels with spiral motifs, which are found also at sites such as Tel Dan, Tell Ifshar16 and Megiddo. The ceramic vessels discussion was unavoidably brief, but it provides indications that Kamid el-Loz maintained active and extensive supra-

16

Compare the contribution by Marcus in this volume.

regional contacts during the Middle Bronze Age with the neighbouring regions, and that these interactions extended to the entire Levantine region. Nevertheless, it is too early to suggest what type of relationships Kamid el-Loz entertained with the Egyptian Delta and whether these were direct or indirect contacts. Egyptian and Egyptianising material recovered at Kamid el-Loz includes scarabs and scarab impressions,17 which were common items circulating throughout the ancient Near East during the Middle Bronze Age. The presence at Kamid elLoz of a burnished bowl with handles (Fig. 26) from Room 8 of the MB II palace is also significant, as it has possible parallels with Tell el-Dab‘a globular bowls.18 Similar Levantine Painted Ware vessels with circular and spiral motifs have been found both at Kamid el-Loz and at Tell el-Dab‘a.19 The Levantine Painted ware repertoire of Kamid elLoz includes decorative types (circular, spiral, lozenges with hatch pattern and combination of wavy bands with horizontal lines)20 that are common and widely known throughout the Levant and Egypt. As recorded in other locations, exceptions are also available; this is the case of a juglet with a pattern that combines dots, horizontal lines, and zig-zag motifs.21 This juglet has no exact parallels 17

Kühne and Salje 1996, 134, scarab KL.72:270 (134);

impressions KL 72:188 and Kl67:239. Additional scarab impressions were also found during the 2018 excavations on jar handles and on the base of a bowl (see Heinz et al. 2010; Catanzariti 2010, 78, fig. 10.1). 18 Kopetzky 2008, 217–219, fig. 21.3. 19 Bagh 2013, figs. 13, 14. 20 See H einz et. al. 2011 and Catanzariti 2010. 21 H einz et al. 2010, pl. 31, fig. a.

The Role of Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa‘a Plain of Lebanon in the History of Avaris

Fig. 24 1–11 selected ceramic vessels from Kamid el-Loz; 12 Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglet (Metzger 2012, pl. 24, fig. 6)

165

166

Marlies Heinz and Antonietta Catanzariti

No.

Kamid el-Loz ceramic vessel types

Parallels

1

Carinated bowl

South-western Syria: Yabrud (Braemer and Al-Maqdissi 2002, 44, pl. XIV, n. 55) Levantine coast at Tell Arqa Phase M (Thalmann et al. 2006, pl. 98, nos. 1–19)

2

Carinated bowl

Beqa‘a Plain: Tell Hizzin (Genz and Sader 2010/2011, 143, fig. 3 no. 4). South-western Syria: Yabrud (Braemer and Al-Maqdissi 2002, 45, pl. XV, no. 62; Abou Assaf 1965, pl. 7/14; Abou Assaf 1967, pl. III/15) Southern Levant: Jericho (Kenyon 1965, 405, fig. 166)

3

Carinated bowl

Beqa‘a Plain: Tell el-Ghassil niveau X (Doumet-Serhal 1996, 194, pl. 12) Southern Levant: Shechem (Cole 1984, 126, pl. 14 d)

4

Carinated bowl

Beqa‘a Plain: Tell el-Ghasill, niveau X (Doumet-Serhal 1996, pl. 12, no. 2) South-western Syria: Yabrud (Braemer and Al-Maqdissi 2002, 44 pl. XIV: 55)

5

Platter

Beqa‘a Plain: Tell el-Ghassil niveau X (Doumet-Serhal 1996, 192, pl. 10 no. 8) Southern Levant: Shechem Strata XIX and XVIII (Cole 1984, 103, 21, pl. 2 figs. c, g, h), Beth-Shean Strata R-5–R-4 (Maeir 2007, 319, pl. 2, no. 7), Megiddo Stratum XII (Amiran 1970, 93, pl. 26, no. 7)

6

Platter

Southern Levant: Shechem Stratum XX (Cole 1984, 109, pl. 5, fig. 5)

7–8

Painted ware

Northern Levant: Ugarit (Schaeffer 1949, fig. 100, nos. 12–18; Courtois and Courtois 1978, 209, fig. 4.2), Sukas (Thrane 1978, 34, fig. 82), Beirut (Saidah 1993–1994, pl. 9.2), Sidon (Doumet-Serhal 2008, fig. 19 S/1762) Southern Levant: Tel Kabri (Kempinski et al. 2002, 124, fig. 5.22: 6)

9–10

Levantine Painted Ware with spiral motif

Beqa‘a Plain: Tell Hizzin (Genz and Sader 2010/2011, 145, fig. 5, no. 4) South-western Syria: Tell Sakka (Braemer and Al-Maqdissi 2002, 46), Mtoune (Braemer and Al-Maqdissi 2002, pl. XX-A, 106) Southern Levant: Tel Dan (Ilan 1996, 164, fig. 7, no. 9), Ifshar, ‘Ajjul, Megiddo (Bagh 2013, 227, fig. 40.d; 214 fig. 31.b; 237, fig. 47.l)

Fig. 25 Selected Kamid el-Loz ceramic vessel types with respective parallels

The Role of Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa‘a Plain of Lebanon in the History of Avaris

167

Fig. 26 Handled bowl from palace Room 8

although the combination of dots and straight and wavy lines are known on a cylindrical juglet from the southern Levant.22 One can suggest that Kamid el-Loz decorative pattern was a local result. Along with the Levantine Painted Ware, the so-called Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware is also found in Egypt and the Levant23 and two examples are documented at Kamid el-Loz to date (Fig. 24 nos. 11, 12). Due to the fragmentary state of the sherd and the broken juglet deriving from a previous excavation campaign,24 any interpretation on their type is difficult at this stage. Nevertheless, both the Levantine Painted Ware and the Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware are indicators of this common and shared practice of ceramic production.  Despite the paucity of archaeological remains and objects that can clarify Kamid el-Loz’s relationship with the Delta, there is evidence that it had strong contacts with the coastal Levant 25 and continued research on such sites strengthens this theory and corroborates the role of the Levant as a meeting point of cultures. Based on these connections, we may postulate that contacts between Kamid el-Loz and Tell elDab‘a did exist, especially considering the material collected at the sites and its ongoing examination for many years as part of the Tell el-Dab‘a research project.26 Documented parallels have been identified

22 I lan

1996, 169, fig. 10 n.1. and Bietak 2012. 24 M etzger 2012. 25 Kopetzky 2010. 26 See footnote 3 and Bietak 1986; 1991; 2002; 2007; Kopetzky 2008; Mourad 2015. 23 Aston

between the pottery of Tell el-Dab‘a and sites such as Sidon, Ashkelon 27 and Tell Ifshar28 in the southern Levant as well as Tell Fadous-Kfarabida and Tell Arqa in the northern Levant (Fig. 27).29 Pottery from the Levant has been reported at Tell el-Dab‘a, as exemplified in the comparative work performed on the Levantine Painted Ware from the site and additional Egyptian sites, such as Kom el-Hisn, Lisht, Kahun, Tell Edfu and Elephantine (Fig. 28).30 Kamid el-Loz within this vibrant setting of international contacts represents an important addition to the discussion on the relationship between Egypt and the Levant. The presence of a common pottery tradition in both Egypt and the Levantine hinterland adds to our knowledge on the cultural connections of this area and suggests that the focus was not only along the coast but stretched inland. In this networking system, Kamid el-Loz was well apt to entertain such relations. As the excavations demonstrate, during the Middle Bronze Age, the site was an urban settlement with an administrative structure and a possible point of linkage with southwestern Syria, where Egyptian material culture along with Levantine Painted Ware and Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware are documented. Several scholars have discussed the presence of additional varied categories of Egyptian material available in the southern and northern Levant, among

Stager and Voss 2011. Marcus et al. 2008. 29 Kopetzky 2010. 30 See Bagh 2013 for a comparative study of the Levantine 27

28

Painted Ware found in Egypt and the Levant.

168

Marlies Heinz and Antonietta Catanzariti Mediterranean Sea tai

ns

Tell Fadous Kfarabida

ou

nta

ins

Le ba no n

M

ou n

Byblos

M n no tiLe ba An

Sidon

Mediterranean Sea

Tell el-Dab‘a

Kom el-Hisn

Sinai Mt. Hermon

Litani

Lisht Faiyum

Kahun Lower Egypt

Lake Tiberias

Gulf of Suez

Nile

Tel Ifshar

Jordan

Ashkelon © GoogleDE, Data SIO, NOAA, U.S Navy, NGA, GEBCO Landsat/Copernicus

Dead Sea

N

0

50 km

10 20 30 40

Nile

Fig. 27 Levantine sites that have close parallels with ceramic vessels from Tell el-Dab‘a which are stone vessels and scarabs of Egyptian origin found in the inventories of several Levantine sites.31 The general assumption, as Badre has pointed out, is that along with other Egyptian artefacts recovered in the Levant, these were high-status gifts, a caveat that these are often much older than the context in which they were found. Such types of objects therefore raise questions of interpretation in relation to the matter of cultural contacts.32 That Egypt and the Levant had a mutual exchange relationship is evident in the material culture documented and found in both regions. This relationship could have been in the form of economic and/or diplomatic exchange, the latter having clearly intensified during the Late Bronze Age. Within this context, the site of Kamid el-Loz and other sites in

31 32

Bader 2011; Mourad 2015. Bader 2015; see also Ahrens 2010; Matthiae 2008. Compare as well the contribution by A hrens and Kopetzky in this volume; contra Ben-Tor in this volume.

Edfu

N

Elephantine

© GoogleDE, Data SIO, NOAA, U.S Navy, NGA, GEBCO Landsat/

Fig. 28 Egyptian sites with Levantine Painted Ware the Beqa‘a Plain have yet to be better understood.33 Kamid el-Loz had established exchange trajectories with its neighbouring regions, as demonstrated by the ceramic evidence, and these regions, in turn, had close contacts with the Egyptian Delta. Thus, it is possible that these circles of interactions overlapped in such

33

See: Ahrens 2016 for a discussion on the Egyptian objects found at Tell Hizzin.

The Role of Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa‘a Plain of Lebanon in the History of Avaris

a way that would have enabled direct or indirect contacts between Kamid el-Loz and Tell el-Dab‘a. As we have demonstrated, the exchange of cultural traditions and innovations between the Delta and the Beqa‘a Plain was possible, as reflected by the aforementioned data and modes of interaction described. Kamid el-Loz was not an isolated settlement, but rather a participant in the same Middle Bronze Age cultural milieu of the coastal Levant. However, we are still seeking the mechanisms by which these contacts may have taken place and, if they had indeed, whether these were direct or indirect. Furthermore, as part of our ongoing research program we examine the political framework in which these potential contacts may have emerged; this may shed light also on the level of acquaintance between these two sites and on the form of interaction between the Beqa‘a Plain and the Delta region.

Outlook and Further Research

Numerous questions arose during our examination of the local developments at Kamid el-Loz and its connections with neighbouring regions. These questions relate to the causes and circumstances of these developments as well as to their consequences. One overriding interest in our reflections on Kamid el-Loz and its connections concerns the city’s involvement in the regional and interregional political developments and in the local, regional and supraregional economic networks throughout its settlement history, and the city’s role in each of these arenas. We presented earlier (see Walk through History) the diverse political development at the site and in the region and supra-region arenas over the course of 2,000 years. We postulate that during the Middle Bronze Age, Kamid el-Loz was an autonomous city. In the course of the Late Bronze Age, it came under foreign rule for the first time with the rise of Egyptian imperialism. This form of occupation continued with the expansion of the Persian Empire and later in the days of the Hellenistic and Roman imperialism. In Iron Age I–II, however, we see neither urban structures nor the influence of imperialist foreign rule. Kamid el-Loz was at that time a village that displayed no discernible signs of institutionalised powers or elites, be they secular (palace) or religious (temple). However, regardless of the settlement and political situation of the site, we can point out the existence of geographically far-reaching relations between the inhabitants of Kamid el-Loz and other sites and regions. In our ongoing research (‘Kamid el-Loz and its Neighbours: Economic Activities as Social Practice’, in preparation) we will first address the question of how different political orders (political autonomy of an urban society; societies under imperialist rule, village communities without visible signs of an institutionalised hierarchical order) affected the opportunity of or the requirements from the communities of Kamid el-Loz

169

to participate in the geographically broad economic network. We investigate further the question of how the integration of Kamid el-Loz into these networks influenced the socio-cultural developments and the social cohesion in the city. Regarding another topic, we deal with the question of the roles and functions Kamid el-Loz had taken on in the political and economic networks. This relates further to the city’s significance for the function of these networks. We are therefore interested in the significance that the political and economic conditions during those times had for the social, cultural, political and economic development at Kamid el-Loz and what significance these had, in turn, for the development and function of the aforementioned networks. Our observations on the Middle Bronze Age conditions at Kamid el-Loz underline mainly phenomena related to the economic behaviour of the inhabitants, whose motivations and needs regarding both the local and interregional spheres we wish to understand. Economic activities are always a part of the social practices that a community engages in. Consequently, we may ask how and why the participation of Kamid el-Loz in the interregional economic network had become possible or even necessary, and for whom. Who in the urban communities of City 1 and City 2 – both characterised, inter alia, by their institutionalised hierarchical orders – had initiated the foreign policy and economic events, the economic activities in the city’s foreign relations and why? Who had participated in these events, controlled them and benefited from the exchanges? A preliminary and general reference to the participants of these economic interactions can be given: it appears that these included both the so-called general population and the so-called elites. The participation of the so-called general population can be deduced from the needs that had to be met for the exchange to take place – in particular the production of surplus. The social, political, cultural and economic conditions of the urban communities at Kamid el-Loz had obviously produced surplus, thus guaranteeing them a place in this market. Though surplus generators were likely commoners, we do not know who exactly they were, nor the nature of the quid pro quos supplied by Kamid el-Loz. We are currently exploring both topics. The participation of the political elite in the farreaching trade relations is not merely assumed, but well documented by objects originating in the palace of Kamid el-Loz. These finds also indicate that the elite not only partook in the exchange but was amongst those who profited from it. With further investigations of the inventories of the temples and the residential areas, we hope to gain more detailed insights into the composition of both groups – those who had created the surplus and those who had profited from the economic activities. We asked earlier what influence the integration of Kamid el-Loz into the networks had on the socio-

170

Marlies Heinz and Antonietta Catanzariti

cultural developments and on the social cohesion at Kamid el-Loz. We associate this reflection first with questions about the triggers of the anomies, that is, why they came about. Were they triggered by local, regional or supra-regional events? Were there local political, economic or social problems or domestic conflicts that led to violence and destruction, or did non-local crises or conflicts, such as ecological conditions, war and raids, lead to the dire consequences at Kamid el-Loz? We should also consider problems that may emerge in complex networks of interregional interaction and may pose a threat to the smooth functioning of the system. An immanent systemic problem outside Kamid el-Loz could well have led to internal political difficulties at the site, which, in turn, would have found its expression in violence, destruction and, finally, the abandonment of the settlement. So, whether and to what extent the causes of the disruptions in the settlement may have been based on problems arising from the integration of the cities into the supraregional networks are some of the concerns we are pursuing in our ongoing research. We inquire the causes of the anomies and at the same time review their consequences, both for the population of Kamid el-Loz and for the system of long-distance relations. We have shown the internal consequences of the anomies: most inhabitants had left the city and it was used only for intermittent activities. The next questions we asked regarded the roles and functions of Kamid el-Loz in the political and economic networks and the city’s significance for the functioning of these networks. This becomes particularly significant against the background of the anomies. What effects did these anomies have on the function of the supra-regional networks if at all? How does the failure of a participant in a network affect the latter’s function? In particular in the present case, the question is: Was Kamid el-Loz so significant that the anomies and thus the absence of Kamid el-Loz as a partner in the far-reaching network could have affected ‘international cohesion’? Migration was a Middle Bronze Age phenomenon that may have had local and regional as well as supraregional causes, and which, in any case, had local, regional and supra-regional consequences, as the findings from Kamid el-Loz and Tell el-Dab‘a show. Emigration and immigration are proven for the site of Kamid el-Loz through the anomies and reurbanisation activity. Inhabitants of Kamid elLoz had left the site; where they went is an open question. People had re-populated the site; who they were and where they came from is also still unanswered. When immigrating to Kamid elLoz the new settlers preserved visible signs of the former order, such as the town’s plan, i.e., the visible regional planning was retained. At the same time, they set unmistakable signs for the beginning of a new order and erected palace buildings in both

City 2 and City 3, which clearly differed in form. At Tell el-Dab‘a, too, several signs of the prevailing system changed in connection with the migration and were also made visible particularly (but not exclusively) by the design of the iconic buildings.34 We are thus dealing with the questions of what happens when migration takes place: what happens to traditions, to bodies of knowledge that the migrant community ‘inherently’ possesses, and, in turn, how do the new-comers affect local traditions and bodies of knowledge of the communities they encounter in the places where they settle? The methodological challenge of demonstrating migration processes by analysing material legacies found in the archaeological contexts is obvious. Bioarchaeology analyses have made it possible to provide evidence for migration of specific people in the past.35 We hope that it provides answers to some of our questions about Kamid el-Loz. With this outlook on future research, we return to the study we mentioned earlier on the investigations of skeletal remains from Tell el-Dab‘a and Kamid el-Loz and to its results indicating possible contacts between the sites. As far as we can see, this study was not further considered with regard to the questions of migration from the Levant to the Delta. One reason might be that the comparisons taken from Kamid el-Loz originated in the Persian cemetery. Following our excavations at the site with the expedition of the University of Freiburg, skeletal remains from Middle Bronze Age contexts are now available – skeletons from the pit and from the burial in the administrative area of the time of the second anomie. Bioarchaeological analyses of the new evidence together with the research results on the skeletons from Tell el-Dab‘a may provide us with new insights into interregional contacts between the sites and the migration during the Hyksos period. Consequently, it may afford also new insight on possible direct contacts between Kamid el-Loz and Tell el-Dab‘a. If it becomes possible to answer these questions – though we are aware of the methodological challenges they pose – they may provide new incentives for our sociocultural, political and socio-economic research. Last but not least, we may be able to answer more comprehensively the question raised in the title of our contribution: Did Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa‘a Plain of Lebanon play a role in the history of Avaris and did the hinterland of the northern Levant have any bearing on the Delta affairs? 34 See

footnote 3 and in particular Bader 2013, 2015, 2017; Bietak 1991, 2002; Kopetzky 2008; Mourad 2015. Compare also the contribution by Bietak in this volume. 35 Regarding the aims and objectives of bioarchaeology see Binder 2018. Compare also the contribution by K harobi et al. in this volume.

The Role of Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa‘a Plain of Lebanon in the History of Avaris

171

Bibliography A bou Assaf, A. 1965 Rapport préliminaire sur les fouilles des tombes de Yabroud, Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 15.2, 59–80. A hrens, A. 2010 A Stone Vessel of Princess Itakayet of the 12th Dynasty from Tomb VII at Tell Mishrife/Qatna (Syria), Ägypten & Levante 21, 15–29. 2016 The Egyptian Objects from Tell Hizzin in the Beqaá Valley (Lebanon): An Archaeological and Historical Reassessment, Ägypten & Levante 25, 201–222. A l-M aqdissi, M. 1993 Chronique des activités archéologiques en Syrie (I), Syria 70.3–4, 443–560. A miran, R. 1970 Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land; from its Beginnings in the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age, New Brunswick, N.J. Aston, D.A. and Bietak, M. 2012 Tell el-Dab‘a VIII: The Classification and Chronology of Tell el-Yahudiya Ware, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 12, Vienna. Bader, B. 2011 Contacts Between Egypt and Syria-Palestine as seen in a Grown Settlement of the Late Middle Kingdom at Tell el-Daba/Egypt, in: J. Mynářová (ed.), Egypt and the Near East – The Crossroads. Proceedings of an International Conference on the Relations of Egypt and the Near East in the Bronze Age, Prague, September 1–3, 2010, Prague, 41–72. 2013 Cultural Mixing in Egyptian Archaeology: The ‘Hyksos’ as a Case Study, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28.1, 257–286. 2015 Egypt and the Bronze Age Mediterranean: An Archaeological Evidence, in: Ch. R iggs (ed.), Oxford Handbooks online, DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935413.013.35 (last accessed January 2021). 2017 Zwischen Text, Bild und Archäologie – Eine Problemdarstellung zur Konzeptualisierung von Kulturkontakten, in: S. Beck, B. Backes and A. Verbovsek (eds.), Kontakt – Konflikt – Konzeptualisierung, Beiträge des Sechsten Berliner Arbeitskreises Junge Aegyptologie (BAJA 6) 13.– 15.11.2015, Göttinger Orientforschung IV.63, Wiesbaden, 13–34. Bagh, T. 2013 Tell el-Dab‘a XXIII: Levantine Painted Ware from Egypt and the Levant, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 37, Vienna. Bietak, M. 1986 Avaris and Piramesse, Archeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta, Proceedings of the British Academy 65 (1979), Oxford. 1991 Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 281, 28–72.

2007 Egypt and the Levant, in: T. Wilkinson (ed.), The Egyptian World, London, 417–448. 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. International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna. Binder, M. 2018 Bioarchäologie am Österreichischen Archäologischen Institut. Neue Wege in der interdisziplinären Erforschung archäologischer Stätten, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien, Vienna. Braemer, F. and A l-M aqdissi, M. 2002 La ceramique du Bronze Moyen dans la Syrie du Sud, in: M. A l-M aqdissi, V. M atoïan and Ch. Nicolle (eds.), Céramique de l’Age du Bronze en Syrie I, Beyrouth, 23–50. Catanzariti, A. 2010 Middle Bronze Age ceramic vessels from Kamid elLoz, Berytus 53, 47–80. 2011 Some Preliminary Remarks Concerning the Pottery of the 2010 and 2011 Seasons: The Middle Bronze Age Pottery, in: M. Heinz, E. Wagner-Durand, J. Linke and A. Catanzariti, Kamid el-Loz. Report on the Excavations 2010 and 2011, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaise 15 (published 2014), 63–83. https://freidok.uni-freiburg.de/ data/12962 2015 The Archaeology of Economic Systems in the Central Levant during the Middle Bronze Age: A Case Study from Kamid el-Loz (Lebanon), UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2015. https:// escholarship.org/uc/item/6wz322t9 (last accessed January 2021). Cole, D.P. 1984 Shechem I: The Middle Bronze IIB Pottery, American Schools of Oriental Research, Winona Lake, IN. Courtois, J.-C. and Courtois, L. 1978 Corpus céramique de Ras Shamra – Ugarit: Niveaux historique d’Ugarit – Bronze Moyen et Bronze Recent, in: C.F.A. Schaeffer (ed.), Ugaritica VII, Paris, 191–370. Doumet-Serhal, C. 1996 Les fouilles de Tell El-Ghassil de 1972 à 1974: étude du matériel, Beyrouth. 2008 The British Museum Excavation at Sidon: Markers for the Chronology of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon, in: M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds.), The Bronze Age in the Lebanon: Studies on the Archaeology and Chronology of Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 17, Vienna, 11–44.

172

Marlies Heinz and Antonietta Catanzariti

Genz, H. and Sader, H. 2010/ Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Tell Hizzin, 2011 Lebanon, Berytus 53–54, 133–146. Heinz, M., Bonatz, D., Gilibert, A., Heckmann, H., Holzer, I., Jauss, C., K irchhofer, J., K nötzele, P., Petersen L., Sommer, M. and Zaven, T. 2001 Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa’a plain / Lebanon. Continuity and Change in the Settlement of a Region, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaise 5, 5–91. https://freidok.uni-freiburg.de/data/8839 Heinz, M., Gross, A., John, E., K irsch, L., Kulemann-Ossen, S., Lengerich, L. von, Leschke, Ch., Nieling, J., Rüden, C. von und Wagner, E. 2004 Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa’a plain/Lebanon. Excavations in 2001, 2002 and 2004, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaise 8 (published 2005), 83–118. https://freidok.uni-freiburg.de/data/8840 Heinz, M., Kulemann-Ossen, S., Linke, J. and Wagner, E. 2006 Notes on the 2005 Season at Kamid el-Loz – From the Romans to the Late Bronze Age, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaise 10 (published 2008), 85–102. https://freidok.uni-freiburg. de/data/8832 Heinz, M., Wagner, E., Linke, J., Walther, A., Catanzariti, A., Müller, J.-M. and Weber, M. 2010 Kamid el-Loz – Report on the Excavations in 2008 and 2009, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaise 14 (published 2012), 9–134. https:// freidok.uni-freiburg.de/data/11291 Heinz, M., Wagner-Durand, E., Linke, J. and Catanzariti, A. 2011 Kamid el-Loz. Report on the Excavations 2010 and 2011, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture 15 (published 2014), 29–108. https://freidok.uni-freiburg.de/data/12962 Heinz, M. 2016 Kamid el-Loz. 4000 Years and More of Rural and Urban Life in the Lebanese Beqa‘a Plain, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon. Special Issue, Beyrouth. https://freidok.uni-freiburg.de/data/155245 2017 Kamid el-Loz – A Short Story in 900 Words. http://asorblog.org/2017/03/14/kamid-el-loz-shortstory-900-words/ Heinz, M. (ed.) 2010 Kamid el-Loz. Intermediary Between Cultures. More than 10 Years of Archaeological Research in Kamid el-Loz (1997 to 2007), Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 7. https://freidok. uni-freiburg.de/data/8831 Ilan, D. 1996 Middle Bronze Age Painted Pottery from Tel Dan, Levant 28.1, 157–176. 1998 The Dawn of Internationalism – The Middle Bronze Age, in: Th. Evan Levy (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, London, 297–319. K amid el-Loz online https://www.vorderasien.uni-freiburg.de/grabungen

K empinski, A., Angel-Zohar, N., Scheftelowitz, N. and Oren, R. 2002 Tel Kabri: The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons, Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv. K enyon, K.M. 1965 Excavations at Jericho II: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8, London. Kopetzky, K. 2007 Pottery from Tell Arqa found in Egypt and its Chronological Contexts, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 26–27, 17–58. 2008 The Middle Bronze Age Corpus of the Hyksos Period in Tell el-Dab‘a, in: M. Bietak (ed.), The Bronze Age in the Lebanon. Studies on the Archaeology and Chronology of Lebanon, Syria and Egypt, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 17, Vienna, 196–242. 2010 Egyptian Pottery from the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon, Berytus 53, 167–179. Kühne, H. and Salje, B. 1996 Die Glyptik, Kamid El-Loz 15, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 56, Bonn. Kulemann-Ossen, S., Leicht, M. and Heinz, M. 2007 Kamid el-Loz. A Reloading Point in the LongDistance Trade during the Hellenistic Period?, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 26–27, 168–181. https://freidok.uni-freiburg.de/data/8834 Kunter, M. 1977 Kāmid el-Lōz 4. Anthropologische Untersuchung der menschlichen Skelettreste aus dem eisenzeitlichen Friedhof, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 19, Bonn. M aeir, A.M. 2007 The Middle Bronze Age II Pottery, in: A. M āzār (ed.), Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean: 1989–1996, Vol 2, The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, Jerusalem, 242–389. M arcus, E., Porath, Y., Schiestl, R., Seiler, A. and Paley, S.M. 2008 The Middle Kingdom Egyptian Pottery from Middle Bronze Age IIa Tel Ifshar, Ägypten & Levante 18, 204–219. M arfoe, L., H achmann, R., Misamer, Ch. and Froese, M. 1998 Settlement History of the Biqa up to the Iron Age, Kamid el-Loz 14, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 53, Bonn. M atthiae, P. 2008 Ebla, in: J. A ruz, K. Benzel and J.M. Evans (eds.), Beyond Babylon, Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C., New York, 38–39. Metzger, M. 2012 Die mittelbronzezeitlichen Tempelanlagen T4 und T5, Kamid El-Loz 17, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 71, Bonn.

The Role of Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa‘a Plain of Lebanon in the History of Avaris

173

Mourad, A.-L. 2015 Rise of the Hyksos: Egypt and the Levant from the Middle Kingdom to the Early Second Intermediate Period, Archaeopress Egyptology 11, Oxford.

Thalmann, J.-P., Charaf-Mullins, H., Coqueugniot, E. and Gernez, G. 2006 Tell Arqa I: les niveaux de l’âge du Bronze, Beyrouth.

Saidah, R. 1993/ Beirut in the Bronze Age: The Kharji Tombs, 1994 Berytus 41, 137–207.

Thrane, H. 1978 Sūkās IV: A Middle Bronze Age Collective Grave on Tall Sūkās, Copenhagen.

Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1949 Ugaritica II: Mission de Ras Shamra V, Paris. Stager, L.E. and Voss, R.J. 2011 Egyptian Pottery in Middle Bronze Age Ashkelon, Eretz Israel 30, 119–126. Steiner, M.L. and K illebrew, A.E. (eds.) 2014 The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant, c. 8000–332 BCE, Oxford.

Winkler, E.-M. and Wilfing, H. 1991 Tell el-Dab‘a IV: Anthropologische Untersuchungen an den Skelettresten der Kampagnen 1966– 69, 1975–1980, 1985, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 9, Vienna. Yadin, Y., A haroni, Y., A miran, R., K rakauer Dothan, T., Dunayevsky, I., Perrot, J. and Angress, S. 1960 Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956, The James A. de Rothschild Expedition at Hazor, Jerusalem.

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

175

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon: Preliminary Observations by Hanan Charaf 1

Abstract1

Introduction

The Middle Bronze Age (hereafter, MBA) is a time of intense economic exchange in the Levant. After a period of decline that disrupted cultural and economic interaction in the southern Levant and Mesopotamia during the Early Bronze Age IV (2500–2000 BCE), urbanism prevailed again throughout the Levant. Settlements flourished, regional and international relations resumed, and trade expanded significantly, extending to new regions such as Crete and Cyprus.2 The cultural koinè of the Middle Bronze Age was thus born, with characteristics identified mainly from the Southern Levant where extensive archaeological investigations defined, for over a century, the cultural paysage of the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE. In western Syria, information on the Middle Bronze Age came mainly from the large excavations on the Orontes Valley and the Idlib province; coastal evidence from Ugarit and Tell Sukas deemed spotty, with meagre and inconclusive results due to poor publications. In Lebanon, Middle Bronze Age cultural characterization depended heavily on Egyptian and Palestinian correspondences, whether textual or material; a dependency that would phagocyte for a long time any discussion on the indigenous traits of the Middle Bronze Age in the country. The exceptional findings from Byblos contributed largely in quelling original reflections on this period, and the lengthy Civil War (1975–1990) applied the coup de grace on archaeological activity in the country. However, as of 1993, relative stability encouraged initiating or resuming fieldwork in many regions resulting in an unprecedented volume of new evidential records for the Middle Bronze Age. This new welcome data facilitated the attempt at identifying regionalism in Lebanon through specifying architectural and material cultural markers.

In Lebanon, the Middle Bronze Age witnesses a period of continuous development from the preceding Early Bronze Age IV (2500–2000 BCE).3 During the EB IV, the central and northern coastal plain and parts of the upper Beka‘a Valley do not seem to have been particularly affected by the decline witnessed in other areas of the Near East; indeed, the coast of Lebanon was largely unfazed by the turmoil in Syria and Palestine. Urbanism along the northern coast at the sites of Tell Arqa and Byblos, and to a lesser extent at Tell Fadous, continued without interruption, contrary to Tyre and Sidon in the south where EB IV is either scanty or yet to be attested.4 The peaceful conditions that prevailed in the Near East at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE saw a resurgence of widespread urbanism in Lebanon. This allowed reinvigorated sites to flourish and to develop or renew political and economic ties with neighbouring regions, as well as with Egypt,5 Cyprus,6 Anatolia7 and Crete.8 Unfortunately, there is still much we do not know about the MBA culture in Lebanon. This is primarily due to the paucity of excavated sites and a lack of publishing past excavations.

1 Lebanese

5

University; [email protected]. This study of the cultural markers during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon and Western Syria is part of the ERC Advanced Grant ‘The Enigma of the Hyksos’. The author wishes to thank M. Bietak for entrusting her with this aspect of the project. The author wishes also to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive remarks. This article was written during the Covid–19 pandemic at a time when research libraries were not open. The author apologises and asks that readers understand any bibliographic shortcomings. 2 For an overview of recent literature on the Middle Bronze Age, see K lengel 1992; M azar 1992, 174–231; A kkermans and Schwartz 2003, 289–326; M argueron and Pfirsch 2005, 186–217; van De Mieroop 2007, 85– 122; Burke 2014; Cohen 2014; Frankel 2014; Morandi Bonacossi 2014; Greenberg 2019, 180–271.

3 For 4

6

7

8

an overview of the Middle Bronze Age period in Lebanon, see Charaf 2014. Bikai 1978, 6; Doumet-Serhal (2006a, 60) suggested extending the EB III cultural horizon at Sidon-College Site until the end of the 3rd millennium BCE. However, Calibrated Carbon 14 dates of one of the last EB III structures at the site situate the terminus ante quem to c. 2600 BCE (R amsey and Doumet-Serhal 2006) according with recent strings of Calibrated Carbon 14 dates from sites on the Levantine coast placing the end of the EB III at c. 2500 BCE (R egev et al. 2012; Höflmayer et al. 2014; Höflmayer et al. 2016a; M archetti et al. forthcoming; Thalmann 2016, 31–33). Note also the few EB IV tombs discovered in southern Lebanon hinting to settlement models that are yet to be identified and defined (Genz and Sader 2007/2008, 261–262). As attested particularly from Byblos (Montet 1928; Kopetzky 2018) and Sidon (Forstner-Müller, Kopetzky and Doumet-Serhal 2006; Kopetzky 2011/2012). On the trade relationships with Cyprus from the pottery viewpoint see Charaf 2010/2011. Lead isotopes analyses of bronze jewellery and weapons from Sidon indicate Cypriot as well as Cretan origins suggesting exchanges from the onset of the 2nd millennium BCE (Veron, Poirier and le Roux, 2009, 72). Analyses of silver artefacts from tombs at Sidon indicate that the ore originated from the Aladag region in the central Taurus Mountains (Veron and le Roux, 2004, 35). Judging from lead isotope analyses (see footnote 6) and the Kamares Ware vessels found in tombs from Beirut and Sidon (respectively, Saidah 1993/1994, 164–165; Macgillivray 2003).

© by the author This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc by 4.0 license DOI: 10.13173/9783447117371.175

176

Hanan Charaf

Fig. 1 Map of Lebanon showing the main Middle Bronze Age sites cited in the text (© Hanan Charaf). The current natural border in the north is the Nahr el-Kebir River (ancient Eleutherus) separating the Lebanese Akkar Plain from the Syrian one and leading east to the Homs Gap. The Mediterranean Sea is the natural border to the west. The current southern border is at the base of the ‘Ladder of Tyre’ at Ras an-Naqourah, and the Anti-Lebanon mountain chain constitutes the natural eastern borderline

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

When investigating potential cultural borders in Lebanon, one has to take into account the geography of the country. Lebanon consists of four distinct geographical regions: The coastal plain and the two mountain chains of Mount Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon framing the Beka‘a Valley in between (Fig. 1). Topography and natural borders of each region regulated its access to resources, determined the number and location of human settlements, influenced the range and types of inter and intra connections, and we posit, shaped to a certain degree the nature, characteristics and extent of the material culture. The question is – do these geographical regions also constitute cultural regions, and if so, does each region have a particular set of material culture characteristics, or does it share common traits with the other regions? In order to test this hypothesis, we have to turn to the available material culture. Before delving into the available archaeological data, there is a need to clarify the thorny issue of the relative chronology and its correspondence with available absolute dates. The traditional tripartite system used in the Southern Levant and Syria is difficult to implement in Lebanon due to the fewer Middle Bronze Age sites. As a result, a two-fold division into MB I and MB II is favoured, but subdivisions are sometimes used copying Syrian or Palestinian chronologies. While MB I subdivisions are rare, MB IIB and MB IIC/III are more frequently used in literature by scholars familiar with southern Levantine archaeology such as C. Doumet-Serhal for Sidon9 and Tell el-Ghassil.10 Calibrated Carbon 14 dates available from Tell Arqa/Irqata and Tell el-Burak established the beginning of the MB I at around 2000 BCE.11 The transition from the MB I to the MB II is more problematic. Tell el-Burak places the end of the MB I in the first half of the 19th century BCE12 while Tell Arqa pins it to around 1850/1800 calBC.13 Sidon has not yet published their 14C sequence but burial studies established the beginning of the MB II to 1750/1700 BCE14 following the more traditional date given to the end of this period. The dates assigned to the end of the Middle Bronze Age vary from 1560 to 1500 BCE. None are supported by 14C determinations, but are based instead on correlations with Palestinian or Egyptian chronologies.15 A syn9 Doumet-Serhal

2004a. 1996, 6–7. 11 For Arqa, see Thalmann 2006, 86. For Tell el-Burak, see Höflmayer, Dee and R iehl 2019, 226 for the beginning of the Monumental Building. 12 Höflmayer, Dee and R iehl 2019, 226. 13 Thalmann 2006, 135. 14 Doumet-Serhal 2014, 34. 15 K. Kopetzky undertook a project, as part of a Marie Curie Grant, to correlate Bronze Age sequences in the Levant with that of Tell Dab‘a. Many articles were published on aspects of this research. See for examples, ForstnerMüller and Kopetzky 2009 and Doumet-Serhal and Kopetzky 2011/2012. 10 Doumet-Serhal

177

chronism of different dating systems was attempted in our 2014 article and will be finalized once the material culture clusters in Lebanon are fully identified and researched. Therefore, all dates offered in this article, whether relative or absolute, reprise the chronological systems used by the excavators. Hence, MB IIA for Sidon vs. MB I for Arqa. An accurate understanding of the settlement pattern during the Middle Bronze Age is still difficult to achieve for Lebanon. However, future results from recent surveys in the northern and southern coastal plains and in the Beka‘a will certainly improve the settlement mapping in the country.16 Already, the few surveys carried out in the Akkar Plain17 and the Beka‘a Valley18 indicate that the Middle Bronze Age is one of the chief periods of human occupation in Lebanon. To date, only 28 excavated sites yielded occupation dated to the Middle Bronze Age (Fig. 1); nine of those are burial sites dotting the hills of Mount Lebanon, some of which were found during salvage excavations and not linked to a settlement. The 19 other settlements were mainly established on the coast near bays or in the Beka‘a Valley along the international corridor which linked the Southern Levant to the hinterland of Syria.19 Archaeological mounds do not exceed 5–8 hectares in area for the larger ones. These likely functioned as political entities or city-states and controlled a network of smaller sites within a 15–20 km radius as evidenced by surveys in north Lebanon 20 and the Beka‘a Valley. Although surveys in Northern Lebanon hint at a smooth transition between the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age, the few excavated sites in the country indicate a change in the nature of occupation at the beginning of the MB I on some sites such as Arqa, Sidon and Tell el-Ghassil which were converted into cemeteries before reverting at different points to other types of urban arrangement. Only Byblos and the short-lived Monumental Building of Tell el-Burak display affluent urbanism. Some scholars, such as J.-P. Thalmann, propose the arrival of peaceful newcomers

16

The Kubba Coastal Survey (Bryn Mawr College); NoLep

Project in the Koura region south of Tripoli (University of Udine and Lebanese University); The Tell Mirhan Survey in the hinterland of this coastal site (OREA, Vienna and the American University of Beirut); The Shawakeer/Ras el-Ain Survey south of Tyre (Sapienza University and Lebanese University); The Southern Beka‘a Survey (Chubu University, Japan and Lebanese University). 17 Bartl 1998/1999; 2002a; 2002b. 18 Kuschke 1978, 24 sites yielded Middle Bronze Age pottery; M arfoe 1995. 19 For an overview of the settlement implantations and characteristics during the Middle Bronze Age, see Charaf 2014, 437–438. Cf. also Thalmann 2006, 209– 223 and Thalmann 2007 for the Akkar Plain. 20 Thalmann 2006, 211–215; 2007, 220–222.

178

Hanan Charaf

(Amorites?21) from inland Syria who brought with them new storage methods (built silos – later recycled into tombs22), pottery shapes and weapons (duckbill axes).23 It is not until the second half of the MB I and especially the MB II that urbanism will be widespread in the country with domestic, palatial and religious structures.

Archaeological Architecture

Evidence:

Urban

Built

The small number of excavated Middle Bronze Age sites does not allow for a clear and uniform picture of the architectural traditions customary of the period. However, available data from Tell Arqa and Kamid elLoz/Kumidi,24 where careful excavations uncovered an uninterrupted occupational sequence, indicate that the main phase of prosperous urban development occurred during the MB II even though urban characteristics inherited from the Early Bronze Age were already present during the MB I.25 From other accessible information from Tell el-Burak and Sidon, it seems that the MB I did not attain its full inception until around the end of the 20th century BCE, concordant with the latest dating for the beginning of the MB I.26 Major centres enjoyed wealth as evidenced by urban built models composed of imposing fortifications, administrative and palatial buildings, royal and elite tombs and luxurious imports. Monumental constructions require tremendous effort and resources to execute, and only a strong centralized authority such as a polity would have the required means to carry them out. Despite the faulty excavation methods utilized by M. Dunand, Byblos still remains the main Lebanese Middle Bronze Age site housing the different architectural constituents, requisites for an urban city – temples, a sacred well, royal and elite tombs and

has been written on these populations who emerged during the 3rd millennium and spread across the Levant at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE. They are usually portrayed as nomads who acted as mercenaries, hired warriors or military invaders and social immigrants wandering the coastal Levant and Egypt. They are credited novel types of tombs, storage facilities, cultic structures and weapons. For the latest scholarship on the Amorites including past theories and new reassessment, see Burke 2020. 22 Tomb-silos were found in Level 14 at Arqa (Thalmann 2007, 229–230) and in Amrit in Syria (Dunand, Saliby and K irichian 1954/1955: 194–200; A l–M aqdissi 1995). 23 Thalmann 2007, 229. 24 Cf. the contribution by H einz and Catanzariti in this volume. 25 Slightly similar situation is also present at Hazor which was not fortified during the MB I (Höflmayer et al. 2016b, 13). 26 Höflmayer 2017, 22.

an elaborate defensive system – all served by a port recently identified south of the ancient mound by a team of French–Lebanese archaeologists.27 A dearth of systematic excavation of satellite or smaller sites, or of hamlets and farms in the coastal plains, mountains and the Beka‘a poses real problems for understanding suburban or rural architectural models. The overview below presents the latest updates on architectural evidence from the Middle Bronze Age.

Defensive Architecture

Eight sites: Tell Arqa, Arde, Tell Mirhan, Tell Fadous, Byblos, Beirut, Douris, Kamid el–Loz. One of the most important realisations of the Middle Bronze Age is the defensive system that protected the main power centres. It involved imposing ramparts buttressed with watchtowers and fortified gates. In Lebanon, ramparts are attested in two forms: upright stone walls (Tell Fadous28 and Beirut29) or earthen (Arde, Tell Mirhan, Beirut,30 Kamid el-Loz31) and stone glacis (Byblos and Douris).32 The spectacular fortifications of Byblos consisted of a massive sloping glacis made of dirt and stone foundations and mudbrick superstructures.33 At least three fortified corridor gates led inside the city; some had stepped ramps to assist the chariotry. Recently, a new glacis that is yet to be pegged to Dunand’s glacis series was uncovered behind the so-called Hyksos Glacis (Fig. 2).34 During the last four years, Middle Bronze Age earthen or stone glacis were discovered at the coastal sites of Arde/Ardata (Fig. 3), Tell Merhan and in Douris in the Beka‘a Valley (Fig. 4). Arqa in the Akkar Plain (Figs. 5–6) and Kamid el-Loz in the Beka‘a share the same defensive plan made of a series of linked rectangular rooms with a saw-edge profile and flanked by alternating watchtowers.35

21 Much

Byblos et La Mer: Francis-A llouche and Grimal 2016; 2017. 28 Genz 2010/2011, fig. 2. A staircase was uncovered on the outside of the fortification wall. 29 Badre 1997, 28–30. These walls are preserved to a height of 12 m and date to the MB II. 30 Badre 1997, 23 and Badre 2001/2002, 3, MB I. 31 H einz 2016, 66, MB II. 32 We won’t delve here into the functions of the glacis: whether standalone fortification or meant to prevent erosion of the slope of an archaeological mound as advocated by Burke (2008, 48). 33 Dunand 1954, pl. 212; 1963, 25. 34 Chaaya 2018, fig. 7. Pottery recovered from the layers covering the glacis belong to the MB I, EB II–III and Chalcolithic periods (Charaf forthcoming a). 35 Respectively Thalmann 2006, 56, fig. 17b and M arfoe 1995, 104. 27 Project

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

179

Fig. 2 Top view of the glacis that was uncovered in 2015 under the eastern curtain wall of the medieval castle (photo courtesy of Anis Chaaya; © The Archaeological Expedition of the Lebanese University to Byblos Castle)

Fig. 3 Section showing the sloping layers of the earthen glacis at Tell Arde (ancient Ardata), a site located 10 km east of Tripoli (photo courtesy of Anis Chaaya; © The Archaeological Expedition of the Lebanese University to Tell Arde)

180

Hanan Charaf

Fig. 4 Top view of the stone glacis of Tell Douris (© Hanan Charaf; The Tell Douris Excavation Project)

Fig. 5 Plan of the Level 13 of Tell Arqa showing the three segments of the MBII rampart on the western flank of the tell (after Thalmann 2006, 52, fig. 17b)

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

181

Fig. 6 Photo of Level 13 rampart at Tell Arqa. Rampart 13.19 and 13.20 is more than 2 m thick and runs along the border of the tell (after Thalmann 2006, pl. 31a)

Palatial/Monumental Administrative Architecture

Two sites: Tell el-Burak, Kamid el-Loz Palatial structures are extremely underrepresented in Lebanon. Only two sites have such buildings. Kamid el-Loz produced parts of a large palace and an adjoining administrative quarter dated to the MB II. The plan of the palace is not yet complete but it shows a massive outer wall, probably running the length of the structure, and a series of rooms abutting a courtyard.36 (Fig. 7) This palace was burnt during the MB II before it was rebuilt according to the same plan.37 It was burnt again at the end of the MB II. The historical events that caused or led to the two fire destructions are still unknown. According to A. Catanzariti, Room 7 of this palace showed evidence of communal feasting with great quantities of carinated bowls, juglets and platters, as well as two stands similar to those found in temples on the site.38 A neighbouring MB II imposing structure, whose floorplan is not yet delineated, was deemed an

36 H einz

2004, 575–579; 2010, 153–180; 2016, 58–62, 83– 89; Catanzariti 2015, 205, fig. 1. 37 Cf. the contribution by H einz and Catanzariti in this volume. 38 Catanzariti 2015, 51–52.

administrative centre by M. Heinz owing to numerous seal impressions found on jar bodies and handles.39 The Tell el-Burak MB I Monumental Building was erected on an artificial mound 16 m high, a complex construction and engineering feat made of massive mudbrick infrastructural and revetment walls, ramparts and a retaining glacis.40 The walls and floor of one of the rooms, Room 10, were decorated with wall paintings depicting Egyptian hunting scenes similar to those found in the Egyptian Middle Kingdom tombs at Beni Hassan.41 These wall paintings are the first to appear from a Middle Bronze Age site in Lebanon. The function of this building is still debated. The floorplan and the construction methods are similar to the fort architecture at Nitovikla in Cyprus42 or to 39 H einz

2016, 61–62. One has to be aware of the reserves that certain scholars express in granting a de facto administrative function to any building that yields seal impressions. In his article of 2013, Thalmann listed his grievances against such automatic correlation for the Early Bronze Age. 40 K amlah and Sader 2019, 87–234. Almost similar massive foundations but sans glacis were uncovered in the Royal Palace of Qatna erected later, at the beginning of the MB II (Novák, 2004, 303; Pfälzner 2020, XXXVIII). 41 Sader and K amlah 2010, 137; K amlah and Sader 2019, 197, 381–412. 42 As argued by E. Peltenburg (K amlah and Sader 2019, 227, 233) and Burke 2008, 192 when compared to some fortresses from the Southern Levant.

182

Hanan Charaf

Fig. 7 Plan of the three stages of construction of the Kamid el-Loz MB II palace (after Heinz 2016, 84, fig. 94. Modified by Catanzariti 2015, 205, fig. 1)

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

183

Fig. 8 View of the Temple of Baalat-Gebal at Byblos (© Hanan Charaf) Palace A at Tell Bi‘a/Tuttul in Syria43 with a courtyard surrounded by a series of rooms on the sides with the four corner rooms acting as square towers. The use of mudbrick foundations parallels Mesopotamian traditions.44 However, parts of this floorplan bear a striking resemblance to certain Palestinian45 or Syrian46 palaces. This led the excavators, H. Sader and J. Kamlah, to consider that this building served the dual function of a palace and a stronghold.47 The commissioner of such a structure could only have been the king of Sidon who controlled this region and could have also used this edifice as an administrative centre.

43 According

to M argueron (2010, 373), Palace A was not put in use (“de plein exercise”) but was still part of the royal domain. 44 K allas 2019, 111. 45 K amlah and Sader 2019, 231–232. 46 Such as the square-shaped courtyard flanked by rooms as attested in the Royal Palace at Qatna (partially covered Hall C) that is also built on monumental foundations ( pfälzner 2019, fig. 1). 47 K amlah and Sader 2019, 234.

Religious Architecture

Four sites: Byblos, Beirut, Sidon, Kamid el-Loz Religious constructions are quite rare in Lebanon and are mainly present at major coastal sites. Only Byblos and Kamid el-Loz offer complete floorplans of their cultic structures. Sidon’s temple is only attested by a 45-meter enclosure wall and a series of adjoining rooms.48 The excavations at Beirut’s temple, overlooking the ancient harbour on the ancient tell, were stopped due to a lack of funding before archaeologists could fully uncover the occupation sequence that is still visible in section on the site.49 However, the surviving remains yielded a large courtyard (20 m x 22.5 m) covered with plaster with an embedded plastered basin and a stone column base at one end of the northern enclosure wall. Apart from MB I jars found on the floor, the structure did not yield any other object that could ascertain its function. It is indisputable that Byblos has the largest concentration of Middle Bronze Age temples in Lebanon, all built according to different plans of north Syrian origin. After the destruction of the city at the end of the 3rd millennium BCE, the main temples were rebuilt either following their older plan (Baalat-Gebal Temple) or 48 Doumet-Serhal 2004b, 66; 2011, 197–199; 2013, 102, fig.

93a; 2016, 113–125; Doumet-Serhal and Shahud 2013, pl. 1 (plan). The rest of temple lies under a modern road and cemetery and is thus unexcavatable. 49 Badre 1997, fig. 1; 2000, 35–39; 2009, 253–258, fig. 1.

184

Hanan Charaf

Fig. 9 View of the Temple of the Obelisks at Byblos (© Hanan Charaf)

Fig. 10 Intentionally broken vessels, part of a feasting ritual, in Room 2 of the MB II temple at Sidon (after Doumet-Serhal 2013, fig. 95, photo courtesy of Claude Doumet-Serhal)

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

according to a new layout (Temple of the Obelisks). The temple of the Baalat-Gebal (Fig. 8) kept its Early Bronze Age Broad-Room in antis floorplan with minimal change,50 while the layout of the Temple of the Obelisks changed from a BroadRoom in antis in the Early Bronze Age (Temple en L) to a combination of Broad-Room and BentAxis temples in the following period (Fig. 9).51 Two of these temples are dedicated to local deities, the tutelary goddess of the city Baalat and Reshef, who are both assimilated with Egyptian gods (Hathor and Herishef-Rĕ52). Recently, G. Miniaci, reprising Albright’s 195753 hypothesis, suggested that this sanctuary was a mortuary temple, dedicated to a deceased elite probably buried in the nearby royal cemetery, similar to the High Places in Palestine that are furnished with open spaces and betyls.54 Middle Bronze Age temples at Kamid el-Loz belong to the broad-room type with attached annexes, at least for T5 and T455 dated to the MB II. Room L in Temple T4 revealed mudbrick benches with a series of circular depressions that held, according to the excavators, storage jars that supplied food to service the temple.56 Sidon’s temple spurred a new interest in feasting rituals in public buildings in line with a robust trend particularly present in Aegean archaeology. To date, it is the only cultic building in Lebanon that has yielded evidence for feasting activities. Two of the exposed rooms produced traces of commensality. Room 2 included 598 lamps, 141 plates and 69 juglets smashed intentionally, together with caprine 50 Lauffray

2008, fig. 201bis; Sala 2015, 39, 44. an updated reading of the five floorplans of these two temples, see Bietak 2019 (with a list of previous scholarship on the subject). See also Finkbeiner 1981 for a thorough stratigraphic study on this temple and K ilani 2017 for a 3D reconstruction of the Temple of the Obelisks from M. Dunand’s published excavation data. Combination of Broad-Room and Bent-Axis temples are attested in the Chapelle Orientale in Byblos, and from southern Mesopotamia to Northern Syria (Ebla) to Egypt (Tell Dab‘a) (Bietak 2019, fig. 8). See also the contribution by Bietak in this volume. 52 According to an inscription found on an obelisk (Dunand 1937–1939, pl. 22). 53 A lbright 1957, 252. 54 M iniaci 2018, 391. According to him, more than 82% of faience figurines (abundant in the Temple of the Obelisks) occur in funerary and not cultic contexts in Egypt during the Middle Bronze Age. 55 H einz 2016, 54, 90–95, fig. 106. Temple T5 has not yet been totally uncovered but its extant 600 sq.m. floorplan is composed of two courtyards and ten rooms with one of the rooms containing a series of adjoining tannours (Heinz 2016, fig. 105). M. Heinz (2016, 63, 71) further reveals a new structure under the MB II temple that could belong to an earlier cultic structure (T6?) that was destroyed with the city around 1750 BCE. 56 M etzger 2012, 96, fig. 50; H einz 2016, 93, fig. 107. 51 For

185

astragali and butchered animal limbs, attesting to ritual consumption activities (Fig. 10).57 Room 5 included carefully selected animal limbs that were deposited in clusters on the floor and cremated, a custom seldom attested in the Middle Bronze Age in the Levant.58

Domestic Architecture

Ten sites: Tell Arqa, Tell Fadous, Byblos, Qornet ed-Deir (?), Beirut, Sidon, Sarepta, Tell el-Ghassil, Douris (?), Kamid el-Loz A broad understanding of the domestic architecture of the Middle Bronze Age is challenging due to a lack of sufficient excavation. The sporadic vestiges found on ten sites do not sanction an accurate and holistic picture of household customs in Lebanon for this period. Most houses such as at Arqa 59 and Kamid el-Loz60 (Fig. 11) had open-air courtyards and two to three roofed rooms with beaten earth floors, and in some instances, stone channels running under the dwellings. Building methods included infrastructure in roughly hewn fieldstones with superstructure in mudbricks, a technique already known from the Early Bronze Age on most sites, except at Douris where excavated walls, standing more than 3 m high, were exclusively built in limestone.61 Basalt grinders and ovens indicate household activities such as wheat crushing and cooking. Cooking happened inside rooms or in the courtyards, and there is occasional evidence for isolated stone bottle-shaped (Figs. 12a–b) or mudbrick plastered silos (Arqa62) and some unidentified industrial occupation. But Tell Arqa has yielded from the MB I a potters’ quarters complete with a decantation pit and several kilns63 that is quite similar to the type of industrial settlement that occupied Qatna during the same period.64 It is difficult on the basis of the extant remains to draw a preferred location inside the city for residential quarters; however, during the MB II, both Arqa and Kamid el-Loz share the same occupational configuration with houses abutting the ramparts’ walls.65 In the case of Arqa, this arrangement would continue into the

57 Doumet-Serhal

2009a, 230–238; 2013, 103–104, fig. 94; Doumet-Serhal and Shahud 2013, 35. 58 Doumet-Serhal and Shahud 2013, 36–37. 59 Thalmann 2006, 56–57. 60 H einz 2016, 41–42, figs. 44–45, MB I. This house had a surface of 150 m 2 and probably an upper storey. 61 Excavations directed by the author started in 2018. Work could not resume at the site, located only 3 km southwest of Baalbek, because of the unstable security situation in 2019 and the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. 62 Thalmann 2006, 57 (MB II); 2007, 213–214 (MB I). 63 Thalmann 2006, 47–50; 2010, 99. 64 I amoni 2014, 8, table 1. 65 Arqa: Thalmann 2006, fig. 17b; Kamid el-Loz: H einz 2016, 66.

186

Hanan Charaf

a

b

Fig. 11 Superimposed MB I (Level 21, in green) and MB II (Level 20, in black) house plans at Kamid el–Loz (after Heinz 2016, 97, fig. 116)

LB I (Level 12).66 We know from Dunand’s publications that Byblos had large domestic rectangular buildings dispersed inside the city in the MB I and houses with stone channels and courtyards laid with flagstone pavements in the MB II. To the end of the MB II (Stratum 8) belongs a building at Sidon of which three rooms were excavated and constructed with hewn stones and olive tree wood.67

66 Charaf

2004, 232; 2016, 734. 2011, 187–189, fig. 21.

67 Doumet-Serhal

Fig. 12 Bottle–shaped silo (a: Photo, b: Section) at Tell Arqa (Level 14D), reused as tomb during the MB I (after Thalmann 2007, figs. 12–13a)

Funerary Customs

23 sites: Tell Arqa, Menjez, Arde, Mgharet elHouriyeh, Tell Fadous, Byblos, Tell Kharayeb, Jounieh, Nahr el-Kelb, Sin el-Fil, Beirut, Sidon, Tell el-Burak, Sarepta, Majdalouna, Lebea, Kafer Djarra, Qrayé, Baalbek, Douris, Tell Hizzin, Tell el-Ghassil, Kamid el-Loz Dozens of Middle Bronze Age tombs have been discovered at 23 sites throughout Lebanon. Fourteen settlements yielded different types of intra or extra muros tombs or cemeteries directly associated with a city/town, while eight localities produced tombs not linked to any known neighbouring settlement (Fig. 1). Although isolated tombs were found in large number, necropolises established in dedicated space are quite rare, except for Sidon where a cemetery containing more than 172 inhumations was located near the

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

187

Fig. 13 Warrior Tomb 14.14 containing a wooden coffin for the deceased, a complete panoply of bronze arms and locally made pottery vases (Thalmann 2006, fig. 8,6 [drawing of jug]; Thalmann 2010, fig. 18 [photo of the tomb], fig. 19 [photo of the weapons]. Photo of the pottery vessels © Hanan Charaf, The Archives of Tell Arqa) Middle Bronze Age temple,68 Kamid el-Loz where a small necropolis containing 30 tombs was found outside the settlement,69 Tell Arqa which used neighbouring hills as a cemetery,70 Menjez where surveys and excavations in the 1960s identified 87 dolmens used or reused as tombs,71 and possibly also Tell el-Ghassil according to the excavator.72 While Early Bronze Age tomb types (rock-cut chambers or jar burials) continue in use, the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon saw an emergence 68 Doumet-Serhal

2004c (article covering only 20 burials); 2009b, 18–43; 2010, 118–123; 2011, 186–200. The imposing enclosure wall of the Middle Bronze Age temple limits the extension westward of this cemetery. Due to the location of the College Site excavations inside the Old City of Sidon, it is probable that the cemetery laid intra muros in a dedicated space for interment, adjacent to the temple. 69 H achmann 1969; M iron 1982. 70 Thalmann 2006, 60–61. 71 Steimer 1996, 14. Surveys and excavations conducted by Fr. Tallon between May 1960 and July 1968. See Tallon 1958; 1959; 1964. 72 Badre 1982, 125, 128.

of five new types73: the shaft tomb, the earthen pit, the cist burial, the built tomb,74 and tombs placed in reused corbelled silos similar to those at Amrit (Figs. 12a–b). J.-P. Thalmann believed that these Silo-Tombs, exclusive to the MB I, should also be identified as Warrior Tombs, given the nature and number of metal weapons included with the dead.75 73 Genz

and Sader 2007/2008, 263–273. They identified four new types to which we added the Silo-Tombs because they are unique with their peculiar vessel of internment. 74 For example, Arqa (Thalmann 2006, 57–58, T13.65 built with mudbricks), Sidon (Doumet-Serhal 2003, 9–10, tombs built with sandstones or mudbricks; 2010, 118, Burial 69, built with sandstones), Tell Kharayeb in the mountains overlooking Byblos (Monchambert et al. 2008, 51–56) and Kamid el-Loz (Miron 1982, 105, built with mudbricks). 75 Thalmann 2010, 98–99. See also the analysis of J. Nassar of one of these tombs found in the oldest level of Phase N (MB I). This silo contained four individuals of different ages and sexes (Nassar 2014/2015). This atypical tomb structure did not yield any indication of ‘privation of burial’ for the four deceased.

188

Hanan Charaf

Fig. 14 Tomb 13.76 discovered in 2001 in Level 13/MB II at Tell Arqa, with a funerary kit made of carinated bowls, juglets and a bronze pin (unpublished tomb, © Hanan Charaf, The Archives of Tell Arqa) Both coastal (Arqa,76 Byblos,77 Tell Kharayeb,78 Jounieh,79 Beirut,80 Sin el-Fil,81 Sidon82) and inland (Lebea83 and Kafer Djarra84) Lebanese sites have yielded examples of these so-called Warrior Tombs, known from Northern Syria, Palestine and Egypt (Fig. 13). M. D’Andrea questioned though the misleading labelling of such tombs that might actually belong to locals or mercenaries eager to identify with a prestigious ancestral custom.85 Recently, bioarchaeological studies on skeletons from six Warrior Tombs from Sidon determined

76 Thalmann

2006, 44–45; 2010, 98–99. The deceased was buried in a wooden coffin. 77 In the Royal Tombs I–III: Montet 1928, 173–182 (Tomb I). See also Gernez 2008. 78 Monchambert et al. 2008, 72, pl. 20. 79 Chehab 1955, 50. 80 Saidah 1993/1994, 189–205. 81 Chehab 1939. 82 Doumet-Serhal 2013, 62–66; Doumet-Serhal and Kopetzky 2011/2012. 83 Guigues 1937, 37–40, Tomb 1. 84 Guigues 1938, 30–35, Tomb 57. 85 See the contribution by D’A ndrea in this volume.

that weapons associated with the deceased reflected more a social or cultural status than an occupation.86 G. Gernez argues that tombs containing an entire set of weapons (axe, dagger, spearhead, javelin, knife, sickle-sword, belt) belong to local rulers, while those of inferior status had only two or even one weapon.87 It wouldn’t be surprising if future excavations wouldn’t uncover Warrior Tombs at the three urban sites of Sarepta, Kamid el-Loz and Douris. Usually, pit, cist/built and jar burials are more common intra muros although rock-cut and shaft tombs were also attested inside settlements, for instance at Byblos and Beirut where such tombs belonged to royalty or elite residents. Indeed, Byblos is the only site where confirmed royal tombs were found,

86 K harobi

et al. 2021, 10. The authors advocate using the term “weapons-associated burial” over Warrior Tomb that is considered misleading. 87 Gernez 2014/2015, 69.

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

dated to the MB I or the MB II.88 The Kharji tombs of Beirut with their rich offerings and imports from Crete and Egypt should also belong to the royalty or elite of this city as well.89 Ordinary people (both adults and infants/children were buried under courtyards or open spaces (for example at Arqa,90 Sidon, Sarepta91 and Tyre92), or less frequently under room floors (Douris, Kamid el-Loz93 and Arqa94). In general, pit and cist/ built tombs are reserved for adults95 while jar burials fit the small bodies of infants and children. However, Tell Arqa and Sidon yielded adult burials in larges storage jars,96 while at Kamid el-Loz, infants and children were all buried in pits.97 Burials are overwhelmingly primary with some possible secondary internments at Tell el-Ghassil (Tomb 1). An exception to inhumation during the Middle Bronze Age is found at the cave burial of Mgharet el-Houriyeh where there is some evidence of cremation.98 The funerary kit consisted predominantly of a standardized set of utilitarian ceramic vases (bowls, jugs and juglets, platters and jars) used for consumption in the afterlife (Fig. 14). Rich tombs included pottery, jewellery, cosmetic boxes and other precious imported paraphernalia from Egypt (marl clay, alabaster and different stone vases, Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware and scarabs), Cyprus and Crete (Kamares Ware).

88 Dunand

1963, 66–69; Montet 1928, 143–241; Tufnell 1969; Virolleaud 1922. Elite rock-cut tombs, Tombeaux des Particuliers (Montet 1928, 24, 243–248), were also found on the southern front of the mound indicating perhaps a geographical separation between the royal burial grounds and the elite ones. It would not be inconceivable if the new French-Lebanese excavations centred in the vicinity were to find other elite tombs in this area. Tombs I–IV are traditionally attributed to the MB I based on Egyptian royal paraphernalia. However, K. Kopetzky (2016) offered recently new dates based on personal examination of the Egyptian finds in the royal tombs in conjunction with correlation with the Tell Dab‘a chronostratigraphy. According to her, Tomb I and II should be better placed in early MB II (2016, 143). 89 Saidah 1993/1994. The type of offerings in the two caves spanning the Middle and Late Bronze Ages are only encountered in very rich tombs. The Ramesses II alabaster vessel, either a gift or a spolia, is furthermore a testimony of the upper status of the occupants of these burials. 90 Thalmann 2006, 57. 91 A nderson 1988, 59–62. 92 Bikai 1978, 6. These two jar burials belong to the very end of the Middle Bronze Age or to the beginning of the LB I. 93 H einz 2016, 116–117. 94 Thalmann 2006, 45–47 (MB I), 57–67 (MB II). 95 For example, all three adult tombs at Tell Fadous were in pits (Genz 2014/2015). 96 Arqa: Excavations 1998, MB I, unpublished; Sidon: Doumet-Serhal 2010, 120. 97 For example, see Grave G’5 in H einz 2016, 62–63. 98 Beayno, M attar and A bdul-Nour 2002, 144.

189

Animal food as offerings in tombs (hinting to a belief in the afterlife) or for consumption in funerary repasts are quite common with portions of cows, goats, sheep, deer, pigs, fish and mollusks found in tombs at Arqa, Tell Fadous, Byblos, Mgharet el-Houriyeh, Sidon, Kafer Djarra, Tell el-Ghassil and Kamid elLoz,99 or disseminated in feastings areas at Sidon,100 in the Middle Bronze Age palace at Kamid el-Loz101 and probably also at Byblos.102 Studies show that there are no significant differences in types and percentages of animals between Lebanese sites. Additionally, the funerary meal in Lebanon adhered to the known diet of other Middle Bronze Age societies in the Levant.103

Archaeological Evidence: Material Culture

In contrast to Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and Syria, textual sources from Lebanon are extremely rare for the Middle Bronze Age. Only a few hieroglyphic inscriptions,104 an undeciphered syllabary105 from Byblos and an inscribed scaraboid from Sidon106 have been found. Conversely, references to Lebanese sites in foreign records are extremely slim except for Byblos mentioned eight times in the Mari Letters.107 This absence has severely hindered our understanding of many political and socio-economical aspects of the Bronze Age societies in Lebanon. True, the past 30 years have offered a wealth of archaeological information but these remain, for the most part, either partially or totally unpublished, greatly impeding a serious appraisal of such societies. Moreover, the most important sites in the Middle Bronze Age (Arqa, Arde, Byblos, Beirut, Sidon, Sarepta, Tyre, Baalbek (?), Douris and Kamid el-Loz) are located far from each other, preventing a comprehensive picture of the local versus regional material culture aspects. Evidence for features is sparse in Lebanon for the Middle Bronze Age and different from one region to the other (cultic and funerary in Sidon and Byblos, palatial in Kamid el-Loz, administrative in Fadous and 99 For

an overview of faunal remains in Middle Bronze Age tombs in Lebanon, see Chahoud 2014/2015, 76–84. In recent years, careful attention has been devoted to collecting faunal, floral and environmental remains on numerous new excavation projects. For example, faunal remains were identified in 89% of the 110 tombs at Sidon. 100 Doumet-Serhal 2002, 187; 2006b, 143–144; 2009b, 241; 2010, 117–121; 2013, 89–94. 101 Catanzariti 2015, 47–52. 102 If we give credit to a stela found on the site listing the different foods (bread, beer, beef and fowl) offered during the funerary meal. 103 Chahoud 2014/2015, 84. 104 Dunand 1937–1939; Montet 1964. 105 Dunand 1945. 106 Loffet 2006. Inscription reading beloved of Seth/Baal, Lord of Iay. 107 Dossin 1939, 111. One tablet mentions King YantinHamu from Byblos who sent a gold vase to Zimrilim, king of Mari.

190

Hanan Charaf

domestic in Arqa) and from one period to the other. This overview illustrates the difficulty in identifying clear and definitive cultural regions in Lebanon based on the architectural and material remains. Considering also the partial and dispersed occurrences of Middle Bronze Age artefacts in Lebanon, it is hazardous if not impossible to investigate regionalism in Lebanon. The only production that is widely available on all sites is pottery, which will be used here as a tool to tentatively trace cultural clusters in Lebanon. Pottery In order to appreciate the characteristics of Middle Bronze Age culture in Lebanon, one has to rely mainly on the pottery – a production abundantly available – for tracing characteristics of cultural contexts and for discerning differences in regional developments.108 The Middle Bronze Age pottery is wheelmade for the small vessels, coil-made and finished on a slow wheel for the large storage jars. A survey of Middle Bronze Age ceramics in Lebanon reveals predominantly mineral tempered fabrics for the coast: basalt for the Akkar Plain, white angular limestone for the region between Beirut and Byblos, and limestone and iron for the south of Lebanon. The Beka‘a relies on mineral temper for all vessels and chaff for large pithoi and some storage jars, probably because of its ready availability from the vast surrounding agricultural fields. Voids left by the burnt chaff during firing are abundant on the surface of these receptacles, compelling some scholars to argue that chaff was never used as temper but rather as a tool for the wet-smoothing operation. This hypothesis, favoured in the Jordan Valley pottery studies sphere can certainly be applicable to the Beka‘a, but cannot be an exclusive one, as imprints of chaff are clearly visible in the sections. The area of Rashaya in the southern part of the Beka‘a produced white soapy fabrics that were identified as far north in the valley as Douris and Tell el-Ghassil.109 A few sherds also reached Arqa in the Akkar. One thing common to most Lebanese sites is the calcite temper used for cooking and baking vessels (especially in the MB I), a tradition that started already in the Early Bronze Age, at least in northern Lebanon.110 At most sites, the Middle Bronze Age pottery is fine and carefully finished for table use. It is frequently slipped and vertically spaced or tightly burnished. But there are also regional variations. Akkar’s pottery is fine and exceptionally well made while the ceramics of Byblos, and to a lesser degree the Beka‘a, are rather crude, particularly for the large storage jars. ‘Metallic fabrics,’ a term coined for fine,

dark coloured and shiny hard fabrics, are predominant in the Akkar. They are also present at several other sites on the coast (Arde and Byblos) and in the Beka‘a, such as Douris and Kamid el-Loz, but in much smaller quantities. Most likely, these were imported from the Akkar Plain. Paint is rarely used except on MB I and early MB II Levantine Painted Ware or vases imitating Syro– Cilician or Ḫabur Wares. Kamid el-Loz is the only Lebanese site that has a rich repertoire of local painted tradition during the MB II, probably derived from the Levantine Painted Ware and not replicated on the coast.111 Pottery found on sites in southern coastal Lebanon is frequently red slipped in the MB I. Red slip appears later in the MB I as in western Syria112 and Palestine113 and is almost restricted to certain vessels (platters, jugs, juglets and goblets). It becomes rare when going north: it is, for example, attested in Byblos but in smaller quantities than Sidon, and extremely rare in the Akkar with only a handful of baking trays and some juglets that are foreign and most likely imported from Byblos. Preliminary observations on the pottery from Douris in the Beka‘a concur with those noted in the Akkar: red-slipped juglets and baking trays are present in small numbers during the MB I. Black slip is an uncommon finishing process in Lebanon and is restricted to juglets found in MB I or MB I–II tombs.114 Horizontal combing inherited from the Early Bronze Age covers jars and large jugs and juglets at Beirut, Sin el-Fil, Byblos,115 and Sarepta. A few jars from Byblos also retained the alternating horizontal and vertical combing typical of the EB II–III. Combing is yet unattested in sites north of the Byblos region. But the material collected from the Akkar (Arqa and the German-Lebanese surveys) yielded only one combed jar in a tomb from Level 14 (MB I) at Arqa.116 Given the scope of this article, it is not possible to survey the entire assemblage of Middle Bronze Age pottery from Lebanon. Only types that are more likely to offer evidence for regionalism and perhaps also interconnectivity will be highlighted. The emphasis is, as customary, on the morphological type, but other attributes will be indicated when pertinent. Ovoid, cylindrical and dipper juglets, the so-called Canaanite jars, carinated bowls and radially burnished plates with inturned rims are some of the popular productions found all over Lebanon in the Middle Bronze Age. The corpus of MB I pottery comes from stratified contexts at Arqa, Byblos, Sidon, Tell el-Burak, Mgharet el-Houriyeh and Douris. It includes platters with inturned rims, 111

See also the contribution by Heinz and Catanzariti in this volume. 109 Doumet-Serhal 1996, 22. 110 Thalmann 2006, 128 (EB IV); 2016, 44 (EB II), 47 (EB II–III), 60 (EB III). 108

112 113 114 115 116

Catanzariti 2015, 100–101. Nigro 2002b, 303. Ilan and M arcus 2019, 18. For example at Arqa in an unpublished tomb from Level 13 (MB II), Tomb 13.76 (Fig. 14). From the new excavations, see Charaf forthcoming b. Thalmann 2006, pl. 91.1, Tomb 14.42.

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

191

Fig. 15 MB I pottery from stratified sites in Lebanon: platters (1–9), bowls (10–20) and cooking pots (21–28)

192

Hanan Charaf

carinated small bowls, ovoid jugs with trefoil or cutaway mouths, juglets with stepped rims or red slipped, simple or painted ovoid jars with flat bases, and rarely, corrugated necks or a holemouth similar to jars from the Southern Levant, as well as globular cooking pots. The MB II ceramic assemblage is known from material from Arqa, Byblos, Beirut, Sidon, Sarepta, Tell el-Ghassil and Kamid el-Loz. It comprises large radially burnished platters, globular or carinated vertically burnished or red slipped bowls, dipper juglets with button bases and double handles, vertically burnished globular jugs with loop handles, ovoid Canaanite jars, carinated cooking pots and large pithoi. Platter Bowls Platters are shallow and large (diameter over 25 cm with most around 30 cm). They are easily distinguished by their incurved117 or thickened interior rims, a feature that will carry over to the MB II as at Arqa,118 Baalbek119 and Kamid el-Loz.120 However, simple round rims are also confirmed in the MB I (Arqa121) and will continue throughout the MB II (Sidon: Fig. 16.2,122 Tell el-Ghassil123 and Kamid el-Loz124). Platters usually have low concave (Arqa, Fig. 15.1125 and Tell el-Ghassil126), disc (Byblos: Fig. 15.5,127 Sarepta: Fig. 16.5128 and Tell Hizzin, Fig. 15.2129) or flat bases in the MB I. It seems that it is only during the MB II that the ring

base appears130 although it is already attested later in the MB I in the Southern Levant.131 Most examples are wet-smoothed but some bear radial burnishing on the inside.132 Paint is rare except for a few examples from the MB II at Sarepta133 (Fig. 16.4) and Kamid elLoz (Fig. 16.3).134 Platters with four knobs, reminiscent of metal versions and very popular during the MB I in the Southern Levant and southern Syria,135 are present in Sidon’s tombs where they are usually red slipped (Fig. 15.7136). Platters with s-shaped or double-ridged rims follow Syrian shapes and are strictly limited to the Beka‘a where they are found in the MB I at Douris (Fig. 17.3) and in the MB II palace at Kamid el-Loz137 (Fig. 17.1–2). They are of Syrian origin as proven by hundreds of examples from Qatna,138 Tell Afis (Fig. 17.7139) and Ebla (Fig. 17.4–5140). They spread south to Hazor (Fig. 17.6141) and Ginosar.142Another inland type found in the MB I at Douris (Fig. 15.13) and in the MB II at Kamid el-Loz143 has grooves on the upper rim. Lastly, an unusual type of bowl with flat base, upright rim and a handle in the shape of a bird was found in large quantities at Byblos (Fig. 15.8144) and its immediate geographical area (Fig. 15.6, Mgharet el-Houriyeh145) in the MB I, also reaching Tell Dab‘a where it was found in Stratum E/1 dated to the MB II.146 Some bowls from Byblos have even double zoomorphic handles (Fig. 15.9147). There is no question that this peculiar shape is a production of the Byblian metropolis.

Thalmann 2006, pl. 97.5–8. and M arcus 2019, pl. 1.2.3, 13, Kefar Szold in Upper Galilee. Loop bases are very rare in Lebanon but are well attested in tombs in the Southern Levant and Syria (for example at Tell Tweini: jans and bretschneider 2019, fig. 33.TWE–A–00051–C–004, Tomb 00051, MB II). 132 Thalmann 2006, pl. 81.1–2, Level 14. Radial burnishing is also attested on MB II platters from Bqarzlé cemetery near Arqa (Thalmann 2006, pls. 96.17, 97.1–3). Note that this material comes from looted tombs. 133 A nderson 1988, pl. 20.2, Grave 2, MB IIC. 134 H einz et al. 2010, pl. 29.d, MB II Palace. 135 Braemer and A l-M aqdissi 2002, pl. 13.32, tomb at Mtouné. 136 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 42.1782, Burial 10, Phase 3. 137 Catanzariti 2015, 175. 138 iamoni and morandi – bonacossi 2010/2011, fig. 6.2–3, MB I, fig. 8.1–5, 9, MB IIA (early MB II). 139 M azzoni 1998, fig. 23.7, Level 15, MB II. 140 Nigro 2002a, pl. XLVIII.38–39, MB IB. 141 Bechar 2017, fig. 7.37.1, Stratum XVI, MB IIB–IIC. 142 I lan and M arcus 2019, pl. 1.2.3.7, MB I. 143 Catanzariti 2015, 169, Palace Area, Room 7. 144 Dunand 1937–1939, 234, fig. 209, red slipped. See inter alia figs. 220.3650, 221.3675, 227.3757. 145 Beayno, M attar and A bdul-Nour 2002, pl. 6.5, Group 1. 146 Forstner-Müller and Kopetzky 2009, 150, fig. 9. 147 Dunand 1937–1939, 264, fig. 229.3862. 130

131 I lan

For example, Arqa: Thalmann 2006, pl. 81.1–6, Level 14; Byblos: Tufnell 1969, fig. 3.22–23, Royal Tombs; Charaf forthcoming b; Tell el-Burak, Fig. 15.3–4: Badreshany 2019, fig. 10.5.3–4; Tell Hizzin: Genz and Sader 2010/2011, fig. 3.1, Tomb 4. 118 Thalmann 2006, pl. 95.7–17, Level 13. 119 Genz 2008, pl. 1.2. 120 Catanzariti 2015, 167, 170, Palace Area. 121 Thalmann 2006, pl. 80.5–9, Level 14. 122 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 88.S/1790, Burial 7, Phase 5. See also Thalmann 2006, pl. 96.19, tomb at Bqarzlé. 123 Badre 1982, fig. 8.7345, Tomb 1, MB II. 124 Catanzariti 2015, 174. 125 Thalmann 2006, pl. 81.3, Level 14. 126 Badre 1982, fig. 8.7345, Tomb 1, MB II. 127 Tufnell 1969, fig. 3.1–29, Royal Tombs I–III. 128 A nderson 1988, pl. 20.3, Grave 1, MB IIC. 129 Genz and Sader 2010/2011, fig. 3.1, Tomb 4. 117

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

193

Fig. 16 MB II pottery from stratified sites in Lebanon: platters (1–5), carinated bowls (6–13), cooking pots (14–19)

194

Hanan Charaf

Plates with s-shaped rims

Fig. 17 Distribution of s–shaped platter bowls in the Beka‘a with parallels from Syria and the Southern Levant Hemispherical Deep Bowls These bowls have a hemispherical body, a straight or slightly incurved rim and a flat base. They are of medium size (c. 15 cm) and probably served alongside carinated bowls as drinking vessels. They appear in the earliest MB I tombs at Sidon (Fig. 15.10)148 with Levantine Painted Ware and ovoid handless painted jars (Fig. 23.5), and continue until the end of the MB I and into the early MB II according to the evidence from Tell Fadous149 (Fig. 15.11) and Byblos150 (Fig. 15.12). They are also the only bowl type attested in the Kharji tombs in Beirut.151 They seem to be absent from inland Lebanon except perhaps for a crude version found in Room 5 in the MB II palace of Kamid el-Loz.152 Not a single example was found in all of the MB layers at Arqa. Another hemispherical bowl with Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 28.1770, 1800, Burial 9, Phase 1. 149 Genz 2010/2011, fig. 7.1, Tomb 402. 150 Charaf forthcoming b; Tufnell 1969, fig. 2.7–16, Royal Tombs I–III. 151 Saidah 1993/1994, pl. 2.5–8, Tomb 1. 152 Catanzariti 2015, 165. This shape has a very close parallel in a MB I tomb at Efrata near Jerusalem (Ilan and M arcus 2019, pl. 1.2.5.5, Cave 3). 148

horizontal incised lines under the rim seems restricted to the Beka‘a (Fig. 18.1) and the Akkar (Fig. 18.2153). It clearly copies Syrian models such as those found at Qatna (Fig. 18.3154). Carinated Bowls One of the fossiles directeurs of the Middle Bronze Age period, carinated bowls are attested at all Lebanese sites, whether on the coast or inland (e.g. Tell el-Ghassil: Fig. 15.15155, Douris, and Kamid elLoz: Fig. 15.16156). They come in small shallow or small and large deeper shapes.157 The carination is usually placed at mid-body during the MB I; later MB II examples tend to have carination in the lower body though this is not necessarily a condition as Arqa: Thalmann 2006, pl. 97.16, Level 14; Menjez: Steimer 1996, pl. VI.18, identical to examples found in the Orontes Valley, thus possibly imported from Syria. 154 This type continues into the MB II at this site (cf. Besana, Da Ros and Iamoni 2008, fig. 8.10, Final MB II; iamoni and morandi–bonacossi 2010/11, fig. 10.11–12, MB IIB 155 Doumet-Serhal 1996, pl. 2.1, Niveau XI, MB I. 156 M arfoe 1995, fig. 65.1. 157 e.g. Tell el-Burak (Fig. 15.17): Badreshany 2019, fig. 10.6.11, MB I. 153

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

195

Plates with exterior grooved rims

Fig. 18 Distribution of the grooved hemispherical bowls in Lebanon with parallels from Syria proved at Arqa where mid-carination characterizes more than two-thirds of the assemblage and in Syrian tombs such Tomb 00051 at Tell Tweini.158 At Arqa, they are the drinking vessel par excellence in the MB I (Fig. 15.18) but taper off during the MB II to be replaced by the globular closed bowl.159 Some bowls are simply wet smoothed but most are covered with high quality burnishing probably imitating metallic prototypes such as the one found in Byblos.160 The burnishing finish is horizontal on the upper half and vertical on the lower body. Following the southern fashion, examples at Sidon (Fig. 15.19–20)161 and Tell el-Burak162 are red slipped and bretschneider 2019, fig. 33.TWE–A– 00051–C–003, Tomb 00051, MB II. 159 Thalmann 2006, pls. 82, 83.1–24, Level 14; pl. 98.1–22, Level 13. 160 Montet 1928, pl. LXXI.605. Hypothesis offered by A miran 1969, 90 using the Byblos gold bowl found in the Montet Jar as an example, and by Tufnell and Ward 1966, 214. Burnished bowls were also found in the tombs at Kafer Djarra (Fig. 15.14; Guigues 1938, fig. 40, Tomb 33). 161 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 48.S/1742, Burial 6, late MB I, fig. 59.S/1774, Burial 8, MB I–II. 162 Badreshany 2019, fig. 10.6.6–7, MB I. 158 jans

throughout the Middle Bronze Age. The MB I bowls are distinguished by an everted gutter rim probably borrowed from cooking pots (Fig. 15.25–26). This type of rim disappears on many sites in the MB II except at Arqa163 and Kamid el-Loz. Globular Closed Bowls Globular bowls are the second most common drinking vessels in the table service. They are widespread in the Levant and in inland Syria (the Jezirah and the Ḫabur Valley164). They can have flat, disc or ring bases and are either wet-smoothed or wheel burnished. Red burnished examples, popular in Palestine, are only attested in a MB I tomb at Sidon.165 The height of the neck is a good indicator for dating, with short necks popular during the MB I and taller ones in the

Thalmann 2006, pl. 98.1–19, Level 13. See for example, Faivre and Nicolle 2007, pl. X.217, Tell Mohammad Diyab. 165 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 96.S/1739. 163

164

196

Hanan Charaf

Fig. 19 Distribution of the globular closed bowls in Lebanon with parallels from Syria following period166 (Fig. 19.9). The gutter rim used preponderantly on the carinated bowls is far less attested on the globular ones167 (Fig. 19.1). Some of Arqa’s examples bear the characteristic incised lines on the shoulder or the neck168 (Fig. 19.2), a Syrian style found on MB I specimens at Qatna169 and in Period H at Hama170 (Fig. 19.8), or in the MB II tombs from southern Syria.171 Arqa offers the largest collection of such bowls in Lebanon, probably owing to its northern geographical location. The distribution of these bowls shows a strong presence in the Beka‘a Valley (Douris: Fig. 19.6, Tell Hizzin: Fig. 19.7,172 Tell el-Ghassil173 and Kamid el-Loz: 174 Fig. 19.3–4) paralleling their dissemination from the Orontes Valley to southern Syria and extending to northern Palestine with Hazor.175 They are less well represented at other Lebanese coastal sites, except from the Sidon region Although short necks are still attested in the MBII at Kamed el–Loz (Fig. 19.3) and Qatna (iamoni and morandi – bonacossi 2010/2011, fig. 10.9, MB IIB). According to Nigro (2002b, 320–321) these bowls are imports from the coast. They were found in the Tomb of the Lord of the Goats. 167 Thalmann 2006, pl. 98.29, Level 13. 168 Thalmann 2006, fig. 98.30, Tomb 13.10, Level 13. 169 iamoni and morandi – bonacossi 2010/2011, fig. 8.11. 170 Fugmann 1958, fig. 127.2D214. 171 Braemer and A l-M aqdissi 2002, pl. XVIA.72. 172 Genz and Sader 2010/2011, fig. 3.6, Tomb 4. 173 Doumet-Serhal 1996, pl. 12.1–3, 6, Niveau X, MB IIB. 174 3: M arfoe 1995, fig. 65.3; 4: Catanzariti 2015, 157, Palace Area, MB II. See also Heinz et al. 2011, pl. 10.e. 175 M aeir 1997, figs. IV.2–3, Tomb 1181, MB I/II. 166

where they were found at Sarepta,176 in tombs from the College Site excavations, and at Kafer Djarra177 (Fig. 19.5) and Majdalouna.178 Although they appear concomitantly with the carinated bowls in the MB I, they only become common during the second half of the Middle Bronze Age. Most are found in tombs as part of the offering kit. At Arqa, they are attested in a small numbers in the earliest layer of Level 14179 and continue in greater quantities during the MB II and into the LB I180 as in Syria181 and the Amuq Valley,182 after which they completely disappear. Flaring Carinated Bowls These popular bowls recognizable by their deep midbody carination and flaring upper walls are quite popular in the Southern Levant. They won’t fully spread across Lebanon until the LB I when they replace the carinated bowls. For example, their total absence from the Middle Bronze Ages at Arqa, a site known for its conservatism, is in line with this north Syrian trend.183 Elsewhere, they occur in levels dated Anderson 1988, pl. 20.12. Red slipped, Stratum L, MB II. Guigues 1938, fig. 58.t, Tomb 62, MB I, together with carinated bowls and Levantine Painted Ware jug. Also in Tomb 43, fig. 43 with a tall neck. 178 Chehab 1939, fig. 6b, Tomb 1. 179 Thalmann 2006, fig. 83.28, Tomb 14.29. 180 Charaf 2016, fig. 3.6–7, 10–12, Level 12. 181 M azzoni 2002, pl. LVIII.12, Hama. 182 M azzoni 2002, pl. LVIII.16, Alalakh. 183 They do occur though in tombs from southern Syria (Braemer and A l-M aqdissi 2002, pl. XIII.38–41, 45–46. 176

177

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

197

Fig. 20 Distribution of kraters with incised rim in Lebanon to the end of the MB II such as in Tomb 7 at Sidon184 (Fig. 16.8), Tomb 66 at Kafer Djarra185 (Fig. 16.9), Beirut186 and at Kamid el-Loz187 (Fig. 16.10). Tall and deep versions taking the shape of goblets were only found at the end of the MB II at Kamid el-Loz,188 most certainly inspired (or imported?) from Palestine where they are found in funerary (Tel Dan189) or ritual contexts (e.g. in a favissa of the Southern Temple at Hazor190). The Kamid el-Loz goblets are so similar to the Hazor ones that they might be imported from this Palestinian site. Necked Bowls Necked bowls are one of the ubiquitous productions in the Southern Levant during the Middle Bronze Age. At Tel Dan, they replace the globular bowls during the MB II.191 These deep closed bowls have an ovoid body and a soft carination on the shoulder. Following smaller globular versions, they have tall necks. But what distinguishes them is a ridge applied at the base of the neck where it joins the body, possibly evoking metallic versions. At Arqa, they have the customary

disc bases192 (Fig. 16.6) while in the tombs of Tell Hizzin193 (Fig. 16.7), in Tomb 1 at Tell el-Ghassil and at Kamid el-Loz194 they are fitted with flat bases.195 Most are highly burnished to a lustre, again copying metal shininess. The bowls are very popular in the MB II tombs from coastal196 and southern Syria197 where they have disc or ring bases. A few examples from the Akkar Plain and the Beka‘a Valley have a distinctive wavy burnished line on the neck inspired from northern Syria – Arqa198 (Fig. 16.11), Douris (Fig. 16.13) and Kamid el-Loz199 (Fig. 16.12). According to stratigraphic occurrences, this decorated bowl appears during the MB I at Douris and continues to the beginning of the MB II at Arqa and Kamid el-Loz. Kraters Kraters are rarely featured in publications, perhaps because most were found in a fragmentary state, making it difficult to determine their complete shapes. However, two types emerge from the published data from Arqa and the Beka‘a – the ovoid and slightly carinated one and the biconical type – both repeating Thalmann 2006, fig. 99.5–6, Level 13. Genz and Sader 2010/2011, fig. 3.4, Tomb 4. 194 Catanzariti 2015, 158a–b, Palace Area; H einz et al. 2011, pl. 10f–h. 195 Doumet-Serhal 1996, pl. 12.4–5. 196 Jans and Bretschneider 2019, fig. 33.TWE–A– 00177–C–042, Tomb 00170, MB II. 197 Braemer and A l-M aqdissi 2002, pls. XV, XVI.73. 198 Thalmann 2006, fig. 99.6, Level 13. 199 Catanzariti 2015, 164, Palace Area, Room 8. 192

Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 88.S/1751, 1757–1758. Guigues 1938, fig. 68. 186 Badre 1997, fig. 15.11. 187 M arfoe 1995, fig. 69.6–8, Building 14. 188 M arfoe 1995, fig. 68.3–4. 189 I lan 1996, fig. 4.99.16, Tomb 8096. 190 Bechar 2017, fig. 7.6.10–11, Stratum XV, MB IIC–LB I. 191 I lan 1996, 217. 184 185

193

198

Hanan Charaf

Syrian models popular at Ebla,200 Hama,201 Qatna202 and Afis. The majority of these kraters have the distinctive splayed rectangular rim incised with 2–3 lines on the upper face (Fig. 20). They are also frequently combed or incised on the shoulder or upper body with groups of 4–5 horizontal or wavy lines. In Lebanon, the wavy lines subside in the MB II. Bases are flat but low ring bases appear on examples at the beginning of the MB II at Arqa.203 At this same site, the majority of these kraters are made in a hard dark fabric used also for the small carinated bowls (see above), while at Douris (Fig. 20.2), these kraters are made in a local chaff tempered buff clay. They appear in the MB I in Arqa’s Level 14 (Fig. 20.3204), Douris and Tell el-Ghassil (Fig. 20.1205) but continue, like their Syrian prototypes, until the end of the MB II at Arqa (Fig. 20.6–7206) and Kamid el-Loz (Fig. 20.4– 5207). Syrian examples lasted even longer well into the LB I.208 This krater type reached also inland Palestine (Hazor209) using the Beka‘a Valley corridor. Jugs and Juglets A great variety of jugs graces the Middle Bronze Age ceramic assemblage in Lebanon. It is mainly due to the fact that it is one of the popular commodities in tombs. The largest corpus comes from tombs in Sidon or its hinterland and from Arqa where it was also found in great quantities in non-funeral contexts. In the MB I and MB II, Arqa has a series of tall jugs with ovoid bodies and wide necks with flat or disc bases. Most are burnished vertically (e.g. Arqa, Fig. 21.1210, Fig. 22.1– 2211) according to the popular MB I finishing trend on this site. These elegant jugs are strictly limited to the Akkar Plain but close shapes are attested in tombs from coastal Syria such at Tell Tweini.212 Other ovoid jugs were found in the Sidon tombs213 (Fig. 21.4) and in MB II tombs from southern Syria but sans burnishing.214 Similar cruder forms with larger ovoid bodies and Nigro 2002a, pl. XLVII.17–21, MB I. Fugmann 1958, fig. 117.3A858, 2D218, Period H4. 202 iamoni and morandi – bonacossi 2010/2011, fig.6.15, 7 (MB I), fig. 9.1–2 (MB IIA), fig. 11.1,3 (MB IIB). 203 Thalmann 2006, pl. 100.3, Tomb 13.27. 204 Thalmann 2006, pl. 92.3, Level 14. 205 Doumet-Serhal 1996, pl. 8.7, Niveau XI, labelled as cooking pot. 206 Thalmann 2006, pl. 100.6–7, Level 13. 207 Catanzariti 2015, 185, Palace Area. See also other examples in Heinz et al. 2011, pl. 4. 208 Fugmann 1958, fig. 143.2C960; M azzoni 2002, pl. LIX. 209 Bechar 2017, fig. 7.7.5, Stratum XVI. 210 Thalmann 2006, pl. 85.1, Level 14. This jug has also the characteristic plastic ridge at the base of the neck. 211 Thalmann 2006, pl. 101.9–10, Tombs 13.10 and 13.08, Level 13. 212 Jans and Bretschneider 2019, fig. 33.TWE–A–00177 –C–054, Tomb 00170, MB II. 213 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 53.S/1856, Burial 14, MB I/ II. See also, Chehab 1939, fig. 2h, Tomb 1. 214 Braemer and A l-M aqdissi 2002, pl. XVII.81–83. 200 201

round or trefoil mouths were, otherwise, found in the MB I tombs of Tell Hizzin 215 (Fig. 21.2–3) and at Kamid el-Loz;216 they resemble greatly jugs found at Mtouné217 in Syria and at Kabri in Palestine.218 Oval shapes with narrow flat bases, that also exist in smaller ‘dipper juglet’ versions, are very popular in MB I tombs in Lebanon and in the Levant in general.219 They can be simply wet-smoothed (Mgharet el-Houriyeh: Fig. 21.7,220 Byblos: Fig. 21.8,221 Beirut-tell: Fig. 21.5,222 Beirut-Kharji Tombs,223 Sidon: Fig. 21.9,224 Lebea: Fig. 21.6225 and Kafer Djarra226), red slipped 227 or, rarely, painted.228 These are yet to appear in the Beka‘a. A rare group of squat ovoid jugs with narrow tall necks and cutaway trefoil mouths were found at the beginning of the MB I at Arqa229 (Fig. 21.10). They are locally made but are clearly inspired from Cilician examples According to D. Ilan and E. Marcus these jugs appear later during the MB I sequence in Palestine.230 Similar long necks with cutaway mouth are also present on globular jugs belonging to the Levantine Painted Ware at Sidon 231 and Lebea.232 Globular is another jug shape during the Middle Bronze Age. It is less popular in the MB I than other types and it has usually a single or more frequently double233 loop handle placed on the shoulder. It appears at the end of the MB I at Arqa (Fig. 21.12234), Tell Fadous (Fig. 21.11235), BeirutKharji Tombs236 and Kafer Djarra (Fig. 21.13237), and becomes popular in tombs at Arqa during the MB II

Genz and Sader 2010/2011, fig. 3.8–10, 11, Tomb 4. Trefoil mouth are also present at Kafer Djarra: Guigues 1938, fig. 88, Tomb 74 and Kamid el-Loz: M arfoe 1995, fig. 65.9, MB II tomb. 216 H einz et al. 2011, pl. 8.a. 217 Braemer and A l-M aqdissi 2002, pl. XVII.84–85. 218 I lan and M arcus 2019, pl. 1.2.19.2, MB I. 219 For example, from Tell Tweini: jans and bretschneider 2019, fig. 33.TWE–A–00177–C–024, Tomb 00170, MB II. 220 Beayno, M attar and A bdul-Nour 2002, pl. 3.1. 221 Dunand 1958, fig. 795.14018, Levée XVI. 222 Badre 1997, fig. 14.1, Tomb MB I. 223 Saidah 1993/1994, figs. 9.1, 11.3–4, 13, MB I. 224 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 14.S/1815, Burial 12, Phase 1, MB I. 225 Guigues 1937, fig. 3c, Tomb 1. 226 Guigues 1938, fig. 61, Tomb 62. 227 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 39.S/1883, Burial 17, MB I. 228 Beirut: Saidah 1993/1994, pls. 9.2; 10; 12.1; Kamid elLoz: Heinz et al. 2011, pl. 15. 229 Thalmann 2006, pl. 84.1–4, Level 14. 230 I lan and M arcus 2019, 17. 231 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 14.S/1814, Burial 12, MB I. 232 Guigues 1937, fig. 3a, Tomb 1. 233 Double loop handles appear at Arqa in the MB I and in inland Syria at Ebla (Iamoni 2012, 39). 234 Thalmann 2006, pl. 85.15, Level 14. 235 Genz 2010/2011, fig. 9.6. 236 Saidah 1993/1994, pl. 13.7–8, MB I. 237 Guigues 1938, figs. 46, Tomb 56; 57a–b, Tomb 62. See also: Guigues 1938, figs. 77e, Tomb 73, 93g–h, Tomb 74. 215

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

Fig. 21 MB I jugs (1–13, 20) and juglets (14–19, 21–27) from Lebanon

199

200

Hanan Charaf

(Fig. 22.3–4238) with some example either red slipped 239 or having the fashionable incised lines décor on the shoulder (Fig. 22.4). It is absent from the Beka‘a except for a close but carinated example belonging to the socalled Orange Burnished Ware found at Tell Hizzin240 (Fig. 21.20), certainly imported from Syria but also attested in southern Syrian tombs.241 Juglets are the most popular funerary deposit; a vast array of shapes is attested in Lebanon. The main dissimilarities between the different Lebanese regions are that the red slip is almost absent from sites north of Byblos242 and in the Beka‘a Valley, and the Levantine Painted Ware appears to be different in the Beka‘a than on the coast. According to the stratified tombs from Sidon, which span the entire MB I, the red slip appears late in the sequence in perfect chronological synchronism with Palestine and southern and western Syria. The most recognizable juglet type is the ‘dipper juglet’ with a slender body, a pointed base and a pinched mouth known from the Sidon tombs243 (Fig. 21.23), Tell el-Kharayeb,244 Beirut-Kharji Tombs245 and Kamid el-Loz.246 Some juglets are burnished vertically (Arqa247 and Sarepta: Fig. 22.9248), red slipped (Sidon, Fig. 21.21249) or painted (Sarepta250 and Sidon: Fig. 22.8251), and others have a light horizontal combing (Byblos252 and Sin el-Fil253 similar to imports to Tell Dab‘a254). Smaller rough examples from the MB I tombs and into the MB II tend to have more ovoid bodies and most are simply wet-smoothed: Tell Fadous (Fig. 21.22255), Byblos,256 Beirut-Kharji Tombs257 and Tell Hizzin 258 (Fig. 22.10). Surprisingly, it is very rare

at Arqa, which favours the ovoid/piriform juglet with button base and gutter259 (Fig. 21.24) or funnel shape260 rims. Later examples from the second half of the MB II have their pointed base replaced with a ring base and are covered with a red slip. These are productions from Byblos261 and Sidon 262 where they were found in great quantities in funerary or cultic contexts. The few examples at Arqa (and perhaps also at Qatna where a similar jug was found 263) are certainly imported from either coastal site. They were also found in a tomb at Kafer Djarra264 and further south in Cistern 9024 at Hazor.265 Oval and piriform juglets made of dark brown, grey, beige or red fabrics, and with button or narrow flat base, stepped or funnel rim, and double handle affixed to the shoulder or from the rim to the shoulder are a staple in Middle Bronze Age tombs in the entire Levant; they can be either wet-smoothed,266 burnished (Arqa: Fig. 21.24; Fig. 22.5,267 Sidon: Fig. 21.15, Fig. 22.6,268 Kafer Djarra,269 Tell Hizzin: Fig. 21.14,270 Tell el-Ghassil271) or most likely red slipped especially in the south.272 Red slipped specimens were found at Kafer Djarra273 and in Sidon tombs from the transition MB I/II274 (Fig. 22.7) and into the end of the Middle Bronze Age275 (Fig. 22.11). Two of those juglets from Tell el-Burak 276 on the coast (Fig. 21.16) and Tell Hizzin 277 (Fig. 21.17) in the Beka‘a are almost identical. Modification of this type of juglet into a squat shape is attested with a button

Thalmann 2006, pl. 85.19, Level 14. Monchambert et al. 2008, pl. 5.36. 261 Dunand 1937–1939, pl. CLXXIII.6634, 65, fig. 41.7003; 1950, pl. CXLI.13391, Temple aux obélisques; 1954, 264, fig. 294.9260–9261, Levée V; Tufnell 1969, fig. 4.44–45, Royal Tombs. Also Charaf forthcoming b. 262 Doumet-Serhal 2009a, pl. 8.1–3, MB IIC; DoumetSerhal and Shahud 2013, pl. 18, Room 5 of the MB II temple. 263 A l-M aqdissi 2006/2007, 68, fig. 20. 264 Guigues 1938, pl. 57m, Tomb 62. 265 Yadin et al. 1958, pl. CXXI.25, Stratum 4, MB IIB. 266 Beayno, M attar and A bdul-Nour 2002, pl. 4.6–7, MB I, Mgharet el-Houriyeh. 267 Respectively, Thalmann 2006, pls. 85.19, Tomb 14.29, end of Level 14, 102.7, Tomb 13.30, Level 13. 268 Respectively, Doumet-Serhal 2004c, figs. 14.S/1803, Burial 12, MB I, 88.S/1764, Burial 7, MB IIB/IIC. 269 Guigues 1938, fig. 57j–n, Tomb 62. 270 Genz and Sader 2010/2011, fig. 4.5. 271 Doumet-Serhal 1996, pl. 5.3, Niveau XI, MB I. 272 Chehab 1939, fig. 2b, j, Majdalouna, Tomb 1. Red slipped juglets are also attested in tombs from southern Syria. See Braemer and A l-M aqdissi 2002, pls. XVIIIB.92, 95–96, XIXA.97, 99–100. 273 Guigues 1938, fig. 77g, Tomb 73. 274 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 53.1857, Burial 14, MB I/II. 275 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 73.S/1715, Burial 4, MB IIB/ IIC. 276 Badreshany 2019, fig. 10.8.4, MB I. 277 Genz and Sader 2010/2011, fig. 4.4, Tomb 8B. 259

Thalmann 2006, pl. 101.3–4, Bqarzlé and Tomb 13.08, Level 13. 239 Guigues 1937, fig. 23a, Kafer Djarra. 240 Genz and Sader 2010/2011, fig. 5.5. 241 Braemer and A l-M aqdissi 2002, pl. XVIIIB.91, MB II. 242 This is quite striking as red slipped jugs and juglets are extremely popular in MBII tombs on many Syrian coastal sites, from Sukas to Tell Tweini and up north to Ugarit and as far east as Ebla. 243 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 14.S/1816, Burial 12, MB I. The tombs in the hinterland of Sidon yielded also dozens of such juglets (Chehab 1939, fig. 6i, Tomb 1; Guigues 1937, fig. 3d, Tomb 1; Guigues 1938, figs. 49f–j, Tomb 57, 57g–i, Tomb 62, 67i–f, Tomb 66, 77d, Tomb 73). 244 Monchambert et al. 2008, pl. 5.35. 245 Saidah 1993/1994, pls. 9.3, 14.1–5. 246 H einz et al. 2011, pl. 8.d. 247 Thalmann 2006, pl. 85.22, Level 14. 248 A nderson 1988, pl. 20.4, vertical burnishing. 249 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 91.S/1883. 250 A nderson 1988, pl. 20.5, Grave 2, MB IIC. 251 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 64.S/1708, Burial 2, MB IIC. 252 Tufnell 1969, fig. 4.35–40. 253 Chehab 1939, fig. 2c. 254 Kopetzky 2007/2008, fig. 7.73. 255 Genz 2010/2011, fig. 9.1–3, MB I. 256 Tufnell 1969, fig. 4.32–43, Royal Tombs. 257 Saidah 1993/1994, pl. 14.6–15, MB I. 258 Genz and Sader 2010/2011, fig. 4.3. 238

260

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

Fig. 22 MB II jugs (1–4) and juglets (5–15), and Levantine Painted Ware (16–27) from Lebanon

201

202

Hanan Charaf

base at Beirut278 and with a flat or ring base at Sidon 279 (Fig. 21.25) and Kafer Djarra.280 The bag-shaped juglet with a flat or round base and narrow neck is another very well known – albeit with fewer numbers – type from the Levant during the MB I and the first half of the MB II. Kharji Tombs yielded a semicomplete plain specimen 281 while Sidon has a sizeable collection either plain (Fig. 21.26–27282) or red slipped (Fig. 22.12283) in tombs from Phase 3 (end of the MB I) to Phase 5 (MB IIB/MB IIC). This juglet was also found at Majdalouna,284 at Kafer Djarra in an MB I285 and an MB II tomb286 and in the MB II administrative area of Kamid el-Loz painted in the local style287 (Fig. 22.13). Juglets with collar rims are sporadically represented in the MB I; they appear at the beginning of the 2nd millennium at Arqa288 (Fig. 21.19) and Sidon 289 (Fig. 22.19) in few numbers. Beirut offers a large collection with examples having a single, double or triple handle (Kharji Tombs290) or red slipped (Fig. 21.18291), and a few were also found in Lebea (painted with concentric circles292) and in the new excavations at Douris in the Beka‘a. The last type of juglet appeared at the transition of the MB I/II293 and became very popular towards the second half of the MB II and continued into the LB I.294 It has a cylindrical body, flat base, tall narrow neck and a single or double strand handle. This very popular juglet was frequently found in Levantine tombs suggesting that it contained precious liquids (perfumes, medicines, ointments) offered to the deceased. In Lebanon, the MB II tombs of Kafer Djarra,295 Majdalouna,296 Sarepta297 and Kamid el-Loz298 all have cylindrical juglets in their funerary kit. None has yet been identified north of Kamid el-Loz in the Beka‘a but they are popular in southern Syrian tombs. Some examples are burnished Saidah 1993/1994, pl. 14.16, red slipped. Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 39.S/1882, Burial 17, late MB I. 280 Guigues 1937, fig. 29.I, Tomb 14. 281 Saidah 1993/1994, pl. 15.6. 282 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 39.S/1879, S/1880, Burial 17, late MB I. 283 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 94.S/1692. 284 Chehab 1939, fig. 2a, Tomb 1. 285 Guigues 1938, fig. 47 (left), Tomb 56. 286 Guigues 1937, fig. 32a, Tomb 15. 287 Catanzariti 2015, 180. 288 Thalmann 2006, pl. 87.21, Level 14. 289 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 25, Burial 16, MB I. 290 Saidah 1993/1994, pl. 15.1–4. 291 Badre 1997, fig. 14.2, MB I tomb. 292 Guigues 1937, fig. 6, Tomb 3. 293 According to Palestinian occurrences (I lan and M arcus 2019, 21, pl. 1.2.29.4–5, Megiddo). 294 As at Arqa (Charaf 2016, fig. 2.11, Level 12) and in Tomb 3 at Tyre (Bikai 1978, pl. LIIA.1, Stratum XVIII). 295 Guigues 1938, fig. 62, Tomb 62. 296 Chehab 1940, fig. 2c.  297 A nderson 1988, pl. 20.8, Grave 1, MB IIC. 298 M iron 1982, pl. 24.3, Tomb 100. 278

279

(Arqa: Fig. 22.14299 and Sarepta: Fig. 22.15300) while others are painted or are decorated in the Tell elYahudiyeh style.301 They are present in the Sidon area tombs302 and in the oldest layers of the MB II palace at Kamid el-Loz.303 Special juglets are rare but joined double juglets were found in the Kharji Tombs.304 A particular class of painted jugs and juglets belongs to the class coined as Levantine Painted Ware (LPW) even though D. Ilan and E. Marcus305 point out rightly that this class is not a homogeneous one in terms of fabrics or shapes.306 LPW appeared at the beginning of the MB I in the Levant and spread to Egypt307 and was considered one of the hallmarks of this period. The earliest stratified occurrences in Lebanon come from Level 14D at Arqa308 and Phase 1 in Sidon (Fig. 22.19,309 26310). In Lebanon, shapes include small globular handless jars, and globular, ovoid, piriform or cylindrical jugs. The majority were found in tombs from the MB I (Sidon, Kafer Djarra), transitional MB I/II (Tell Fadous), and into the MB II (Tell elGhassil, Kamid el-Loz). Some scholars include also jars, large jugs and even bowls painted with either monochrome or bichrome colours;311 however, such inclusions tend to be, in more instances than not, arbitrary since they encompass the entire painted assemblages from the Levant, making the LPW a generic more than a particular chronological or stylistic designation. For example, T. Bagh includes the waisted cups and the Montet Jar with the LPW even though such cups are typical of the EB IV of the Akkar and Byblos regions and have not been attested elsewhere.312 There is little value and more confusion than concrete benefit from including any Middle Bronze Age painted décor found on these latter vessels or any other larger vessel within the LPW class, which itself is already disconcertedly vague. More so, LPW (as defined) vases continued into the MB II at Kamid el-Loz and Tel Dan,313 rebutting thus the chronological timeframe Thalmann 2006, pl. 102.11, Level 13. Anderson 1988, pl. 20.8, Grave 1, MB IIC. 301 For examples, in the MB II tombs in southern Syria: Braemer and A l-M aqdissi 2002, pl. XXB.117–118. 302 Guigues 1937, figs. 5c, Tomb 2 (Lebea), 23e–f (Kafer Djarra); Guigues 1938, figs. 62 (Tomb 62), 80 (Tomb 73), 93m, (Tomb 74, Kafer Djarra). 303 H einz et al. 2010, pl. 32b. 304 Saidah 1993/1994, pl. 15.5, red slipped. 305 I lan and M arcus 2019, 20. 306 See Bagh 2013, fig. 1 for the different shapes and decorations. Compare as well the contribution by M arcus in this volume. 307 See Bagh’s (2013) study on the LPW in the Levant and Egypt. 308 Thalmann 2006, pl. 86.20. 309 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 25.S/1763, Burial 16. 310 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 14.S/1814, Burial 12. 311 Bagh 2003, fig. 2. 312 Bagh 2013, fig. 76. 313 Catanzariti 2015, 99. 299

300

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

attributed to its production. If there is still a need to plaster a designation on this painted pottery it would be preferable to limit the LPW designation to medium and small vases displaying the intricate décor seen on Fig. 22.16–27. LPW décor varies but the collerette at the base of the neck (e.g. Sidon, Fig. 22.20,314 Kafer Djarra, Fig. 22.25,315 Tell Hizzin,316 Kamid el-Loz317) and concentric circles on the body top other motifs (butterflies, zigzag, chevrons or trees). There is no particular restricted motif per shape but butterflies are found only on jugs probably because of the size of the motif (Tell Arqa, Tell Fadous: Fig. 22.21318 and Beirut: Fig. 22.27319), and concentric circles on juglets and rarely on closed vases (Sidon,320 Kafer Djarra: Fig. 22.16a321, 22.24,322 Lebea,323 Tell Hizzin,324 Kamid el-Loz: Fig. 22.17325). Horizontal chevrons (Kafer Djarra: Fig. 22.16b326), wavy (Majdalouna327, Kamid el-Loz328) and zigzag (Kamid el-Loz: Fig. 22.18329) motifs are rare. Vertical chevrons rendering a tree are present on juglets from tombs from Tell Hizzin330 (Fig. 22.22) and Tell el-Ghassil331 (Fig. 22.23). Surveying the corpora of LPW from the Beka‘a Valley indicates a preference for certain motifs (concentrated circles and trees) but painted in a sloppy way. While the coast perfected the fine execution of the concentric circles, butterflies and intricate décor made of different registers, the Beka‘a gives the noticeable impression of careless designs (protracting into the MB II), a trend seen also in southern Syrian examples from the tombs of Mtouné, Yabrud and Tell Sakka.332 Convincing explanations for this poorer execution are yet to be determined but they could be attributed to the Beka‘a lack of experience in painting pottery or lack of regular and robust contacts with imported painted styles (such as Cypriot ceramics), even at an important settlement such as Kamid el-Loz. Origins of the LPW are diverse and range from locally made to imported from the Northern Levant.333 Petrographic analyses Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 88.S/1762, Burial 7, MB IIC. Guigues 1938, fig. 69, Tomb 66. 316 Genz and Sader 2010/2011, fig. 5.3, Tomb 11. 317 Catanzariti 2015, 218, fig. 16. 318 Genz 2010/2011, fig. 10.4. 319 Saidah 1993/1994, pl. 16.3, Tomb 1, MB I. 320 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 28.S/1847, Burial 9, MB I. 321 Guigues 1938, fig. 66b1, Tomb 66. 322 Guigues 1938, fig. 59, Tomb 62. 323 Guigues 1937, fig. 6, Tomb 3, MB I. 324 Genz and Sader 2010/2011, fig. 5.4, Tomb 8A. 325 Catanzariti 2015, 217, fig. 14, Tomb MB II. 326 Guigues 1938, fig. 66x, Tomb 66. 327 Chehab 1940, fig. 2bis. 328 Catanzariti 2015, 217, fig. 15. 329 Catanzariti 2015, 217, fig. 13. 330 Genz and Sader 2010/2011, fig. 5.1, Tomb 7. See also fig. 5.2, perhaps from Tomb 9? 331 Badre 1982, fig. 8.73.34, Tomb 1. 332 Braemer and A l-M aqdissi 2002, pl. XIXB.102, 107–108. 333 I lan and M arcus 2019, 21. See also the contributions by M arcus as well as Heinz and Catanzariti in this volume. 314

203

done on LPW vases from Tel Kabri show that half of the LPW there was made in northern Lebanon. NAA analyses on Arqa’s material attest to its local origin, and most of the Tell el-Dab‘a LPW was imported from northern Lebanon with some from the Akkar Plain,334 even though LPW is scantly represented at Arqa, the major site in the Lebanese Akkar Plain during the Bronze Age. Cooking Pots Four types occur during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon. Two of them are wheelmade and have large deep ovoid bodies with round bottoms similar to cooking pots from the preceding period.335 According to the available data, their distribution seems restricted geographically to the Akkar Plain and the Beka‘a Valley where they represent the main cooking vessel. While simple upright or everted rims carry over from the EB IV period (Fig. 15.24336), square rims tapering towards the bottom are novel and exclusive to the Beka‘a Valley (Baalbek: Fig. 15.21,337 Douris: Fig. 15.23 and Tell el-Ghassil: Fig. 15.22338). Even though ovoid cooking pots continue at Tell el-Ghassil during the MB II,339 they disappear totally at Arqa, replaced by the carinated type. These latter globular cooking pots with mid-body gentle carination and round bases appear timidly during the MB I at Arqa340 (Fig. 15.27) but they attain their floruit during the MB II and continue throughout the rest of the Bronze Age. Their rims can be either simply everted (Arqa, Hizzin,341 Tell el-Ghassil342 and Kamid el-Loz: Fig. 16.14343) or have the gutter seen on carinated bowls (see above) as at Beirut,344 Tell Fadous,345 Byblos346 (Fig. 15.25) and Tell el-Burak347 (Fig. 15.26). Remarkably, the gutter rim is totally absent from the cooking pot repertoire at Arqa. Northern (Fig. 16.15–16348) and Beka‘a cooking pots bear usually the characteristic group of incised lines on the shoulder found on globular bowls, kraters and jars. However, undecorated ones predominate and are widespread

315

Bagh 2013, 160–162. For example at Arqa (Thalmann 2006, pl. 77, Levels 16–15). 336 Arqa: Thalmann 2006, pl. 94.1, Level 14. These cooking pots are also attested at Baalbek (Genz 2008, pl. 2.1–4, 6–9) and Tell el-Ghassil (Doumet-Serhal 1996, pl. 19.19, Niveau X, MB II). 337 Genz 2008, pl. 3.2. 338 Doumet-Serhal 1996, pl. 8.6, Niveau XI, MB I. 339 Doumet-Serhal 1996, pl. 19.15–23, Niveau X, MB II. 340 Thalmann 2006, pl. 94.11, Level 14. 341 Genz 2008, pl. 3.1. 342 Doumet-Serhal 1996, pl. 20.1–2, Niveau X, MB II. 343 Catanzariti 2015, 198, Palace Area, MB II. 344 Badre 1997, fig. 9.9, Floor C583, MB I. 345 Genz 2010/2011, fig. 8.3–4. 346 Tufnell 1969, fig. 7.58, Royal Tombs. 347 Badreshany 2019, fig. 10.3.9, MB I. 348 Arqa: Thalmann 2006, pl. 105.1–6, Level 13. 334 335

204

Hanan Charaf

Fig. 23 MB I jars from stratified sites in Lebanon

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

throughout Lebanon. The fourth type is the uprightwalled cooking pot with flat base and hand made with friable ware. It also has a plastic impressed band under the rim and some examples have holes piercing the rim probably for inserting ropes to hang or lift the vase. Although it is attested on the coast of the Southern Levant (Tel Ifshar, Aphek and Ashkelon),349 it is absent from coastal Lebanese sites except for a few pieces at Tell Fadous350 (Fig. 16.17–19). However, it is popular in the Beka‘a at Baalbek351 (Fig. 15.28) and Kamid el-Loz. According to A. Cantanzariti, this “type of vessel was already in use during the Early Bronze Age” at Kamid el-Loz and continued throughout the Middle Bronze Age;352 indeed, it appears during the EB IV in the area of Damascus and continues until the MB II.353 Sites east of the Beka‘a in southern Syria354 or along the Jordan Valley corridor (Kefar Szold355 and Hazor356) yielded these distinctive cooking pots. Storage Jars Storage vessels are divided into four major types adapted to their functions: small handless jars for very short-term storage (20 litres) and serving (5 litres), ovoid jars handless or with handles used for mid-term storage (30–50 litres) or transport (20–25 litres) and large holemouth jars and pithoi employed for longterm storage (60–150 litres). All have different types of rims – with some particular to a specific period – and most have flat, flattened or round bases. A survey of types occurring in Lebanon shows a clear distinction between many coastal and Beka‘a Valley types with minor regionalisms seen in southern Lebanon (oriented towards the south) and in the Akkar Plain (influenced from inland Syria). A study of Bronze Age jar capacities in Lebanon by J.-P. Thalmann – who invented a mathematic formula to calculate jar capacities – show that large storage jars,357 often handless, that prevailed during the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age I, disappear during the MB II and Late Bronze Age at the same time when the Canaanite jar witnesses an apex in its production. Short and midterm storage is fulfilled by this ubiquitous jar, while long-term storage necessitated larger vessels or pithoi with a capacity of 150 litres.

Small handless jars are popular during the MB I. A series with globular body, flat or low ring base, tall neck and everted or thickened rim with interior gutter was found on major coastal sites. Usually, these jars are painted with horizontal monochrome (Beirut, Fig. 23.6–7358) or bichrome bands and even sometimes, wavy lines (Sidon, Fig. 23.5359). Their size/capacity (5–9 litres) and decoration are particularly adapted to the service de table suggesting they contained water and wine. They are also known from the Southern Levant on coastal (Tel Ifshar and Aphek) and inland (Megiddo)360 sites. However, they seem absent from the Beka‘a Valley. According to their shape and décor, their origin should be placed in the Ḫabur region where similar painted jars were found361 though Egyptian emulation was also proposed.362 Nonetheless, Levantine models are definitely modified local productions of the Syrian (and Egyptian?) models. These jars disappear in Lebanon sometime during the MB I simultaneously with Palestine where they cease to be produced at Aphek, for example, in Phase 3, dated to the second half of the MB I.363 A slightly modified version of this jar with a taller neck and incised lines on the shoulder comes from the MB I level at Arqa (Fig. 23.9364, 10 litres). It is made in a metallic fabric typical of other vessels (ovoid handless jar [Fig. 26.10365], carinated and necked bowls) from this period at Arqa attesting to its local origin. Most examples have the group of incised lines on the shoulder also seen on other vases. Elongated ovoid jars with flat or slightly round bases, tall cylindrical necks, everted or folded rims of different sections and two vertical handles attached to the body are the most popular ceramic product in the Middle Bronze Age Lebanese corpus. These jars are commonly designated as ‘Canaanite jars’ in specialized and popular literature, a generic umbrella term designating different versions of ovoid jars with vertical handles and not necessarily all made in the Levant.366 They appear at the beginning of the MB I with short, squatter bodies and flat bases, and with capacities ranging between 25–30 litres.367 However, their heavy flat bases and capacities made them unpractical for transport which substantially increased 7: Badre 1997, fig. 9.4, Floor C583; 8: Saidah 1993/1994, pls. 5, 6.1, Tomb 1. 359 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 28.S/1769, Burial 9, MB I. 360 I lan and M arcus 2019, pl. 1.2.26.3–8, 10. 361 Faivre and Nicolle 2007, pl. X.323–324, 329, Tell Mohammad Diyab. 362 I lan and M arcus 2019, 17. 363 Kochavi and Yadin 2002, 211. 364 Thalmann 2006, pl. 90.2, Level 14, MB I. 365 Thalmann 2006, pl. 103.14, Level 14, MB I. 366 Cateloy 2019, 277 for a new proposed terminology, MTC/Mediterranean Transport Container, following E. Marcus and B. Knapp/S. Demesticha. In this article, we decided to keep the ‘Canaanite’ appellation for ease of identification. 367 Thalmann 2003, 33, fig. 10.1. 358

349 I lan

and M arcus 2019, pl. 1.2.12.1–2, 4 (Tel Ifshar), 5 (Ashkelon), 3, 7 (Aphek). 350 Genz 2010/2011, fig. 8.5–7. 351 Genz 2008, pl. 1.6. 352 Catanzariti 2015, 202. See also M arfoe 1995, fig. 62.1– 2, MB I. 353 Nicolle 2002, pl. XXII. 354 Braemer and A l-M aqdissi 2002, pl. VIII. 355 I lan and M arcus 2019, pl. 1.2.12.8. 356 Bechar 2017, fig. 7.11.1–2, Strata XVI and XVII. 357 Thalmann 2003, 26 for the calculation method and inter alia for the research on Bronze Age jar capacities from Lebanon. For the study of storage capacity of Canaanite jars from Tell el-Dab‘a, see Cateloy 2019.

205

206

Hanan Charaf

Fig. 24 MB I jars from stratified sites in Lebanon

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

207

Fig. 25 Distribution of the jar types in the Beka‘a with parallels from Syria in the second half of the Middle Bronze Age across the Near East. This hampering situation necessitated a modification of the bases that will taper off and eventually become rounded and the handles affixed higher on the body to allow easier lifting and rope securing. This newer convenient shape will become the Canaanite transport jar or amphora par excellence and will last until the end of the Bronze Age and in a slightly modified version well into the 1st millennium BCE. Its capacity set at around 25–30 litres was ideal for regional and international commerce. Most of the complete Canaanite jars from Lebanon were found in tombs but a very large collection of identifiable rims and bases do come from domestic, administrative or palatial contexts. The Canaanite jar with a narrow opening (10–15 cm) and folded rim is one of the most recognizable in the Near East. It is very popular at Byblos368 and Ashkelon,369 a site known for its extensive international connections (see the rilled jars from Tell el-Burak below). Usually, these jars are simply wet-smoothed but some are painted (Kharji Tomb 2, see below and Tell el-Dab‘a370), vertically burnished (Byblos) or even combed (e.g. Tell el-Dab‘a371), an inherited finishing from the EB IV period. The intact jars in Tomb 2 of Beirut-Kharji Tombs372 display red paint and combing, a combination also seen on many jar fragments from the new excavations at Byblos. Charaf forthcoming b. Stager 2002, 355. 370 Cateloy 2019, 290, red paint on amphora 7536 of typological Group H. 371 Cateloy 2019, 288 from Group E. 372 Saidah 1993/1994, pls. 7–8, MB I. 368 369

Wet-smoothed examples are attested at Tell Fadous in pits (Fig. 24.2,373 7374) and tombs375 from Phase VI dated to the end of the MB I or to the transition to the MB II at Byblos,376 and on an early MB I floor from Beirut377 (Fig. 24.11). The jars found at Arqa378 (Fig. 24.1) are all imported and come from the second half of Level 14. They are manufactured in a fabric identical to that of Byblos.379 Although these jars disappear from the Akkar Plain during the MB II, they continue to be popular elsewhere on the coast as demonstrated by Byblos, Beirut380 (Fig. 26.8), Sarepta381 (Fig. 24.5–6) and Sidon where some jars are even red slipped382 (Fig. 24.3–4). Sarepta’s jars have horizontal combing, a finishing also seen on Byblos jars from the Champs des Offrandes, the Royal Tombs383 and the new excavations, and on some from Aphek384 and Phase G/4 in Tell Dab‘a in Egypt. Indeed, Canaanite jars were exported in great quantities to Tell Dab‘a where they are attested in levels dated to the end of the

Genz et al. 2010, pl. 3.4. Also pls. 3.1, 3, Pit 629/631, 5.3, Pit 1701. 374 Genz 2010/2011, fig. 12.7. 375 Genz et al. 2018, pl. 3.5, Tomb 3109. 376 Saidah 1993/1994, pl. 8, MB I. 377 Badre 1997, fig. 9.3, C583. 378 Thalmann 2006, pl. 91.19, Level 14, MB I. 379 Thalmann 2006, 144. 380 Badre 1997, fig. 21.9. 381 A nderson 1988, pl. 20.13–14, Stratum L. 382 Doumet-Serhal and Shahud 2013, pl. 16.15–16, Room 5. 383 Tufnell 1969, fig. 6.56–57, “wheel-marks on body from neck to rounded base” (25–26). 384 I lan and M arcus 2019, pl. 1.2.15.14, MB I. 373

208

Hanan Charaf

Fig. 26 MB II jars from stratified sites in Lebanon

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

MB I,385 the transition of the MB I/II,386 or to the MB II.387 It is interesting to note that more than 40% of the Canaanite jars imported to Tell Dab‘a during the MB I are made from fabrics produced on the Lebanese coast compared to only 1/6 during the transition of the MB I/ II when Dab‘a diversified its imports.388 Petrographic analyses of at least one jar from Phase G/4 compared to those of the Amarna Tablets sent by Rib-Addi prove a Byblos origin.389 ‘Pattern combing’ made of alternating horizontal and vertical combed lines is less popular than the horizontal one but is attested in Byblos, in an MB I tomb at Beirut390 (Fig. 24.21), and at Aphek391 and Tell Dab‘a.392 A sizeable number of Canaanite jars have a thickened triangular rim instead of a folded one. These are also widespread on the Levantine coast during the entire Middle Bronze Age, but handles placed higher on the body are considered later in the typological sequence. In Lebanon, they are present in the MB I at Tell Fadous393 (Fig. 24.18), Qornet ed-Deir,394 Byblos395 (Fig. 24.19), Beirut-Kharji Tombs396 (Fig. 24.13–14), Beirut-tell397 (Fig. 24.17) and Kafer Djarra398 (Fig. 24.15–16), and in the MB II at Arqa399 (Fig. 26.6), Sidon400 (Fig. 26.1–2) and Sarepta401 (Fig. 26.7). A version with a narrower base appears in the Royal Tombs of Byblos402 (Fig. 24.20). Arqa403 (Fig. 23.11–12), Mgharet el-Houriyeh404 (Fig. 23.13) and Tell el-Ghassil405 have ovoid shorter jars that are squatter. Their type seems transitional from the squat EB IV jars with flat bases. Some jars have different Aston 2002, figs. 1–6; Kopetzky 2007/2008, fig. 8.97. For the classification of the 12 types of Canaanite jars and their chronological attributions, see Cateloy 2019. Groups A and B are the earliest imports to Tell el-Dab‘a, Groups C, E, F, H appeared in late MB I and continued at different rhythms to the MB IIB, while Groups D, G are bound to the MB II, Groups I and J span the MB IIB to early M BIIC and, finally, Group K is limited to the MB IIC. 386 Aston 2002, figs. 8–9.5–8; Kopetzky 2007/2008, fig. 18.49–50. 387 Kopetzky 2007/2008, fig. 30.44–45. 388 Kopetzky 2007/2008, 28, 36. 389 Aston 2002, 58, fig. 1.2. 390 Badre 1997, fig. 14.4. 391 Kochavi and Yadin 2002, 200, fig. 17.11–23, Phase 2.  392 Schiestl 2002, fig. 11.4, F/I-m/18, Tomb 3, Stratum d/1. 393 Genz 2010/2011, fig. 11, Tomb 402. 394 Fischer-Genz et al. 2018, pl. 1. 395 Dunand 1958, fig. 841. Also Dunand 1954, fig. 193, combed and with a potter’s mark under the handle. 396 Saidah 1993/1994, pls. 7–8, painted in red, MB I. 397 Badre 1997, fig. 9.1, combed, MB I. 398 Guigues 1937, fig. 20; 1938, fig. 49. 399 Thalmann 2006, pl. 91.1, Bqarzlé. 400 Doumet-Serhal and Shahud 2013, pl. 17.9, 12, Room 5. 401 A nderson 1988, pl. 20.1, Grave 2, Stratum L. Also pl. 20.9, Grave 3. Both jars are combed. 402 Tufnell 1969, fig. 6, combed. 403 Thalmann 2006, pls. 89.5; 90.3, Level 14, MB I. 404 Beayno, M attar and A bdul-Nour 2002, pl. 8.3. 405 Doumet-Serhal 1996, pl. XIX.59–60, Niveau X, MB II. 385

209

types of potmarks generally placed on the shoulder or under the handle. Many of these were found at Byblos, Beirut and Mgharet el-Houriyeh (Fig. 23.13, Fig. 24.14, 20, Fig. 26.8). Only Sidon406 and Kamid el-Loz yielded seal impressions on jars.407 A unique production from Tell el-Burak reached the site of Ashkelon in the shape of large jars characterized by rilled necks, thickened rims408 (Fig. 24.8) and red decoration409 (Fig. 24.9). Those are absent from any other Lebanese site. Folded rims at a sharp angle creating a cusped ledge is rare but do exist at Tell el-Burak410 (Fig. 24.10), Byblos, and perhaps also at Kamid el-Loz.411 The Beka‘a Valley jars undoubtedly echo coeval Syrian productions from the Orontes Valley and even further in the Jezirah. They include handless globular jars with molded rims from Baalbek (Fig. 23.8412) with clear Syrian affiliations in the MB II at Ebla413 and in the Jezirah.414 The Orontes Valley connection is also visibly present in the Douris MB I assemblage with an ovoid flat-bottomed jar with a folded rim (Fig. 25.1) that is identical to those found in the second half of the MB I at Ebla415 (Fig. 25.2) and in Level 15 at Tell Afis416 or at the beginning of the MB IIB at Qatna.417 These Beka‘a Valley handless jars are totally absent from the coast. Other jar types include tall ovoid jars with slanted shoulders and everted molded, thickened, or folded rims from Kamid el-Loz (Fig. 24.12418, Fig. 26.4–5419) and Baalbek (Figs. 23.3–4,420 26.9421). Versions with handles on the shoulder from Douris (Fig. 25.3) and Baalbek (Fig. 25.4422) look like local adaptations of the Canaanite jar and resemble productions from Qatna423 or the Damascus region.424 Horizontal combing seems absent except from one example at Baalbek.425

Doumet-Serhal 2017, 25. Heinz et al. 2011, pl. 23, figs. 28–29, MB II administrative area. 408 Badreshany 2019, fig. 10.2.9, MB I. 409 Badreshany 2019, fig. 10.2.4, MB I. 410 Badreshany 2019, fig. 10.7.2, MB I. 411 Catanzariti 2015, 188, Palace Area. 412 Genz 2008, pl. 4.5. 413 Nigro 2002a, pl. LIII.73. 414 Faivre and Nicolle 2007, pl. X.322, Tell Mohammad Diyab. 415 Nigro 2002a, pl. XLIX.48–50, MB IB. 416 M azzoni 1998, fig. 25.34–35. 417 I amoni and Morandi-Bonacossi 2010/11, fig. 9.4. 418 Catanzariti 2015, 189.n.9a, Palace Area, MB II. 419 Catanzariti 2015, 192–193, Palace Area, MB II. 420 Genz 2008, pls. 4.7, 5.2. 421 Genz 2008, pl. 5.5, with a perfect parallel at Tell elGhassil (Doumet-Serhal 1996, pl. 5.1, Niveau XI, MB I). 422 Genz 2008, pl. 5.1. 423 A l-M aqdissi and Badawi 2002, figs. 44.1–2; 47.21–22, niveau IV. 424 Nicolle 2002, pls. XXIVA.25, XXIVB, MB II. 425 Genz 2008, pl. 7.1. 406 407

210

Hanan Charaf

Fig. 27 Pithoi types in the Beka‘a with parallels from Syria and Palestine The last category of jars are the pithoi used for longterm storage. They are usually found in domestic areas and in storage facilities in palaces (Kamid el-Loz) or attached to temples. Sites from the fertile Beka‘a Valley yielded large quantities of pithoi. This is to be expected from this vast agricultural region. MB I pithoi are 70–80 cm tall with a capacity of 40–60 litres; those of the MB II can reach 1 m in height and 110–150 litres in capacity.426 Handless ovoid pithoi (or alternatively large jars) of 55 litre capacity427 and with flat bases are used extensively during the MB I at Arqa428 (Fig. 23.1) and Sidon429 (Fig. 23.2). The Arqa type is made in metallic fabric and is easily recognizable by its double folded rim and the plastic ridge at the base of the neck. Excavations at Byblos,430 further south at Tel Ifshar431 and even farther at Tell Dab‘a432 have yielded many fragments of this jar/pithos indicating that despite its size and capacity, it circulated to other cities. Large pithoi with folded rim are the choice storage during the MB II. Some have either horizontal plastic clay bands (Arqa: Fig. 26.11,433 Kamid el-Loz),

dotted434 or wavy lines incised on the upper body. The majority of the pithoi have rims folded or molded in different styles. Single folding occurs at Douris (Fig. 27.1–2) and Kamid el–Loz (Fig. 27.3435) while double folding is simultaneously present at Arqa (Fig. 26.12436) and Baalbek (Fig. 27.12437). Square-shaped rims are also extremely popular in the Beka‘a (Baalbek: Fig. 27.11438; Douris: Fig. 27.4–5, 9–10; Tell el-Ghassil: Fig. 27.6–7439), the Damascus region,440 and further south in Hazor (Fig. 27.8441). Finally, large globular holemouth jar-kraters with rounded bases and a capacity ranging from 43 to 75 litres were probably used for water storage (hence the wide opening) according to J.-P. Thalmann.442 These were produced only during the MB I and will be replaced during the following period by the tall ovoid pithoi. The example from Sidon443 (Fig. 23.10) comes from a burial dated to the end of the MB I. Other examples from tombs are slightly larger and have rows of wheat-shape incisions on the shoulder.444 Baalbek: Genz 2008, pl. 6.3. M arfoe 1995, fig. 62.7. 436 Thalmann 2006, pl. 104.7, Level 13, MB II. 437 Genz 2008, pl. 6.5. 438 Genz 2008, pl. 6.2. 439 Doumet-Serhal 1996, pl. 7.9–10, Niveau XI, MB I. 440 Nicolle 2002, pl. XXVII.46–47, MB II. 441 Bechar 2017, fig. 7.23.7, Stratum XVII, MB IIA–IIB. 442 Thalmann 2003, 34. 443 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 37.S/1874, Burial 18, end of the MB I. 444 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 37.S/3055, Burial 18, end of the MB I. 434

Doumet-Serhal and Griffiths 2003, 39; Thalmann 2003, 32–33. 427 Doumet-Serhal and Griffiths 2003, 41.4. 428 Thalmann 2006, pl. 86.1, Level 14, MB I. 429 Doumet-Serhal 2004c, fig. 39.S/1872, Burial 17, end of the MB I. 430 Charaf forthcoming b. 431 Marcus, Porath and Paley 2008, figs. 8.10, 10.5, Phase A, MB I. 432 Kopetzky 2007/2008, fig. 20.99. 433 Thalmann 2006, pl. 104.6, Level 13, MB II. 426

435

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

211

Fig. 28 Cultural clusters in Lebanon showing intra- and interregional connections (© Hanan Charaf)

Conclusion

The multiple lines of evidence adopted for the study of the characteristics of the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon are the material culture (in this study, the pottery) and the settlement patterns. Ideally, such assessment would include textual evidence input, alas almost absent in Lebanon except for Byblos Egyptian inscriptions, as well as extensive faunal, floral and environmental studies. The paucity of stratified Middle Bronze Age remains in each of the four natural regions in Lebanon makes it very difficult to correlate the different regions with each other. It is challenging from the small number of stratified Middle Bronze Age sites and from their scattered architectural remains or art productions to isolate any clear regionalism. Nonetheless, pottery does offer enough particularities to aid in drawing regional demarcations; particularly locally produced corpora that are each distinctive by their fabrics, manufacturing techniques, shapes or finishing processes, and occasionally by influences from neighbouring regions. Imported ceramics from international markets such as Cyprus, Crete or Egypt do not constitute a weighing factor since they are mostly found in metropolises and important satellite sites, and preliminary studies show a similarity in import preferences across

the land,445 except for Byblos which constitutes an incomparable exception in Lebanon and possibly also in the entire Levant. Indeed, the sheer amounts of Egyptian objects (gifts or spolia) including Egyptian and Egyptianising pottery446 mandate a particular consideration of this city, which spreads its culture to a large geographic area – its domain (Fig. 28) – and acted as the focal place where northern and southern types converged. From the pottery assessment above, it was possible to delineate cultural regions according to their ceramic productions and to any intraregional, regional or supraregional connections (Fig. 28). The only two regions that parallel grosso modo their geographic correspondences are the coast and the Beka‘a Valley, demonstrating that natural boundaries did exert constraint on the occurrence, type and frequency of interactions and circulations This was obvious, for example, from the study of Cypriot pottery from Arqa and Sidon (Charaf 2010/2011; 2014, Interconnections between Lebanon and Cyprus during the Middle and Late Bronze Age: New Perspectives from the Sites of Tell Arqa and Sidon, paper delivered to the University of Sydney). For the Egyptian pottery, see Forstner-Müller, Kopetzky and Doumet-Serhal 2006; Kopetzky 2007/2008; 2011; 2016; 2018. 446 Charaf forthcoming b. 445

212

Hanan Charaf

of goods and ideas. The mountains are still largely unexplored despite forays at some sites. 1. The Coast What transpires from the ceramic investigations is that the coast is not homogeneous but is divided into three main cultural regions: Akkar Plain The unique identity of the Akkar Plain is evident from the excavations at Tell Arqa. While definitely influenced by inland Syria since the EB II–III, Arqa continued local traditions until the end of the LB I.447 True, the plain had interactions with coastal (SiloTombs found also at Amrit) and inland (ovoid tall jugs and jars, hemispherical bowls with incised rims, globular closed bowls, horizontal incised lines décor) Syria, but it retained traditions over a millennium that are difficult to justify except by some sort of incomprehensible fierce autarky or deliberate obscure choices. For example, the high quality of pottery manufacture with ‘metallic’ wares and thin walls, unparalleled elsewhere in Lebanon or even Syria, continues traditions from the Early Bronze Age. The red slipped finishing was never really adopted neither in the Early Bronze Age nor in the following period, even though it was popular elsewhere in Lebanon (Sidon), coastal Syria (Ugarit, Tell Tweini, Sukas) and the Southern Levant. Flaring carinated bowls that are well known in the Levant are inexistent at Arqa and won’t make their appearance until the LB I. Additionally, the LPW that petrographic analyses identified the Akkar Plain as one of the production regions is extremely rare. The disappearance of popular shapes (cups and goblets) and the appearance of novel types at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE (carinated bowls or tall ovoid jars) led the excavator J.-P. Thalmann to suggest an influx of newcomers to the site.448 Whether these populations (Amorites?) came peacefully or forcefully is still unknown; the architecture does not indicate any destruction but reveals a change in the function of the excavated area that could be reasonably attributed to many other reasons than an ‘invasion’. However, this city was involved in international circulation of goods (mainly Cypriot pottery). Egyptian productions (pottery or scarabs) are only a handful and the analysed Tell elYahudiyeh Ware from the site shows that most of the vases were manufactured in situ or in nearby areas.449 It was also posited that the Egyptian imports to Ebla passed also by the Akkar Plain (coming from Byblos?) through the Homs Gap, one of the rare natural passages to the hinterland of Syria. Regional connections with Byblos are certain with Akkar-made vases found at Byblos and ovoid red slipped jugs discovered at Arqa. Thalmann 2006, 154–155. Thalmann 2006, 154. 449 Charaf and Ownby 2011, 607.

Direct connections with the northern Beka‘a are still to be verified; the similar pottery shapes, all linked to Syria, found in these two regions could have arrived by way of separate trade routes. Arqa’s inter- and supraregional connections are evidenced by exports to Tel Ifshar and Tell Dab‘a. Byblos Region (Coast and Hinterland) As said above, Byblos role and position are unparalleled in Lebanon. Early on, in the Early Bronze Age, Byblos managed to wield a monopoly of the cedar tree exploitation and trade in the Levant, allowing the city to flourish and extend the region it controlled to the mountains overseeing the bay. Byblos was not the only city with a port in Lebanon; the northern coast has many bays at Chekka or Tripoli that could have sheltered ports. Yet, Byblos managed to establish very quickly an operation that oversaw the cutting of the trees and their fluvial transport to the city. A marketing manoeuvre, the inception of which is yet to be understood, positioned the city as the goto place to acquire cedar wood. Owing to the cedar wood commerce, Byblos culture spread east and north towards the mountains covered with cedars. Pottery found in the high mountain at Tell Kharayeb has the same fabric and styles as the Byblos material. The burial cave of Mgharet el-Houriyeh located in the mountains east of Tripoli and 51 km north of Byblos yielded EB IV and MB I pottery identical to that found at Byblos, with the only occurrences of bird-shaped handles in Lebanon outside of the city. Byblos local pottery corpus displays indigenous traits (bird-shaped handles, red painted jars [Montet Jar and EB IV waisted cups]) together with Levantine shapes (carinated bowls, Canaanite jars, piriform and ovoid juglets, dipper juglets, etc.). Red slip is less frequent than in southern Lebanon and paint is almost non-existent in the Middle Bronze Age. The impression that one gets from Byblos’ pottery is that it is of a lesser quality, especially when compared to the Akkar Plain material. Whether this is attributed to the raw material or to the fact that the rich inhabitants of Byblos used metal vessels and needed not fancier ceramic vessels is yet to be determined. Byblos privileged ties to Egypt meant that Egyptian pottery arrived to the tell. This was mainly known from the Royal Tombs. Recently, new excavations on the tell by two expeditions led to the uncovering of fresh ceramic evidence from the Bronze Age.450 Examination of the assemblage identified a sizeable number of genuine Egyptian vessels made of Marl C-1 and Nile C-2 and E-2 clays451 as well as Egyptianising material that could have either been made by Egyptians using local clays or by locals imitating Egyptian models. Initial counts supersede the amounts recovered from

447

450

448

451

Charaf forthcoming b. I am indebted to K. Kopetzky for the preliminary comments on the material.

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

Sidon’s excavations, already quite large. It is not surprising at all to have Egyptian pottery in Byblos given the exclusive relations, but one has to consider seriously, in light of the new evidence, the possibility of a robust Egyptian representation in Byblos in the shape of a commercial comptoir or a small permanent representation, catering to sailors visiting the city’s ‘pubs’ or paying their respects to the deities of BaalatGebal and Herishef-Rĕ. The southern side of the tell, overlooking the port (identified recently452) would be a logic candidate for any Egyptian commercial installation. Already in 1959, W. Albright suggested that Egyptians might have fled to Byblos, a place they knew very well from extensive commercial connexions, after the overtaking of Lower Egypt by the Hyksos. He writes that “it may be that many upperclass refugees from Egypt found refuge in Byblos from the Hyksos invaders”.453 Preliminary dates of a large part of the Egyptian ceramics from Byblos place the material to the late 12th Dynasty–first half of the 13th dynasty correlating nicely with the associated local material. The Southern Coastal Site: Beirut to Tyre Much of what we know from the southern coast comes from Sidon and Tell el-Burak recent excavations complementing old findings from the hinterland in the tombs of Lebea, Kafer Djarra and Majdalouna. The uncovered corpus from the MB I Monumental Building and from the temple and adjoining cemetery at SidonCollege Site shows close affinities with Palestinian assemblages. Of course, this is to be expected since there isn’t really any natural barrier between Beirut and Mount Carmel, and the Galilee hillside does not impede circulation or human occupation. This resulted in the diffusion of same styles in this entire area. Types (platters with four knobs, globular holemouth kraters, squat and bag-shaped juglets) and finishing styles (red slip) that are known currency in Palestine predominate on sites south of Beirut. The lack of Middle Bronze Age excavated sites between Beirut and Sidon and south of Sarepta hinders greatly our capability to draw more accurately the borders of this region defined broadly as southern Lebanon. Sidon and Sarepta must have controlled large parts of the olive-rich hinterland since the pottery from the tombs of Lebea, Kafer Djarra and Majdalouna are identical to the material from the coast. The case of the rilled rim jars exported from Tell el-Burak to Ashkelon is still a mystery as these have not been identified elsewhere in Lebanon or Palestine. If relations with the south are a fact, connections with the east by way of the Litani River are yet unknown due to lack of Middle Bronze Age excavated sites south of Sarepta. Ideally, the Litani River would have

facilitated interactions between Tyre and the southern Beka‘a. This was most probably the case during the Iron Age II as pottery typed ‘Phoenician’ reached Tel Dan and Abel Beth Maacah in the northern Huleh Valley. Would Kamid el-Loz imported material have reached the site by way of Tyre or through the Jordan Valley? Collected evidence still favour the second option while awaiting results of the new surveys and excavations undertaken in Tyre. 2. The Beka‘a Valley It is undoubtable that the Beka‘a Valley geographical location greatly influenced its pottery productions and that the Orontes Valley culture spread throughout the valley and even beyond. Syrian types such as s-shaped platters, globular closed bowls, biconical kraters with incised rims and shoulders, small handless jars with rilled or molded rims, wavy incisions or burnishing, and cooking pots and jars with square rims are attested on all sites in the Beka‘a. Similarly, the Beka‘a had interaction with northern and western Syria as seen from the iconography of the seal impressions found on Kamid el-Loz jars. However, there is a clear distinction of influences between the northern and the southern part of this region. The northern area known from sites such as Baalbek, Douris, Tell Hizzin and Tell el-Ghassil has tighter connections with northern Syria seen in bowls with incised or grooved rims and square rim cooking pots, while the southern part, represented by Kamid el-Loz, the only site excavated in the southern part of the valley, blends in influences from the Jordan Valley (tall carinated goblets) and parallels with southern Syria. A. Catanzariti already noted the similarities of carinated bowls between Kamid el-Loz and southern Levantine sites along the Jordan Valley corridor.454 The protraction of the LPW into the MB II in the southern Beka‘a and upper Jordan Valley could be an indication, in the absence of provenance analyses, of its local production. Painted pottery would still continue strongly at Kamid el-Loz during the Late Bronze Age,455 probably in line with or reminiscent of the original LPW and later Chocolateon-White Ware. Indeed, jars covered with a light white wash and painted in red are quite common in the Late Bronze Age assemblage contrary to the coast where such décor is unknown. Thus, the tradition of paint is much strongly present in the Beka‘a – or at least the southern part of the valley – than in any other region of Lebanon. The striking similarities of ceramic material from Hazor and the Beka‘a highlight the unique case of this latter site that is strongly embedded in northern culture during the Middle and Late Bronze Age. All of these cross-regional interactions testify to the intense mobility in the Beka‘a during the Middle Bronze Age. Catanzariti 2015, 102. See also the contribution by Heinz and Catanzariti in this volume. 455 Personal observation. I thank warmly M. Heinz for letting me see the pottery. 454

452 453

Francis-A llouche and Grimal 2016; 2017. A lbright 1965, 41.

213

214

Hanan Charaf

3. The Mount-Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon Chains These two mountain ranges are still largely unknown because of lack of excavations. Only sites in the Byblos and Zghorta Mountains are providing insights into village installations and their interactions with the different coastal polities. This paper results from investigations into the material culture of Lebanon during the Middle Bronze Age as part of the ERC Advanced Grant ‘The Enigma of the Hyksos’ with the aim at establishing a cultural matrix and identifying clusters. Despite

the many recent enterprises, large lacunae (Tripoli region, region between Byblos and Beirut, Tyre and its hinterland, the mountains and central and southern Beka‘a) persist and obstruct our further understanding of interregional connections. Once the results from recent survey or excavation enterprises are published, one can expect that the new cornucopia of information will lead to adding or refining cultural clusters. Until then, the cultural regions identified in this paper should offer a valid draft for future additions or refinement.

‘This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 668640)’

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

215

Bibliography A kkermans, N.M.G. and Schwartz, G. 2003 The Archaeology of Syria. From Complex Huntergatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16,000– 300 BC), Cambridge. A lbright, W.F. 1957 The High Place in Ancient Palestine, Vetus Testamentum Supplements 4, 242–258. 1965 Further Light on the History of Middle-Bronze Byblos, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 179, 38–43. A l-M aqdissi, M. 1995 Nouvelle présentation du matériel funéraire trouvé à ‘Amrit dans les tombes en silo, Syria 72, 207–210. 2006/ Introduction à l’étude de la production céramologique 2007 au Bronze Moyen au Levant Nord, Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 49–50, 55–80 (Arabic). A l-M aqdissi, M. and Badawi, M. 2002 Rapport préliminaire sur la sixième campagne des fouilles syriennes à Mishrifeh/Qatna, in: M. A l-M aqdissi, M. Luciani, D. Morandi Bonacossi, M. Novák and P. Pfälzner (eds.), Excavating Qatna, Documents d’Archéologie Syrienne 4, Damascus, 25–62. A miran, R. 1969 Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land: from its Beginnings in the Neolithic Period to the Iron Age, Jerusalem. Anderson, W. 1988 Sarepta I: The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y: The University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania Excavations at Sarafand, Lebanon, Beyrouth. Aston, D.A. 2002 Ceramic Imports at Tell el-Dab‘a during Middle Bronze IIA, 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, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna, 43–88. Badre, L. 1982 Tell el-Ghassil: Tomb I, in: Archéologie au Levant: Recueil à la mémoire de Roger Saidah, Collection de la Maison de l’Orient méditerranéen 12, Collection de la Maison de l’Orient méditerranéen, Série archéologique 9, Lyon, 123–132. 1997 Bey 003 Preliminary Report: Excavations of the American University of Beirut Museum 1993–1996, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 2, 6–94. 2000 Recently Discovered Bronze Age Temples: Middle Bronze Beirut and Late Bronze Tell Kazel, in: P. M atthiae, 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 –23rd 1998, Vol. II, Rome, 35–54.

2001/ The Bronze Age at Beirut: Major Results, ARAM 13, 2002 1–26. 2009 The Religious Architecture in the Bronze Age: Middle Bronze Beirut and Late Bronze Tell Kazel, in: A.-M. M aila A feiche (ed.), Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean: Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium Beirut 2008, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises Hors-Série 6, 253–270. Badreshany, K. 2019 The Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Areas 1 and 2, in: J. K amlah and H. Sader, Tell el-Burak I. The Middle Bronze Age, Wiesbaden, 283–440. Bagh, T. 2003 Levantine Painted Ware from the Middle Bronze Age Tombs at Sidon, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 20, 40–57. 2013 Tell el-Dab‘a XXIII. Levantine Painted Ware from Egypt and the Levant, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 37, Vienna. Bartl, K. 1998/ Akkar Survey 1997. Archaeological Surface 1999 Investigations in the Plain of Akkar/Northern Lebanon. Preliminary Results, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 3, 169–179. 2002a Archäologische Untersuchungen der südlichen Akkar-Ebene, Nordlibanon. Vorläufige Ergebnisse einer Oberflächenprospektion, in: R. Eichmann (ed.), Ausgrabungen und Surveys im Vorderen Orient I, Rahden/Westfalen, 23–48. 2002b Ancient Settlements in the Plain of Akkar/Northern Lebanon. First Results of Archaeological Survey Work in 1997 and 1999, Occident et Orient 7.1, 2–4. Beayno, F., M attar, C. and A bdul-Nour, H. 2002 Mgharet al-Hourriyé (Karm Saddé, Caza de Zgharta): Rapport préliminaire de la fouille de 2001, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 6, 135–178. Bechar, S. 2017 The Middle and Late Bronze Age Pottery, in: A. Ben-Tor, S. Zuckermann, S. Bechar and D. Sandhaus, Hazor VII. The 1990–2012 Excavations. The Bronze Age, Jerusalem, 199–467. Besana, R., Da Ros, M. and Iamoni, M. 2008 Excavations at the Acropolis of Mishrifeh, Operation J. A new Early Bronze Age III–Iron Age III Sequence for Central Inner Syria. Part 2: The Pottery, Akkadica 129, 139–179. Bikai, P. 1978 The Pottery of Tyre, Warminster. Bietak, M. 2019 The Obelisks Temple in Byblos and its Predecessors, in: A. Pieńkowska, D. Szelag and I. Zych (eds.), Stories Told Around the Fountain. Papers Offered to Piotr Bieliński on the Occasion of his 70th, Warszawa, 165–185.

216

Hanan Charaf

Braemer, F. and A l-M aqdissi, M. 2002 La céramique du Bronze Moyen dans la Syrie du Sud, in: M. A l-M aqdissi, V. M atoïan and Ch. Nicolle (eds.), Céramique de l’Age du Bronze en Syrie, I. La Syrie du Sud et la Vallée de l’Oronte, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 161, Beyrouth, 23–50. Burke, A. 2008 “Walled Up to Heaven”. The Evolution of Middle Bronze Age Fortification Strategies in the Levant, Winona Lake. 2014 Introduction to the Levant during the Middle Bronze Age, in: A. K illebrew and M. Steiner (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant (ca. 8000–332 BCE), Oxford, 403–413. 2020 The Amorites and the Bronze Age Near East, Cambridge. Catanzariti, A. 2015 The Archaeology of Economic Systems in the Central Levant during the Middle Bronze Age: A Case Study from Kamid el-Loz (Lebanon), PhD Dissertation, UC Berkeley, Berkeley. Cateloy, C. 2019 Imported Levantine Amphorae at Tell el-Dab‘a: A Volumetric Approach to Reconsidering the Maritime Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, in: M. Bietak and S. Prell (eds.), The Enigma of the Hyksos. Volume 1, ASOR Conference Boston 2017 − ICAANE Conference Munich 2018 – Collected Papers, Contributions the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant 9, Wiesbaden, 277–304. Chaaya, A. 2018 Results of the First Season of Excavation at the Medieval Castle of Gbail/Byblos, in: B. Horejs, Ch. Schwall, V. Müller, M. Luciani, M. R itter, M. Giudetti, R. Salisbury, F. Höflmayer and T. Bürge (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 25–29 April 2016, Vienna, Wiesbaden, 465–484. Chahoud, J. 2014/ L’aspect archéozoologique des pratiques funéraires 2015 à l’âge du Bronze au Liban, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 40–41, 74–90. Charaf, H. 2004 An Assessment of the Continuity and Change in the LBI Pottery at Tell ‘Arqa, Lebanon, Ägypten & Levante 14, 231–248. 2010/ Cypriot Imported Pottery from the Middle Bronze 2011 Age in Lebanon, Berytus 53–54, 147–165. 2014 The Northern Levant (Lebanon) during the Middle Bronze Age, in: A. K illebrew and M. Steiner (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant (ca. 8000–332 BCE), Oxford, 434–450. 2016 The Pottery of Level 12 from Tell ‘Arqa in North Lebanon, in: I. Thuesen (ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Archaeology in the Ancient Near East, May 22–26 2000, Copenhagen, Bologna, 733–744.

Forthc. a New Bronze Age Discoveries beneath the Medieval Castle of Gbeil/Byblos: The Pottery, in: A.-M. A feiche (ed.), Three Global Harbours of the Ancient World, Acts of the International Symposium held in Beirut 25–29 October 2017, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises HorsSérie 18. Forthc. b La céramique de l’âge du Bronze de Byblos – Projet Byblos et la Mer (BLM), Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 22. Charaf, H. and Ownby, M. 2011 The Tell el-Yahudiya Ware from Tell Arqa, in: M. Bietak and D.A. Aston (eds.), Tell el-Dab‘a VIII. The Classification and Chronology of Tell Yahudiya Ware, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 12, Vienna, 591–620. Chehab, M. 1939 Tombe phénicienne de Sin el-Fil, in: Mélanges offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud: Secrétaire perpétuel de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, Vol. 2, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 30, Paris, 803–810. 1940 Les tombes phéniciennes. Majdalouna, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 4, 37–53. 1955 Chronique, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 12, 47–58. Cohen, S.L. 2014 The Southern Levant (Cisjordan) during the Middle Bronze Age, in: A. K illebrew and M. Steiner (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant (ca. 8000–332 BCE), Oxford, 451–464. Dossin, G. 1939 Les archives économiques du palais de Mari, Syria 20.2, 97–113. Doumet-Serhal, C. 1996 Les fouilles de Tell el-Ghassil de 1972 à 1974. Etude du matériel, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 146, Beyrouth. 2002 Fourth Season of Excavation at Sidon: Preliminary Report, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 6, 179–210. 2003 Sidon – British Museum Excavations 1998–2003, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 18, 2–19. 2004a Sidon-British Museum Excavations 1998, 2000– 2003, in: C. Doumet-Serhal, A. R abate and A. R esek (eds.), A Decade of Archaeology and History in the Lebanon, Beyrouth, 102–123. 2004b Sixth and Seventh Seasons of Excavations at Sidon. Preliminary Report, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 8, 47–82. 2004c Sidon (Lebanon): Twenty Middle Bronze Age Burials from the 2001 Season of Excavation, Levant 36, 89–154. 2006a The Early Bronze Age in Sidon. “College Site” Excavations (1998–2000–2001), Bibliothèque Historique et Archéologique 178, Beyrouth. 2006b Eighth and Ninth Season of Excavation (2006–2007) at Sidon: Preliminary Report, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 10, 131–168. 2009a Second Millennium BC Levantine Ceremonial Feasts: Sidon a Case Study, in: A.-M. M aila-

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon

2009b 2010 2011

2013 2014

2016 2017

A feiche (ed.), Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium Beirut 2008, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises Hors-Série 6, 229–244. Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Season of Excavation (2008–2010) at Sidon, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 13, 7–69. Sidon during the Bronze Age: Burials, Rituals and Feasting Grounds at the “College Site”, Near Eastern Archaeology 73.2–3, 114–129. Thirteenth and Fourteenth Seasons of Excavation (2011–2012) at Sidon. Preliminary Report, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 15, 175–238. Sidon. 15 Years of Excavations, Beyrouth. Mortuary Practices in Sidon in the Middle Bronze Age: A Reflection on Sidonian Society in the Second Millennium BC, in: P. Pfälzner, H. Niehr, E. Pernicka, S. Lange and T. Köster (eds.), Contextualising Grave Inventories in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of a Workshop at the London 7th ICAANE in April 2010 and an International Symposium in Tübingen in November 2010, both Organised by the Tübingen Post-Graduate School „Symbols of the Dead“, Wiesbaden, 29–37. Sidon: The 2013 and 2014 Seasons of Excavation, and 16 Years on College Site, Berytus 56, 86–130. Sidon. Canaan’s Firstborn, Biblical Archaeology Review 43.4, 20–30.

Doumet-Serhal, C. and Griffiths, D. 2003 Middle Bronze Age Jars from Lebanon: A Comparison According to Vessel Capacities, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 17, 38–41. Doumet-Serhal, C. and Kopetzky, K. 2011/ Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a: Two Cities – One Story. A 2012 Highlight on Metal Artefacts from the Middle Bronze Age Graves, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 24–25, 9–52. Doumet-Serhal, C. and Shahud, J. 2013 A Middle Bronze Age Temple in Sidon. Ritual and Communal Feasting, in: O. Loretz, S. R ibichini, W.G.E. Watson and J.Á. Zamora (eds.), Ritual, Religion and Reason. Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 40, Münster, 33–60. Dunand, M. 1937– Fouilles de Byblos. Vol. 1: 1926–1932, Bibliothèque 1939 archéologique et historique 24, Paris. 1945 Byblia Grammata: Documents et recherches sur le développement de l’écriture en Phénicie, Beyrouth. 1950 Fouilles de Byblos, Tome II, 1933–1938. Atlas, Paris. 1954 Fouilles de Byblos, Tome II, 1933–1938. Texte, Paris. 1958 Fouilles de Byblos, Tome II, 1933–1938. Texte, Paris. 1963 Byblos, son histoire, ses ruines, ses légendes, Beyrouth. Dunand, M., Saliby, N. and K irichian, A. 1954/ Les fouilles d’Amrith en 1954, rapport préliminaire, 1955 Annales Archéologiques de Syrie 4–5, 189–204.

217

Faivre, X. and Nicolle, Ch. 2007 La Jézireh au Bronze Moyen et la céramique du Khabur, in: M. A l-M aqdissi, V. M atoïan and Ch. Nicolle (eds.), Céramique de l’Age du Bronze en Syrie, II. L’Euphrate et la région de Jézireh, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 180, Beyrouth, 179–229. Finkbeiner, U. 1981 Untersuchungen zur Stratigraphie des Obeliskentempels in Byblos: Versuch einer methodischen Auswertung, Baghdader Mitteilungen 12, 13–79. Fischer-Genz, B., Genz, H., Elias, N. and Doumet-Serhal, C. 2018 Report on the 2017 Archaeological Soundings at Qornet ed-Deir, Jabal Moussa Biosphere Reserve, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 18, 245–262. Forstner-Müller, I. and Kopetzky, K. 2009 Egypt and Lebanon: New Evidence for Cultural Exchanges in the First Half of the 2nd Millennim B.C., Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises Hors-Série 6, 143–157. Forstner-Müller, I., Kopetzky, K. and Doumet-Serhal, C. 2006 Egyptian Pottery of the Late 12th and 13th Dynasty from Sidon, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 24, 52–59. Francis-A llouche, M. and Grimal, N. 2016 The Maritime Approaches to Ancient Byblos (Lebanon), Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 4.2–3, 242–277. 2017 Byblos maritime; une installation portuaire au piémont sud de la ville antique, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 17, 133–196. Frankel, D. 2014 Cyprus during the Middle Bronze Age, in: A. K illebrew and M. Steiner (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant (ca. 8000–332 BCE), Oxford, 482–496. Fugmann, E. 1958 Hama. Fouilles et recherches 1931–1938. L’architecture des periodes pré-hellénistiques, Copenhagen. Genz, H. 2008 Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Baalbek, in: M. van Ess and J. ʿA bd al-M asīḥ (eds.), Baalbek/ Heliopolis: Results of Archaeological and Architectural Research 2002–2005: GermanLebanese Colloquium, Berlin 2006, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises HorsSérie 4, 127–149. 2010/ Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Tell Fadous– 2011 Kfarabida, Lebanon, Berytus 53–54, 115–132. 2014/ Middle Bronze Age Tombs from Tell Fadous– 2015 Kfarabida, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 40–41, 36–44.

218

Hanan Charaf

Genz, H and Sader, H. 2007/ Bronze Age Funerary Practices in Lebanon, 2008 Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 26–27, 258–283. 2010/ Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Tell Hizzin, 2011 Lebanon, Berytus 53–54, 133–146. Genz, H., Damick, A., A hrens, A., El-Zaatari, S., Höflmayer, F., Kutschera, W. and Wild, E. 2010 Excavations at Tell Fadous-Kfarabida. Preliminary Report on the 2010 Season of Excavations, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 14, 241–274. Genz, H., Damick, A., Berquist, S., M akinson, M., Wygnańska, Z., M ardini, M., Peršin, M., R aad, N., A lameh, J., A hrens, A., El-Dana, N., Edwards, J. and El-Zaatari, S. 2018 Excavations at Tell Fadous-Kfarabida. Preliminary report on the 2014 and 2015 Seasons of Excavations, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 18, 37–78. Gernez, G. 2008 A New Study of Metal Weapons from Byblos: Preliminary Work, in: J. Cordoba, C. Pérez, I. Rubio and S. M artinez (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Vol. II, Madrid, 73–88. 2014/ Tombes de guerriers et tombes à armes au Liban au 2015 Bronze Moyen, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 40–41, 45–73. Greenberg, R. 2019 The Archaeology of the Bronze Age Levant. From Urban Origins to the Demise of City-States, 3700– 1000 BCE, Cambridge. Guiges, P.-E. 1937 Lébé‘a, Kafer Garra, Qrayé: Nécropoles de la région sidonienne, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 1, 35–76. 1938 Lébé‘a, Kafer Garra, Qrayé: Nécropoles de la région sidonienne (suite), Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 2, 27–72. H achmann, R. 1969 Le cimetière de l’âge du Bronze Moyen sur la pente nord du Tell, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 22, 77–84. Heinz, M. 2004 Kamid el-Loz: From Village to City and Back to Village. 3000 Years of Settlement History in the Beqa’a Plain, in: C. Doumet-Serhal (ed.), Decade. A Decade of Archaeology and History in the Lebanon, Beyrouth, 560–581. 2010 Kamid el-Loz. Intermediary between Cultures. More than 10 years of Archaeological Research in Kamid el-Loz (1997 to 2007), Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises Hors-Série 7, Beyrouth. 2016 Kamid el-Loz. 4000 Years and More of Rural and Urban Life in the Lebanese Beqa‘a Plain, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon Special Issue, Beyrouth. Heinz, M., Wagner, E., Linke, J., Walther, A., Catanzariti, A., Müller, J.-M. and Weber, M. 2010 Kamid el-Loz. Report on the Excavations in 2008

and 2009, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 14, 9–134. Heinz, M., Wagner-Durand, E., Linke, J. and Catanzariti, A. 2011 Kamid el-Loz. Report on the Excavations in 2010 and 2011, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 15, 29–107. Höflmayer, F. 2017 A Radiocarbon Chronology for the Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 13, 20–33. Höflmayer, F., Dee, M.W. and R iehl, S. 2019 The Radiocarbon Dating of the Middle Bronze Age Monumental Building, in: J. K amlah and H. Sader (eds.), Tell el-Burak I. The Middle Bronze Age, Wiesbaden, 210–226. Höflmayer, F., Dee, M.W., Genz, H. and R iehl, S. 2014 Radiocarbon Evidence for the Early Bronze Age Levant: The Site of Tell Fadous-Kfarabida (Lebanon) and the End of the Early Bronze III Period, Radiocarbon 56.2, 529–542. Höflmayer, F., Sader, H., Dee, M.W., Kutschera, W., Wild, E.M. and R iehl, S. 2016a New Evidence for Middle Bronze Age Chronology and Synchronisms in the Levant: Radiocarbon Dates from Tell el-Burak, Tell el-Dab‘a, and Tel Ifshar Compared, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 375, 53–76. Höflmayer, F., Yasur-Landau, A., Cline, E.H., Dee, M., Lorentzen, B. and R iehl, S. 2016b New Radiocarbon Dates from Tel Kabri Support a High Middle Bronze Age Chronology, Radiocarbon 58.3, 1–15. Iamoni, M. 2012 The Late MBA and LBA Pottery Horizons at Qatna. Innovation and Conservation in the Ceramic Tradition of a Regional capital and the Implications for Second Millennium Syrian Chronology, Udine. 2014 Transitions in Ceramics, a Critical Account and Suggested Approach: Case-study through Comparison of the EBA–MBA and MBA–LBA Horizons at Qatna, Levant 46, 4–26. Iamoni, M. and Morandi-bonacossi, D. 2010/2011 The Middle Bronze Age I-III Pottery Sequence from the Italian Excavations at Mishrifeh/Qatna, Syria, Berytus 53/54, 181–212. Ilan, D. 1996 The Middle Bronze Age tombs, in: A. Biran, D. Ilan and R. Greenberg (eds.), Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs, Jerusalem, 163–328. Ilan, D. and M arcus, E. 2019 Middle Bronze Age IIA, in: S. Gitin (ed.), The Ancient Pottery of Israel and its Neighbors from the Middle Bronze Age through the Late Bronze Age, Jerusalem, 9–75.

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon Jans, G. and Breitschneider, J. 2019 A Collective Middle Bronze Age II Tomb at Tell Tweini Field A, in: J. bretschneider and G. jans (eds.), About Tell Tweini (Syria): Artefacts, Ecofacts and Landscape, Leuven, 201–241. K allas, N. 2019 Local Building Traditions and Foreign Influences. The Levantine Middle Bronze Age Palatial Structures, in: M. Bietak, P. M atthiae and S. Prell (eds.), Ancient Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Palaces, Volume II, Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant 8, Wiesbaden, 99–115. K amlah, J. and Sader, H. 2019 Tell el-Burak I. The Middle Bronze Age, Wiesbaden. K harobi, A., Stantis, C., Maaranen, N. and Schutkowski, H. 2021 Once Were Warriors: Challenging Occupation Preconceptions in Lebanese Weapon-associated Burials (Middle Bronze Age, Sidon). International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 1–14. K ilani, M. 2017 Computer Science and Old Excavations: the Case of Byblos, in: R. O’Sullivan, C. M arini and J. Binnber (eds.), Archaeological Approaches to Breaking Boundaries: Interaction, Integration and Division: Proceedings of the Graduate Archaeology at Oxford Conferences 2015–2016, BAR International Series 2869, Oxford, 209–230. K lengel, H. 1992 Syria 3000 to 300 B.C.: A Handbook of Political History, Berlin. Kochavi, M. and Yadin, Y. 2002 Typological Analysis of the MBIIA Pottery from Aphek According to its Stratigraphic Provenance, 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, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna, 189–225. Kopetzky, K. 2007/ Pottery from Tell Arqa Found in Egypt and its 2008 Chronological Contexts, in: H. Charaf (ed.), Inside the Levantine Maze. Archaeological and Historical Studies Presented to Jean-Paul Thalmann on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 26–27, 17–58. 2011/ The Egyptian Corpus of the Middle Bronze Age 2012 Layers of Sidon, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 34–35, 163–172. 2016 Some Remarks on the Relations between Egypt and the Levant during the late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period, in: G. M iniaci and W. Grajetzki (eds.), The World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1550 BC), Vol. II, London, 143–159. 2018 Tell el-Dab‘a and Byblos: New Chronological Evidences, Ägypten & Levante 28, 309–358.

219

Kuschke, A. 1978 Preliminary Remarks on an Archaeological Survey in the Northern Biqa‘, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 30, 43–45. Lauffray, J. 2008 Fouilles de Byblos. Tome VI, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 182, Beyrouth. Loffet, H.-C. 2006 The Sidon Scaraboid S/3487’, Archaeology & History in Lebanon 24, 78–85. M acgillivray, J.A. 2003 A Middle Minoan Cup from Sidon, Archaeology & History in Lebanon 18, 20–24. M aeir, A. 1997 Tomb 1181: A Multiple-Interment Burial Cave of the Transitional Middle Bronze Age IIA–B, in: A. Ben-Tor and R. Bonfil (eds.), Hazor V: An Account of the Fifth Season of Excavation, 1968, Jerusalem, 295–340. M arcus, E., Porath, Y. and Paley, S. 2008 The Early Middle Bronze Age IIa Phases at Tel Ifshar and their External Relations, Ägypten & Levante 18, 221–244. M arfoe, L. 1995 Kamid el-Loz. 13. The Prehistoric and Early Historic Context of the Site, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 41, Bonn. M argueron, J.-C. 2010 Review of P. A. Miglus and E. Strommenger,  Tall Bi’a Tuttul - VII, Der Palast A,  Syria 87, 370–373. M argueron, J.-C. and Pfirsch, L. 2005 Le Proche-Orient et l’Égypte antiques, Paris. M azar, A. 1992 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000–586 B.C.E., New York. M azzoni, S. 1998 Materials and Chronology, in: S.M. Cecchini and S. M azzoni (eds.), Tell Afis (Siria). Scavi sull’acropoli 1988–1992, Pisa, 9–100. 2002 La céramique du Bronze Moyen dans la Syrie du Sud, in: M. A l-M aqdissi, V. M atoïan and Ch. Nicolle (eds.), Céramique de l’Age du Bronze en Syrie, I. La Syrie du Sud et la Vallée de l’Oronte, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique, 161, Beyrouth. M archetti, N., Genz, H., Charaf, H. and Vacca, A. Forthc. Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean: The Central and Northern Levant, Brepols. Metzger, M. 2012 Kamid el-Loz. 17. Die mittelbronzezeitlichen Tempelanlagen T4 und T5, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 71, Bonn.

220

Hanan Charaf

Miniaci, G. 2018 Deposit f (Nos. 15121–15567) in the Obelisk Temple at Byblos: Artefact Mobility in the Middle Bronze Age I–II (1850–1650 BC) between Egypt and the Levant, Ägypten & Levante 28, 379–408.  Miron, R. 1982 Die “mittelbronzezeitlichen” Gräber am Nordhang des Tells, in: R. H achmann, Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kamid el-Loz in den Jahren 1971 bis 1974, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 32, Bonn, 101–121. Monchambert, J.-Y., Bargman, J., Beaudoux, J., Cuny, A. and Morvillez, E. 2008 Une campagne de sondages sur le Tell Kharayeb à Yanouh (Liban) (Printemps 2006), Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 12, 35–147. Montet, P. 1928 Byblos et l’Égypte, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 11, Paris. 1964 Quatre nouvelles inscriptions hiéroglyphiques retrouvées à Byblos, Kêmi 17, 61–68. Morandi Bonacossi, D. 2014 The Northern Levant (Syria) during the Middle Bronze Age in: A. K illebrew and M. Steiner (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant (ca. 8000–332 BCE), Oxford, 414–423. Nassar, J. 2014/ Notes Concerning a Particular Burial in Tell Arqa, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 40–41, 91–99. Nicolle, Ch. 2002 La céramique de l’âge du Bronze en Damascène, in: M. A l-M aqdissi, V. M atoïan and Ch. Nicolle (eds.), Céramique de l’Age du Bronze en Syrie, I. La Syrie du Sud et la Vallée de l’Oronte, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 161, Beyrouth, 51–64. Nigro, L. 2002a The Middle Bronze Age Pottery Horizon of Northern Inner Syria on the Basis of the Stratified Assemblages of Tell Mardikh and Hama Damascène, in: M. A l-M aqdissi, V. M atoïan and Ch. Nicolle (eds.), Céramique de l’Age du Bronze en Syrie, I. La Syrie du Sud et la Vallée de l’Oronte, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 161, Beyrouth, 97–128. 2002b The MB Pottery Horizon of Tell Mardikh/Ancient Ebla in a Chronological Perspective, 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, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna, 208–328. Novák, M. 2004 The Chronology of the Bronze Age Palace of Qaṭna, Ägypten & Levante XIV, 299–317.

Pfälzner, P. 2019 The Royal Palace of Qaṭna and the classification of Syrian palatial architecture of the 2nd millennium BC, in:  D. wicke (ed.), Der Palast im antiken und islamischen Orient. 9. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 30. März – 1. April 2016, Frankfurt am Main, 235–260. 2020 Summary, in: P. Pfälzner and J. Schmid (eds.), Der Königspalast von Qaṭna. Teil I: Chronologie, Grundriss, Baugeschichte und Bautechniken. Qatna-Studien 5, Wiesbaden, XXXVI–XLI. R amsey, C. and Doumet-Serhal, C. 2006 Carbon 14 Analysis from a New Early Bronze Age III Building at Sidon, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 24, 18–22. R egev, J., Miroschedji, P. de, Greenberg, R., Braun, E., Greenhut, Z. and Boaretto, E. 2012 Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology, Radiocarbon 54.3–4, 525–566. Sader, H. and K amlah, J. 2010 Tell el-Burak: A New Middle Bronze Age Site from Lebanon, Near Eastern Archaeology 73, 130–141. Saidah, R. 1993/1994 Beirut in the Bronze Age: The Kharji Tombs, Berytus 41, 137–210. Sala, M. 2015 Early and Middle Bronze Age Temples at Byblos: Specificity and Levantine Interconnections, in: A.-M. M aila A feiche (ed.), Cult and Ritual on the Levantine Coast and its Impact on the Eastern Mediterranean Realm. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Beirut 2012, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises HorsSérie 10, 31–58. Schiestl, R. 2002 Some Links Between a Late Middle Kingdom Cemetery at Tell el Dab‘a and Syria-Palestine, 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, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna, 329–352. Stager, L. 2002 The MB IIA Ceramic Sequence at Tel Ashkelon and its Implications for the “Port Power” Model of Trade,’ 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, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna, 353–362. Steimer, T. 1996 Les monuments mégalithiques de la région de Mengez (Liban nord), unpublished M.A. Thesis, Université Paris I, Paris.

Looking for Cultural Borders during the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon Tallon, M. 1958 Monuments mégalithiques de Syrie et du Liban, Mélanges de l’Université de Saint-Joseph 35.3, 213–234. 1959 Tumulus et mégalithes du Hermel et de la Béqa‘ nord, Mélanges de l’Université de Saint-Joseph 36, 93–100. 1964 Les monuments mégalithiques de Mengez, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 17, 7–19. Thalmann, J.-P. 2003 Transporter et conserver: jarres de l’âge du Bronze à Tell Arqa, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 17, 25–37. 2006 Tell Arqa I. Les niveaux de l’âge du Bronze, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 177, Beyrouth. 2007 Settlement Patterns and Agriculture in the Akkar Plain during the Late Early and Early Middle Bronze Ages, in: D. Morandi Bonacossi (ed.), Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital: Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in Central-western Syria, Studi archeologici su Qatna 1, Udine, 219–232. 2010 Tell Arqa: A Prosperous City during the Bronze Age, Near Eastern Archaeology 73.2–3, 86–101. 2013 Le lion, la chèvre et le poisson. À propos d’une jarre à empreintes de sceaux-cylindres de Tell Arqa (Liban), Syria 90, 255–312. 2016 Rapport préliminaire sur les campagnes de 2008 à 2012 à Tell Arqa, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 16, 15–78.

221

Tufnell, O. 1969 The Pottery from Royal Tombs I–III at Byblos, Berytus 18, 5–33. Tufnell, O. and Ward, W. 1966 Relations between Byblos, Egypt and Mesopotamia at the End of the Third Millennium B.C. A Study of the Montet Jar, Syria 3–4, 165–241. Van De Mieroop, M. 2007 A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000–323 B.C., Chichester. Veron, A. and le Roux, G. 2004 Provenance of Silver Artefacts from Burial 27 at Sidon, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 20, 34–38. Veron, A., Poirier, A. and le Roux, G. 2009 Lead Isotopes reveal the Origin of Middle Bronze Age Artefacts found in Sidon (Burial 42), Archaeology and History in Lebanon 29, 68–74. Virolleaud, C. 1922 Découverte à Byblos d’une hypogée de la XIIe dynastie égyptienne, Syria 3, 273–290. Yadin, Y., Aharoni, Y., Amiran, R., Dothan, T., Dunayevsky, I. and Perrot, J. 1958 Hazor I: An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955, Jerusalem.

222

Hanan Charaf

Fig. 1 Sidon’s harbour

Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a – an Example of Levantine/Egyptian Commercial and Cultural Relations

223

Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a – an Example of Levantine/Egyptian Commercial and Cultural Relations: A Step Towards the Understanding of the Hyksos Phenomenon by Claude Doumet-Serhal 1 and Vanessa Boschloos 2

Abstract

From the exchange of artefacts uncovered in Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a respectively, the close ties that existed between these two ancient centres of civilization are irrefutably well established. This paper sums up the range of contacts between the two cities which encompassed commercial ties, transmission of ideas, beliefs and concepts as well as examining how the spatial organisation of each city compared to the other. In Sidon during the Middle Bronze Age, the evolution between the MB IIA and the MB IIB manifested itself in the arrangement of human internments and the architecture surrounding them. Two main units, each with a different function, were encountered at Sidon: one for cultic purposes and the other for housing the dead. This type of arrangement, with a separate special area for the dead, was also found in Tell el-Dab‘a where it was known as “Totenhäuser”. A further link between the two was the fact that this practice ended in both cities during the same time period (Sidon str. 6, Tell el-Dab‘a E/2–1.)

Introduction

Manfred Bietak has continuously argued that the so-called Hyksos in Egypt were not the result of a sudden invasion but should be recognised as the product of a repetitive pattern of attraction for Egypt dating to prehistoric times3 and common to Western Asiatic population groups that were in search of a living in the country, especially around the Delta. As a result, ancient Egypt should be understood as a civilization carried by a heterogenous population, including a strong influx of Near Easterners. Data identifying names of foreign origin in Egyptian texts show people bearing Western Asiatic names from the 12th Dynasty onwards, with Canaanites being identified in Egyptian texts as “the Asiatics”.4 The continuity in the presence of a Western Asiatic population group can be firmly established in the Eastern Delta more than 150 years before the beginning of the Hyksos rule in Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris.5 The most accepted scenario postulates a gradual infiltration and settlement of Canaanites in the 1 The

British Museum London; [email protected]. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; [email protected]. Bietak 2006, 285; 2010, 138. Sparks 2004, 30. Bietak 2006, 285.

2 The 3 4 5

Eastern Delta as of the Middle Kingdom, encouraged by Egypt’s demand for raw material. The Canaanites increasingly played a central role as traders, middlemen, artisans, mercenaries and workers and Avaris should be viewed as a cosmopolitan harbour town6 with a large Levantine community involved in trade, sea travel and boat production.7 This culminated in their take-over of government in the mid-17th century BCE. The question of geographic origin plays out mainly between the areas of northern coastal Lebanon and southern Canaan.8 Evidence points more favourably toward a gradual Near East infiltration from the northern Levant, today the Syrian and Lebanese coast, rather than the south, based on its vantage as a hub for the exchange of goods.9 Furthermore, the Egyptian ruling class seems to have maintained10 cultural exchanges and commercial ties mainly with the northern Levant, from where it took its architectural concepts and burial customs. The city of Sidon, 30 km south of Beirut, was well known for its harbour and its main network of maritime commercial traffic (Fig. 1) which developed as early as the 12th Dynasty with Egypt, the Aegean and Cyprus. If we consider more specifically Egypt’s relations with the Lebanese coast, evidence of Egyptian activity is known from the Mit Rahina inscription, the earliest “bill of lading” or “cargo manifest”11 with its lists of tribute goods from Lebanon. This inscription provides us with a catalogue of merchandise brought back to 6 Bietak

2010, 138. 2006, 290; 2010, 138, 144. 8 Bietak 2010, 150–151; Bietak argues for the northern Levant, discrediting the theory that the majority of the inhabitants of Avaris originated from southern Canaan; Mourad 2015, 11 and 217, “Nevertheless, the assertion that the Hyksos and their people are of sole Southern Levantine ethnicity is not supported by the evidence”. On the subject, see also the contribution by Ben-Tor in this volume. 9 Forstner-Müller and Kopetzky 2009, 150–154; Cohen Weinberger and Goren 2004, 81, the northern Levant had a pivotal role in the commerce layout of Tell el-Dab‘a. 10 Mourad 2015, 217, “on the whole, the examined evidence suggests the Hyksos Dynasty was a result of the Egyptian ruler’s own persistent relations with the Levant from the very beginning of Dynasty 12 to the Second Intermediate Period”. 11 M arcus 2007, 137, 145. 7 Bietak

© by the author This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc by 4.0 license DOI: 10.13173/9783447117371.223

224

Claude Doumet-Serhal and Vanessa Boschloos

Fig. 2 Sidon burial 134, phase 3 Egypt from Amenemhet II’s maritime expedition to the Lebanon and itemises several precious metals with a particular emphasis on silver, which was often found in Sidon’s burials.12 The Sidon excavation, which began in 1998 on Sidon’s ‘College site’ and which is still ongoing, is a vivid Tell el-Dab‘a counterpart with its similarities in burial customs, material culture, circulation of pottery and architectural concepts. Traditionally, funeral practices are deeply ingrained in a society’s culture and reflect that society’s beliefs, traditions and values and therefore any correlation in these practices between one people and another is usually a powerful indicator of association. In 2011– 2012, an article titled “Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a: Two Cities – One Story” was published highlighting the similarity in burial customs and funerary material in the Middle Bronze Age graves in both Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a. Early Canaanites who settled in Tell elDab‘a adapted and assimilated the customs and styles

of Egyptians whilst also retaining their own burial customs which reflected their Canaanite origins13. Moreover, although ‘specific warrior burials’ from the early MB IIA are found all over the Levant, the burials of Tell el-Dab‘a and Sidon share with each other more than the usual markers found in Levantine Middle Bronze Age sites.14 The Sidon excavation established a sustained practice of commercial relations with Egypt from the 12th to the first half of the 15th Dynasty. Three of the excavated phases in the sand level belong to a sequence of burials which were deposited from the beginning of Middle Bronze Age IIA until the intermediate Middle Bronze Age IIA–IIB (stratum 4). Essentially, the cultural identity of the Sidonians at the beginning of the second millennium can chiefly be deduced from mortuary remains and burial offerings. The site was re-occupied from stratum 4 on top of the sand until stratum 8, with burials still present at each stratum together with architectural features.

13 Prell 12

Doumet-Serhal et al. 2007, 29–46.

2019, 125–126, on the funerary customs that are definitely of non-Egyptian origin. 14 Doumet-Serhal and Kopetzky 2011/2012, 9–10.

Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a – an Example of Levantine/Egyptian Commercial and Cultural Relations

225

Fig. 3 Sidon burial 131, stratum 4

Trade Connections

Egyptian and Egyptian Style Pottery Sidon’s College site yielded the largest collection so far of imported Egyptian pottery to the Levantine region during the Middle Bronze Age.15 While studies and percentages are still being assessed,16 it is clear that the corpus relates mostly to pottery of an average capacity of 10 to 45 litres but also includes some of over 100 litres as well as smaller jugs of 5 litres capacity. It is important to note at this stage that in Sidon, the increase of the Egyptian ceramic corpus from the early 12th Dynasty onwards involved mainly vessels which were highly suitable for the transport of commodities.17 The imports are solely represented by storage jars of various types and sizes produced in Marl clays. This means that trade with Egypt was the cornerstone of a market for comestible goods that were needed by the Levantine population and in the same way this trade was reciprocal and equally essential. Per year, an estimated average of 8000 Canaanite jars18 15 Kopetzky

2011/2012, 163–164. final publication will be undertaken by Karin Kopetzky. 17 Forstner-Müller, Kopetzky and Doumet-Serhal 2006, 55; Bader 2011, 143–144, 150. 18 M arcus 2006, 188. 16 The

containing olive oil and wine were shipped from the coast of Lebanon to Tell el-Dab‘a in the Delta19. One Marl A jar, found on top of a warrior burial, was imported from Upper Egypt and is dated to Senwosret I and pre-dating Senwosret III.20 Vessels made of Marl C were very popular: one Egyptian import from Sidon’s phase 1 (Tell el-Dab‘a stratum H or earlier) was found in burial 13. It consisted of a handmade21 Marl C-jar typical of the Egyptian 12th Dynasty. In Sidon phase 2 (Tell el-Dab‘a stratum H) a zîr,22 dated to between the reign of Amenemhat III and the beginning of the 13th Dynasty, reached Sidon and was reused as a burial container. In addition to the Egyptian pottery already published by Karin Kopetzky and Irene ForstnerMüller, along with some also listed in Mourad’s volume,23 further new vessels were discovered in the more recently uncovered graves: 19 Cateloy

2019, 298, during the Hyksos period capacity ranged between 25–38 litres whilst in the MB IIA capacity did not exceed 25 litres. 20 Forstner-Müller and Kopetzky 2006, 60–61; Kopetzky 2011/2012, 163. 21 Bader 2003, 31–32. 22 Bader 2003, 34–36; Forstner-Müller and Kopetzky 2009, 145, 147. 23 Mourad 2015, 178–179.

226

Claude Doumet-Serhal and Vanessa Boschloos

Fig. 4 Sidon burial 133, stratum 5 Two Egyptian imports from burials 134 (Fig. 2) and 142, found in Sidon phase 3 (Tell el-Dab‘a stratum G 4–1) and also of Marl C, fall into the period between the second half of the 12th Dynasty (probably from Senwosret III (or Amenemhat III) and the first half of the 13th Dynasty.24 During the middle of the 13th Dynasty25, namely the height of the trade imports, in Sidon’s stratum 4, a small Marl C-1 jar with a shaped rim was discovered in burial 131 (Fig. 3) while in stratum 5, a Marl C-1 cup from burial 133 (Fig. 4) is contemporary with its last appearance in phase E/3 in Tell el-Dab‘a.26 Nile clay vessels27 do not appear in Sidon before the very late MB IIC period and are very scarce as only two bowls and one jar were found,28 the latter also reused as a burial container. During the 18th Dynasty, contacts between the Hyksos kingdom and the Lebanese coast continued although on a much smaller scale than before.29 A Tell-el-Yahudiyeh juglet (S/2170-3940/1379) from a bone layer (burial 7) (Fig. 5–5a) was found in Sidon decorated with a pattern of lotus blossoms flaring out pers. com. unpublished. and Kopetzky 2009, 154. 26 Kopetzky, pers. com. unpublished. 27 Kopetzky 2011/2012, 163. 28 Kopetzky 2011/2012, 169–170. 29 Forstner-Müller and Kopetzky 2009, 154.

from the top of a stem and tied together with hanging garlands and a standing bird facing six horizontal lines. According to M. Bietak, most of these juglets were produced shortly before the Hyksos period,30 are of Egyptian manufacture and were found on northern Lebanese sites as diverse as Tell Arqa, Tell el-Ghassil and Byblos. The ‘Sidon jar’ (S/1785/1379) (Fig. 6) with its depiction of a sequence of leaping dolphins placed on a pattern of waves31 is an Aegean influenced production manufactured in Lebanon 32 and is comparable to the incised dolphins on the Tell-elYahudiyeh dolphin vase found in Egypt. This jug is assigned a date no earlier than Tell el-Dab‘a phase F and no later than phase E/3, a transitional period when the last types of the classical Middle Kingdom pottery vanish and a local development of vessels, later known as ‘classical Hyksos pottery’ begins. According to Bietak and Kopetzky, in historical terms, phases F and E/3 should be equated with the period of an independent kingdom at Avaris during the time of the 14th Dynasty.33

24 Kopetzky,

25 Forstner-Müller

30 Doumet-Serhal

2011/2012, 140, 141. 2008, 12–15; 2013, 133–134. 32 Mommsen 2006, 49. 33 Bietak and Kopetzky 2009, 31–32. 31 Doumet-Serhal

Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a – an Example of Levantine/Egyptian Commercial and Cultural Relations

227

Fig. 5 – 5a Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglet S/2170-3940/1379 bearing the garland of lotus blossom (11.4 x 11.2 x 0.5 cm)

Textiles

In Sidon, over 30 small fragments of textile remain, preserved through the process of mineralisation into calcium carbonate, were found underneath the body of an adolescent in burial 102 belonging to stratum 5. The textile fragments, analysed at the UCL Institute of Archaeology, were found to probably belong to a single fabric woven in a slightly unbalanced tabby

weave. The most remarkable aspect of this Sidon linen textile is the use of splicing which, while attested at Jericho, is generally associated with Egyptian textile technology. However, it remains difficult to ascertain if the fragments found in burial 102 represent an import from Egypt or if the textile was made locally using techniques associated with Egypt.34 34 Gleba

and Griffiths 2011/2012, 289, 294.

228

Claude Doumet-Serhal and Vanessa Boschloos

Fig. 6 Dolphin vessel S/1785/1379 (44 x 53.5 x 1 cm)

Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a – an Example of Levantine/Egyptian Commercial and Cultural Relations

Images as Meaningful Media: Seal Impressions and Scarabs Pottery, imported as receptacles of commodities, is not the only potential genus marker between Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a. A selection of artefacts such as seals and scarabs along with the interpretation of images also indicate religious and cultural connections between the two port cities. This article will not detail every locally made imitation and adaptation of Egyptian style seals in the Sidon iconography35 but will instead focus on the shared symbolic association which expressed a particular belief system. Seal Impressions It is not by chance that the topic of maritime religion in both Middle Bronze Age Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a, two close partners in the maritime trade and both deeply committed to the sacral protection of their seafaring citizens,36 was expressed in the same way and using the same motifs. A jar handle with a seal impression was found in Sidon37 (SME/1089/1169) (Fig. 7) displaying a unique imprint of a ship with next to it38 the leonine dragon Ušumgal, the attendant of the storm god Adad. The similarities between the seal from Tell el-Dab‘a39 (Fig. 8) and the Sidon seal is striking, with both more or less depicting the same ship design and the same theme of the weather god located adjacent to the ship. Instead of a striding storm god, the Sidonians chose a non-human form of the god to epitomize this most fundamental ancient mythical perception of the Mesopotamian weather god which, on cuneiform sources of the Late Bronze Age, was the most important god in Sidon.40 Both seals from Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a belong to about the same period, namely G/4–1 context from the 13th Dynasty41 and stratum 4 in Sidon,42 and both illustrate the close links between northern, north-western and western Syria during the 18th century BCE as Syrian seals of these groups have been found all along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean.43 Scarabs (by Vanessa Boschloos) The scarabs are one of the prime categories of material culture that shed light on the interface between Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a, particularly those assigned to the

35 Doumet-Serhal

2013, 134–135; 2011/2012a, 95–99. 1984, 485–488. 37 For a full analysis of this seal see Doumet-Serhal 2015, 14; the very unusual technique of rolling a seal on a handle were commonly found in Byblos. 38 Doumet-Serhal 2015, 14–16. 39 Bietak 2010, 157. 40 Doumet-Serhal 2015, 16. 41 Bietak 2010, 157. 42 Doumet-Serhal 2015, 16. 43 Collon 2006, 101. 36 Porada

229

so-called “early Tell el-Dab‘a workshop”44 (Fig. 9). In her study of scarabs from Tell el-Dab‘a, Christa Mlinar classified the scarabs in six major groups, of which late Middle Kingdom types II (TD strata G/1–3–F) and III (TD strata G/1–3–E/3, with isolated survivals into E/2–1), dating from mid to late 13th Dynasty, are of interest here. Type II is relatively rare and has a semicircular head with a fan-shaped clypeus and a lined back, whereas type III is more prevalent and shows an open hourglass-shaped head flanked by small, often round eyes. Its back can be plain or has lines indicating the wings, and the legs are usually incised with parallel lines indicating fore and mid-legs. The use of Canaanite motifs on scarabs of these types45 makes it highly unlikely that they were manufactured anywhere else than in the Nile Delta. Mlinar argued that Tell el-Dab‘a is the most likely place where these workshops would be located, because of its geographical position. She also noted their almost complete absence outside of Tell el-Dab‘a,46 but this conclusion must be adjusted. Since her study, more attention has been paid to these scarabs and “early Tell el-Dab‘a workshop” types have now been identified from other sites in Egypt, Nubia47 and the Levant, where at least a dozen type II and more than 50 type III48 scarabs have surfaced. In this regard, the region of Sidon is one of the areas that stands out, for two reasons. Firstly, it is where nearly half of the hitherto identified type II scarabs were found. These were deposited in transitional MB IIA/IIB and early MB IIB burials in the region,49 i.e. shortly after their production period, which was limited to the middle of the 13th Dynasty. Secondly, together with Byblos and Beirut, Sidon is one of the sites with the largest amount of “early Tell elDab‘a workshop” scarabs in the entire Levant. More importantly, Sidon is one of the few sites50 where they 44

Mlinar 2004.

45 E.g.

Mlinar 2004, fig. 4, no. 5, fig. 6a, no. 7. 2004, 113, 133. 47 For example, in addition to the 25 scarabs reported from Tell el-Dab‘a by Mlinar, at least 30 were found during the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s excavations in Lisht (identified by Vanessa Boschloos in New York) and examples surfaced as far south as Ukma (Vila 1987, pl. VIII, nos. 170/2 and 170/4) and Saï (Gratien 1986, fig. 286, nos. Ib, IIb, IIf). 48 Catalogued by James M. Weinstein and Vanessa Boschloos, who presented this data at the ASOR meetings of 2018 and 2019 in preview of forthcoming papers. 49 From Ruweise tomb 66 (Tufnell 1975/1976, fig. 1, no. 5, which is almost identical to Mlinar 2004, fig. 4, no. 1) and from College Site (S/4601/6037, S/4602/6037 and S/4604/6037 from burial 100 (Loffet 2011/2012, 116–119, nos. B.15–B.17) and S/1138/1191 from burial 139 (Boschloos 2018, no. 5). 50 The earliest occurrence seems to be at late MB IIA Tel Burga (D. Ben-Tor in: Golani 2011, 93–96). See below for attestations in late MB IIA strata at Sidon. 46 M linar

230

Claude Doumet-Serhal and Vanessa Boschloos

Fig. 7 Seal impression from Sidon on handle (SME/1089/1169); phase 3

Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a – an Example of Levantine/Egyptian Commercial and Cultural Relations

231

Fig. 8 Cylinder seal from Tell Dab‘a (photo courtesy Manfred Bietak) are encountered in archaeological contexts that are contemporary with their production period in Egypt. The oldest stratum in which they occur at College Site is Sidon phase 3 (burial 42) but they are also present in graves of stratum 4 (burials 93, 139, and 167) and stratum 5 (burials 67 and 100). The attestation in phase 3’s burial 42 (S/2657/2150)51 is however problematic; the oldest burial phase (phase 3, late MB IIA) is contemporary with the scarab’s production period but the grave was re-opened in Sidon phase 6 (MB IIB) so it is possible that the seal-amulet may have arrived in Sidon during the Second Intermediate Period. The scarabs in burial 93 (S/4511/6015)52, 139 (S/1138/1191)53 and 167 (S/8797/3433)54 were deposited in a period that overlaps with their production period (phase 4 corresponding to Tell el-Dab‘a stratum F). Finally, with regard to those from burial 67 (S/2711/1906 and S/2716/1888),55 which belongs to Sidon phase 5 (early MB IIB, corresponding to Tell el-Dab‘a stratum E/3–E/2), the possibility that they were deposited shortly after their production period in Egypt56 cannot be dismissed. 51

Loffet 2008, 21, no. 23.

52 Loffet

2011/2012, 113–114, no. B.10.

53 The scarab from burial 139 is a type II scarab (Boschloos

2018, no. 5). forthcoming report on scarabs from the 2018 excavation campaign. 55 Loffet 2008, 22, nos. 24 and 25. 56 The three scarabs in burial 100, which also belongs to Sidon’s phase 5, are type II and therefore older than the grave in which they were deposited. 54 Boschloos

Fig. 9 Scarab S/8797/3433 of the so-called ‘early Tell el-Dab‘a workshop’, mid to late 13th Dynasty (12 x 8 x 6 mm)

232

Claude Doumet-Serhal and Vanessa Boschloos

Hieroglyphic Writing A scaraboid (S/3487/583) (Fig. 10) found in the Middle Bronze Age IIB context stratum 6 and belonging to a Sidonian high ranking individual inscribed with the name ‘Beloved of Seth’ (Ba‘al)57, Lord of the Land of Iay, confirms the existence in the Levant and outside of Byblos of a scribal tradition using Egyptian hieroglyphs.58 The fact that it takes the form of a scaraboid together with the form of the hieroglyphs, themselves somewhat hesitant when compared to Pharaonic documents of the same period, corroborates a Levantine rather than an Egyptian origin59 to the seal. What is also important is the epithet of the ruler, “beloved of Seth” (the interpretation aegyptiaca of Ba‘al60) which can be considered as parallel to the epithet of king Nehesy of the 14th Dynasty, who was referred to as “beloved by Seth, the Lord of Avaris”.61

0

1 cm

A House for the Dead and a House for Funeral Rituals

The exchange of artefacts between Sidon and Tell elDab‘a, these two ancient centres of civilization, is well and truly established. What is less well known is how the spatial organisation of each city compared to the other. In Sidon during the Middle Bronze Age, the evolution between the MB IIA, the MB IIB through to the LB I manifested itself in the arrangement of human internments and the architecture surrounding them. The use of funerary space in Sidon was clear from the beginning and did not alter according to need, even over time. Installations such as tannours, pits and basins were of course in constant adaptation and improvement whilst any enlargement was undertaken in an arbitrary manner. Most of the burials in the sand, from phases 1 to 3 were not associated with any clearly defined architectural features except for two large pits containing the remains of feasting activity along with a large quantity of animal bones. In stratum 4 (Fig. 11) on top of the sand, which corresponds to the transitional MB IIA/MB IIB period, a total of 33 burials were found consisting of simple inhumation in the ground, including jar burials of children as well as constructed graves. While most of the burials were found outside, only two were found for the first time inside a structure. These were burial 93, which contained the remains of what might have been a subadult early to late childhood 62 and burial 113, which consisted merely of the remains of flexed legs. Sidon’s earliest Middle Bronze Age structure, Room 1, appears in this level. This very basic architectural unit consisted of a single rectangular room covering an area of 11.78 x 6.17 m. Outside the room to the west, a ground surface was found in the NE corner of a multiple burial (103-104-107-109) with a deposit (7360) composed of a quantity of smashed pots, three astragali bones mixed with the pottery, a piece of human bone and animal. This deposit corresponds directly to material removed from a burial and dumped in this location. The suggestion is based on the presence of two large limestone slab stones (7350) located just SE of the dump, which may have been used as capping for the disturbed burial.

Fig. 10 Scaraboid S/3487/583 (2 x 1.35 x 0.6 cm) 62 Following

57 Mourad

2019, 227, by the 19th Dynasty, the names Baal and Seth were used interchangeably… 229 the majority of the data from this period appears to stem from elite and /or sacred contexts… 58 Gubel and Loffet 2011/2012, 79. 59 Ibidem. 60 A llon 2007, 20–21. 61 Bietak 2018, 247.



on the study of human bones undertaken by the team from the University of Bournemouth a category system will apply for both sex and age description: - Prenate (unborn) - Perinate (around birth) - Infant (birth to 1 year) - Early childhood (1–5 year) - Late childhood (6–12 year) - Adolescent (13–17 year) - Young adult (18–35 year) - Middle-aged adult (36–49 year) - Old adult (50 + year)

Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a – an Example of Levantine/Egyptian Commercial and Cultural Relations

Fig. 11 Plan Sidon stratum 4

233

234

Claude Doumet-Serhal and Vanessa Boschloos

Fig. 12 Plan Sidon stratum 5

Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a – an Example of Levantine/Egyptian Commercial and Cultural Relations

235

Fig. 13 Tannours 1947 and 1948, room 2, stratum 5 Stratum 5 (Fig. 12) is subdivided into two phases, a and b, both of which have the same basic architectural plan. Evidence of continuity between stratum 4 and stratum 5 is indicated by the reuse of two walls, namely 6005 and 1386/3153. A total of 34 burials were found. While some burials were found outside an architectural structure, ten were found inside Room 2. Two main units, each with a different function, were encountered at Sidon in this MB IIB stratum for the first time. Room 1, where cult features were found, was the sacred area devoted to the ritual and Room 2 was a room housing the dead. According to Karin Kopetzky,63 this type of organisation, with the special area for the dead named “Totenhäuser”, started in Tell el-Dab‘a at the end of phase G1–3, and similarly to Sidon, becomes more evident in phase F, the transitional MB II A/B period.

63 Kopetzky,

unpublished lecture ‘Buried in Avaris - a fusion of Egyptian and Near Eastern Funerary customs’, the 11th ICAANE in Munich, 5th of April 2018.

Room 1: For the Ritual It is important to note that no burials were encountered at all in this chamber. However, features related to cult and ritual were found, namely: Mud brick square platform 3307 (71 x 60 cm) was found on top of a floor surface and was composed of two distinctive coloured mud bricks encased in a thick white plaster frame. An L-shaped arrangement of small nodules (6077) (1.26 x 1.04 x 0.3 m) was also found. It had a squared flat stone placed in the corner on top of which was placed a jar containing eight astragali aligned inside around the base. These objects were used in the ancient Near East for gaming, but in Sidon they also seem to have had a special ritual function. In the SE part of the room, benches, a basin and two ovens constructed of mud brick were all part of a feasting activity taking place in the room on a clay flooring (3226) which sloped downward towards the north and which had sustained several repair events. Another bench was found further east and might have been part of the ritual apparatus in another room further east which could not be excavated in full as it disappeared under a street leading to modern day Sidon’s souk.

236

Claude Doumet-Serhal and Vanessa Boschloos

Room 2: House for the Dead (Totenhaus) In the NE corner inside this unit, an assemblage (1945–1967) was found mainly consisting of a singleedged tannour (1947) as well as a double-edged one (1948) with an opening on its northern side (fig. 13). A small piece of walling, one course high and consisting of three stones (1950) was running NS east of burial 84. This burial consisted of an unlined grave pit containing two adult individuals, one on top of the other. Burial 84a was that of a middle-aged/old adult, oriented along a NS axis with the head to the north, the feet to the south with the knees towards the east. The body was in a flexed position. Burial 84b contained a flexed old female adult individual in a position almost identical to that of burial 84a except that the individual had been rotated 180° with the head to the south facing east and the feet and hips facing north. Both individuals were interred very near a small portion of a cobble floor running 96 cm NS and 95 cm EW. Six jar burials were also found in this room including: one infant burial (burial 86), two perinate (burials 81 and 89) and three subadult (early childhood). In addition, a large stone-lined walled grave (burials 67, 69, 74 and 75) contained respectively a middle-aged/old adult female, a subadult (late childhood), a middle-aged adult probably male and one subadult (early childhood) with further adult remains. The connections between burials and domestic activities in this unit such as the tannours will develop even further in stratum 6. In stratum 5b, the doorway of the unit between walls 7362 and 7370 was blocked. An assemblage was found in phase B consisting of a large circular pit (7342), a stone bowl and a small piece of walling. A small rectangular basin-like cut (7357) (54 x 40 x 8 cm) with steep sloping sides and a flat base was added in Room 1, when the obstructing of the doorway took place. Stratum 6 is notable for a conspicuous growth in the scale of the Totenhäuser. This stratum marked a new era of development as architectural units were consistently been enlarged in areas to the EW and S along with the construction of a temple. The degree of development concerning the intensity of space usage, compact layout and segmentation into juxtaposed quarters is an indication of the social development of the city with the density of the settlement peaking in this period (Fig. 13). In this stratum, the space where Room 1 of stratum 5 was devoted to cult and ritual was reused to build a monumental temple with superimposed floor layers (area 1). This long monumental building, only excavated up to 7.94 m EW, continues on its eastern side under a modern street leading to modern day Sidon’s souk. A total of 28 burials were found on this stratum. These graves were located both inside and outside the architectural units but none were found inside the temple. These units were connected to specific burial rituals based on domestic activities. They contained a hearth, pestles, mortars and animal bones. The

configuration of the sites of the dead as well as the burials was imbued with the same symbolism that was active in the contemporary society of the day. In order to facilitate the description, the ground plan was divided into houses/enclosures and numbered 2 to 6. Units 2 and 5 were similarly constructed as they both consisted respectively of a larger square (4.06 x 4.07 m) or rectangular room (6.84 x 4.23 m) in the north with a smaller adjacent one in the south, respectively unit 2a (5.36 x 1.51 m) and 5a (2.16 x 4.13 m). Unit 2 This space was accessible through three entranceways, two in the east the third in the north. The two eastern entrances were later blocked in phase 6b when burial 63 was placed inside this room leaving only the northern door open. Two clay ovens (1848) were found in this space, the larger one to the south, the smaller one (42 x 38 x 25 cm) in the north together with a large pit (6047). The ash from within these ovens had slipped down the sides into a large subcircular cut. This had vertical flat sides and a concave base in which a large jar for burial 63 (phase 6b) was sunk. The jar contained the remains of a disarticulated adolescent of indeterminate sex and a middle-aged adult female. In unit 2a, four burials (62, 73, 79, 80), were found belonging to two prenates/perinates, both within the same jar burial (burial 79a was 34–39 weeks old while burial 79b was 36–40 weeks old), one highly fragmented and disarticulated burial of an infant in a jar (burial 73) and two adolescents (burials 62 and 80) buried on the floor, burial 80 consisting only of a pair of articulated legs. Unit 3 A 4 m long building situated NS/EW and very probably robbed in antiquity, was found south of the burial area. At the southern end of the easternmost room was burial 120, cut into the floor. The grave, placed within the floor, held the articulated remains of a subadult (early childhood) in a supine position, oriented NS, with the head to the south. Unit 4 Another unit measuring 5.59 x 2.40 m was divided into two rooms by wall 1865/1033 running EW. The floor (1870=1045) of this room, disturbed by the construction of stone-lined pit 1050, was equipped with an EW mud brick bench (1873) consisting of rectangular blocks of dark and pale grey mud bricks lined with red and white plaster and placed against wall 1866. It is not clear in this case if access to a courtyard or a room further west was made through a doorway in the NS running wall 1008 because no other walls were found. Burial 128, consisting of the burial of two subadults (early childhood and early/late childhood), was found in this area together with a rectangular stone-

Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a – an Example of Levantine/Egyptian Commercial and Cultural Relations

Fig. 14 Sidon stratum 6

237

238

Claude Doumet-Serhal and Vanessa Boschloos

lined feature (65 x 64 x 45–55 cm) (1028) filled with fish bones, ash and charcoal. In this instance, the room was used for the ritual and the adjacent area for the burial. Unit 5 In the large rectangular room (6. 96 m x 4.17 m), accessed through the west, an assemblage consisting of a wall, a clay oven, burials (40 and 41) and post holes was found in the north (Fig. 14). It consisted, from east to west, of the remains of a narrow NS running wall the purpose which is unknown but it was closely associated with and at the same level as jar burial 40 of a subadult of late childhood to the east and a clay oven (3523) to the west. Burial 41 consisted of a middle-aged to old adult of undetermined sex buried on the ground in a flexed position very near a post hole (1214) situated a little further to the NW. A small circular arrangement of mostly rounded pebbles (36 x 36 x16 cm) might have supported a wooden post. A small chalk-lined pit (1238) most probably related to the ritual was also found. In burial 32, a very large limestone slab (1100) was found covering a rectangular stone feature located up against the western wall of the room. Slab 1100 was broken in the middle and both halves sloped towards the break. The burial was positioned over an empty pit with vertical sides. No purpose could be established for this pit which was located about 45 cm below the burial. Interestingly, the skeleton‘s feet extended beyond the pit. The subcircular ovoid grave cut contained the single crouched inhumation of a middle-aged/old adult female. In the room further south, jar burial 97 belonged to a subadult (early childhood). The interment of a simple unlined burial of a single female subadult individual (late childhood) was also found further south in this room. Unit 6 An L-shaped structure with a buttress was constructed with two adjacent benches. A channel built along a fairly high-grade constructed wall and used in a ritual involving offerings went out of use at the end of stratum 6. The channel was adjacent to the burial area and it is believed that it was used for funerary cult rituals.64 Sidon’s stratum 6 illustrates the end of the Totenhäuser tradition, a phenomenon also encounter-ed in Tel elDab‘a stratum E/2–1.65 The most interesting aspect in the evolution of the funerary ritual in Sidon is that these various phases sustain an evolution from funerary-feasts-around-thegrave which shift to small architectural units before the final replacement of this feast by commemorative practices mainly inside the temple. 64 Doumet-Serhal

2009, 240–242. unpublished lecture ‘Buried in Avaris - a fusion of Egyptian and Near Eastern Funerary customs’, the 11th ICAANE in Munich, 5th of April 2018.

65 Kopetzky,

It has become clear that remembrance and the worship of the dead were the most important aspect of Sidon’s College site excavations. The concept that there was a close connection between the social world of the living and the organisation of the space for the departed is irrefutable. This parallelism between the world of the living and that of the dead was articulated by the general organisation as to how respective places were practically expressed in the landscape over a long time period from stratum 4 to 8. The organisation of the sites of the dead as well as the burial rituals were both imbued with the same symbolism that was active in the living social world. Parallels between the sites of the living and those of the dead can be found in rooms which were primarily connected to specific burial rituals inspired by domestic activities and hence the fact that they contained household paraphernalia such as the tannour and the grinding apparatus as well as food offerings which accompanied the burial process. These highlighted not only the ancestor cult but also the ‘house symbolism in death rituals’. The act of placing departed relatives in houses, most of them children buried with one or two adults of which most were female, was probably related to households, families or clans while other individuals, some belonging to the upper class, were buried outside.66 As a rule, upper class burials (burial 100–102 in stratum 5 for example), evident from the quality of their furnishings, were not interred in a room. In stratum 4 one room was reserved to bury the dead. This increased to two rooms in stratum 5 but in stratum 6 there is a surge in this practice resulting in a cluster of several houses reserved to bury the dead before disappearing in stratum 7.

Conclusion

Through the wide range of evidence which has emerged from the Sidon excavation, it is now acknowledged that the material uncovered and the inhumation traditions carried out shed a new light on the homeland of the people who were responsible for the establishment of the so-called Hyksos rule in Egypt. Whilst traded commercial goods between Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a were very popular, as were Egyptian luxury items,67 what is more important are the common cultural elements that emerged and established the strong impact of the Sidonian way of life in Tell el-Dab‘a where these religious and funerary customs were performed and preserved over time. The strong impact of a maritime religion in both cities as early as MB IIA is embodied in the figure of the weather god. To what degree the worship of this god was confined to those of Canaanite descent is not clear68 and how familiar were the Tell el-

66 Bietak

2010a, 17. 2013, 134. 68 See the discussion Bietak 2010, 157, note 136. 67 Doumet-Serhal

Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a – an Example of Levantine/Egyptian Commercial and Cultural Relations

239

Fig. 15 From east to west jar burial 41 and tannour 3253, plaster lined pit 1214 and burial 40, unit 5, stratum 6 Dab‘a inhabitants with Levantine gods in uncertain69 but what is important is the later evolution in MB IIB of deity syncretism involving gods such as Seth/Ba‘al in a wide territorial region that spanned the distance

between Tell el-Dab‘a, Sidon and beyond. For example, the Sidon seal informs us that local inhabitants as far away as Iay in the Akkar plain, a few days march along the coast from Sidon,70 also revered Seth.71 70 Gubel

and Loffet 2011/2012, 87. 2019, 231… the representation or adoption of this cult’s beliefs or practices would have also been advantageous for the maintenance or development of trade connections with the Near East.

71 Mourad 69 Mourad

2015, 28. Porada 1984, 485–488 identifies the seal as locally-made.

240

Claude Doumet-Serhal and Vanessa Boschloos

Bibliography A llon, N. 2007 Seth is Baal – Evidence from the Egyptian Script, Ägypten & Levante 17, 15–22. Bader, B. 2003 The Egyptian Jars from Sidon in their Egyptian Context, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 19, 31–37. 2011 “Traces of Foreign Settlers in Tell El-Dab‘a”, in K. Duistermaat and I. R egulski (eds.), Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean, Proceedings of the International Conference at the Netherlands-Flemish Institute in Cairo 25th to 29th October 2008, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 202, Leuven, 137–158. Bietak, M. 2006 The Predecessors of the Hyksos, in: S. Gitin, J.E. Wright and J.P. Dessel (eds.), Confronting the Past, Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever, Winona Lake, 285–293. 2010 From Where Came the Hyksos and where did they go?, in: M. M arée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirtheenth–Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192, Leuven, 139–181. 2010a Houses, Palaces and Development of Social Structure in Avaris, in: M. Bietak, E. Czerny and I. Forstner-Müller (eds.), Cities and Urbanism in Ancient Egypt, Papers from a Workshop in November 2006 at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 35, Vienna, 11–68. 2018 “The Hyksos Enigma” Review Article of: Anna-Latifa Mourad, The Rise of the Hyksos, Egypt and the Levant from the Middle Kingdom to the Early Second Intermediate Period, Oxford 2015: Archaeopress Egyptology, 11, Bibliotheca Orientalis 75.3–4, 229–248. Bietak, M. and Kopetzky, K. 2009 The Dolphin Jug: A Typological and Chronological Assessment, in: J.D. Schloen (ed.), Exploring the Longue Durée, Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, Winona Lake, IN, 17–34. Boschloos, V. 2018 The Sidon Excavations 2014–2017: The Scarabs (Part 1), Archaeology and History of Lebanon, 48–49, 66–81. Cateloy, C. 2019 Imported Levantine Amphorae at Tell el-Dab‘a: A Volumetric Approach to Reconsidering the Maritime Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, in: M. Bietak and S. Prell (eds.) The Enigma of the Hyksos vol. I. ASOR Conference Boston 2017 – ICAANE Conference Munich 2018 – Collected Papers, Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant 9, Wiesbaden, 277–304. Cohen Weinberger A. and Goren Y. 2004 Levantine-Egyptian Interactions during the 12th to the 15th Dynasties Based on the Petrography of the

Canaanite Pottery from Tell el-Dab‘a, Ägypten & Levante 14, 69–100. Collon D. 2006 Seal Impressions from Tell el-Dab‘a, in: E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman and A. Schwab (eds.), Timelines Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, Vol. II, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149, Leuven, 97–101. Doumet-Serhal, C. 2008 The Kingdom of Sidon and its Mediterranean Connections, in: C. Doumet-Serhal, A. R abate und A. R esek (eds.), Networking Patterns of the Bronze and Iron Age Levant, the Lebanon and its Mediterranean Connections, The Lebanese British Friends of the National Museum, Beyrouth, 2–70. 2009 Second Millennium BC Levantine Ceremonial Feasts: Sidon, a Case Study, in: A.-M. M aïla-A feiche (ed.), Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean, Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium Beirut 2008, Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises Hors-série 6, Beyrouth, 229–244. 2011/ Tell el-Yahudieh War in Sidon, in: C. Doumet2012 Serhal, A. R abate and A. R esek (eds.), And Canaan Begat Sidon his Firtborn… A Tribute to Dr John Curtis on his 65th Birthday, Archaeology and His tory in Lebanon 34–35, 139–153. 2011/ A Decorated Box from Sidon, in: C. Doumet-Serhal, 2012a A. R abate and A. R esek (eds.), And Canaan Begat Sidon his Firstborn… A Tribute to Dr. John Curtis on his 65th Birthday (Archaeology and History in Lebanon 34–35, 93–103. 2013 Tracing Sidon’s Mediterranean Networks in the Second Millennium BC: Receiving, Transmitting and Assimilating. Twelve Years of British Museum Excavations, in: J. A ruz, S.B. Graff and Y. R akic (eds.), Cultures in Contact, from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Symposia, New York, 132–141. 2014 Mortuary Practices in Sidon in the Middle Bronze Age: A Reflection on Sidonian Society in the Second Millennium BC, in: P. Pfälzner, H. Niehr, E. Pernicka, S. Lange and T. Köster (eds.), Contextualising Grave Inventories in the Ancient Near East, Proceedings of a Workshop at the London 7th ICAANE in April 2010 and an International Symposium in Tübingen Post Graduate School “Symbols of the Dead”, Qatna Studien Suplementa 3, Wiesbaden, 29–38. 2015 Seal Impressions and Cylinder Seals from the Sidon 2013–2014 Season of Excavation, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 42–43, 2–21. Doumet-Serhal, C., Ogden, A., Vila, E. and Van Neer, W. 2007 Three Burials with Silver Artefacts from the Middle Bronze Age I/IIA at Sidon, in: J.B. Yon (ed.), Mélanges en l’honneur de Jean-Paul Rey-Coquais, Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 60, Beyrouth, 29–46. Doumet-Serhal, C. and Kopetzky, K. 2011/ Sidon and Tell Dab‘a: Two Cities – One Story. A 2012 Highlight on Metal Artefacts from the Middle

Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a – an Example of Levantine/Egyptian Commercial and Cultural Relations Bronze Age Graves, in: C. Doumet-Serhal, A. R abate and A. R esek (eds.), And Canaan Begat Sidon his Firstborn… A Tribute to Dr. John Curtis on his 65th Birthday, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 34–35, Beirut, 9–52. Forstner-Müller, I. and Kopetzky, K. and Doumet-Serhal, C. 2006 Egyptian Pottery of the Late 12th and 13th Dynasty from Sidon, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 24, 52–59. Forstner-Müller, I. and Kopetzky, K. 2009 Egypt and Lebanon: New Evidence for Cultural Exchanges in the First half of the 2nd Millennium BC, in: A.-M. M aïla-A feiche (ed.), Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean, Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium Beirut 2008, Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises Hors-série 6, 143–157. Gleba, M. and Griffiths, D. 2011/ Textile Remains from a Middle Bronze Age Burial 2012 in Sidon, in: C. Doumet-Serhal, A. R abate and A. R esek (eds.), And Canaan Begat Sidon his First born… A Tribute to Dr. John Curtis on his 65th Birth day, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 34–35, Beyrouth, 79–92. Golani, A. 2011 A Built Tomb from Middle Bronze Age IIA and Other Finds at Tel Burga in the Sharon Plain, ‘Atiqot 68, 69–98. Gubel, E. and Loffet, H. 2011/ Qedem and the Land of Iay, in: C. Doumet-Serhal, 2012 A. R abate and A. R esek (eds.), And Canaan Begat Sidon his Firstborn… A Tribute to Dr. John Curtis on his 65th Birthday, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 34–35, Beyrouth, 79–92. Gratien, B. 1986 Saï I. La nécropole Kerma, Paris. Kopetzky K. 2011/ The Egyptian Corpus of the Middle Bronze Age 2012 Layers of Sidon, in: C. Doumet-Serhal, A. R abate and A. R esek (eds.), And Canaan Begat Sidon his Firstborn… A Tribute to Dr. John Curtis on his 65th Birthday, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 34–35, Beyrouth, 163–172. Loffet, H. 2008 Sidon Scarabs (2006 College Site Excavations), in: C. Doumet-Serhal (ed.), Networking Patterns of the Bronze and Iron Age Levant. The Lebanon and its Mediterranean Connections, Beyrouth, 20–23. 2011/ The Sidon Scarabs, in: C. Doumet-Serhal, 2012 A. R abate and A. R esek (eds.), And Canaan Begat Sidon his Firstborn… A Tribute to Dr. John Curtis on his 65th Birthday, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 34–35, 104–138.

241

M arcus, E.S. 2006 Venice on the Nile? On the Maritime Character of Tell Dab‘a/Avaris in: E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman and A. Schwab (eds.), Timelines Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, Vol. II, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149, Leuven, 187–190. 2007 Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription, Ägypten & Levante 17, 137–190. Mlinar, C. 2004 The Scarab Workshops of Tell Dab‘a, in: M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds.), Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 8, Vienna, 107–138. Mommsen, H. 2006 Neutron Activation Analysis: Where was the Dolphin Jar Made?, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 24, 48–51. Mourad, A.-L. 2015 Rise of the Hyksos, Egypt and the Levant from the Middle Kingdom to the Early Second Intermediate Period, Archaeopress Egyptology 11, Oxford. 2019 On Cultural Interference and the Egyptian Storm God, in: M. Bietak and S. Prell, (eds.) The Enigma of the Hyksos vol. I ASOR Conference Boston 2017-ICAANE Conference Munich 2018- Collected Papers, Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant 9, Wiesbaden, 225–237. Porada, E. 1984 The Cylinder Seal from Tell Dab‘a, American Journal of Archaeology 88, 485–488. Prell, S. 2019 Burial Customs as Cultural Marker: A ‘Global’ Approach’, in: M. Bietak and S. Prell, (eds.) The Enigma of the Hyksos vol. I. ASOR Conference Boston 2017 – ICAANE Conference Munich 2018 – Collected Papers, Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant, CAENL, vol. 9, Wiesbaden, 125–147. Sparks, R. 2004 Canaan in Egypt: Archaeological Evidence for a Social Phenomenon, in: J. Bourriau and J. Phillips (eds.), Invention and Innovation. The Social Context of Technological Change 2: Egypt, the Aegean and the Near East, 1650–1150 BC, Oxford, 25–54. Tufnell, O. 1975/ Tomb 66 at Ruweisse, near Sidon, Berytus 24, 5–26. 1976 Vila, E. 1987 Le cimetière kermaïque d’Ukma Ouest. La prospection archéologie dans la Vallée du Nil en Nubie Soudanaise, Paris.

Egyptian-Levantine Relations in the Hyksos Period – The Southern Levant vs. the Northern Levant

243

Egyptian-Levantine Relations in the Hyksos Period – The Southern Levant vs. the Northern Levant by Daphna Ben-Tor 1

Abstract

The nature of Egyptian-Levantine relations in the Hyksos period is still the subject of scholarly controversy due to disagreements over some key issues. The debated issues concern first and foremost the exact geographical origin of the Hyksos, opinions conflicting between the southern and northern Levant. Another challenging question, which is to some extent related to the origin of the Hyksos, is whether the large number of Egyptian Middle Kingdom imports found in the southern and northern Levant were plundered from their original contexts during the Hyksos period and brought to the Levant at that time. The aim of this paper is to consider archaeological evidence from Egypt and the Levant pertaining to these issues, and show a disparity between Egypt’s relations with the northern Levant vs. the southern Levant during both the Middle Kingdom and the Hyksos period. The paper will show that this disparity reflects the nature of the relations between Egypt and different regions in the Levant in both periods, with their implications for the origin of the Hyksos and when Middle Kingdom objects reached the Levant.1 Egypt’s interest in the Levant was primarily economic. The earliest organized contacts between the two regions were initiated by the Egyptians in search of luxury goods sought by the rising elite around the time of unification in the late fourth millennium BCE.2 It was at that time that cultural interaction between the two regions began, gradually increasing over the course of the third and second millennia BCE. It is the aim of this paper to show that during the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period there were considerable differences between Egypt’s relations with the southern Levant, the area of present-day Israel/Palestine and western Jordan, and the northern Levant, the region of Lebanon and southern and coastal Syria. The paper will further discuss the historical implications of these differences.

The Israel Museum, Jerusalem; [email protected]. I am most grateful to James Weinstein for reading the paper and for his helpful comments. Brandl 1992; Van den Brink 1995; M iroschedji 2001.

The earliest archaeological evidence for commercial contacts between Egypt and the Levant in the Middle Kingdom dates from the early 12th Dynasty. It includes on the Egyptian side imported Levantine Painted Ware at Tell el-Dab‘a in levels dated to the reign of Amenemhet II and possibly late Senwosret I,3 and on the Levantine side more than 100 early 12th Dynasty scarabs and design amulets found in the ‘Montet Jar’ at Byblos.4 The archaeological evidence from both sites indicates that the port of Tell el-Dab‘a in the eastern Delta and the port of Byblos on the Lebanese coast played key roles in the maritime trade between Egypt and the Levant throughout the Middle Kingdom.5 The importance of Byblos as Egypt’s primary trading port in the Levant began in the early third millennium BCE, soon after the development of maritime transportation in Egypt, which allowed for large cargoes of goods like aromatic oils and cedar wood that were increasingly sought after by the Egyptian court.6 These natural resources were abundant in the Lebanese coastal region, and special relations developed between Egypt and this area, especially with the port city of Byblos.7 The Egyptian amulets found in the ‘Montet Jar’ were part of a foundation deposit placed in the temple complex of the local goddess ‘Lady of Byblos’, who was equated with the Egyptian goddess Hathor.8 The use of these amulets in the local cult attests to the high regard held by the rulers of Byblos for Egyptian culture, which apparently began soon after commercial contacts with

3 Bagh

4 5

6

1

7

2

8

2003, 223; 2013, 17–18, 45, and fig. 8; ForstnerMüller and Kopetzky 2009, 143–144; Kopetzky 2016, 157. Montet 1928, 120, 450–535; Tufnell and Ward 1966; Ben-Tor 1998. Aston 2002, 55–57. Based on an inscription from the mastaba of Khnumhotep III at Dahshur, which describes a clash between Byblos and the city of Ullaza over trade with Egypt, James Allen has suggested that the city of Ullaza rather than Byblos played the key role in EgyptianLevantine maritime trade in the early Middle Kingdom (A llen 2008, 37). Yet, the clash between Byblos and Ullaza does not necessarily argue against Byblos’ active role in maritime trade with Egypt already in the early Middle Kingdom as implied by the foundation deposits in the ‘Montet jar’. Bietak 2010, 142, with bibliography. Sowada 2009, 129–141; Weinstein 2001; A hrens 2020, 211–233. For other sites at the Lebanese coast see A llen 2008; Forstner-Müller and Kopetzky 2009. Montet 1928, 35–37.

© by the author This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc by 4.0 license DOI: 10.13173/9783447117371.243

244

Daphna Ben-Tor

Egypt were restored following the break of the First Intermediate Period.9 The admiration of Egyptian cultural traits by the rulers of Byblos increased considerably in the late Middle Kingdom when it is reflected in their emulation of Egyptian norms and practices.10 These rulers commissioned Egyptianstyle reliefs and hieroglyphic inscriptions,11 they assumed titles of Egyptian high officials, and occasionally even enclosed their names in cartouches.12 There is also evidence that these rulers emulated Egyptian burial customs,13 and worshipped Egyptian gods, in particular the goddess Hathor.14 Moreover, the royal tombs at Byblos have yielded elaborate Egyptian Middle Kingdom royal objects, and exquisite Egyptian-style jewelry and other locally manufactured artifacts, showing strong Egyptian influence.15 Egyptian cultural influence on the rulers of Byblos is also demonstrated by a particular type of personal scarab inscribed in Egyptian hieroglyphs, bearing the title “Mayor of Byblos” using the Egyptian title H# t y - o followed by the ruler’s name.16 Six of the ten known scarabs of this group display features identical to those of royal and private-name scarabs of the late Middle Kingdom indicating their production in Egypt at that time, and suggesting they were granted to the rulers of Byblos by the Egyptian court.17 One of the scarabs bearing the name and title of a ruler of Byblos shows openwork features (back and side), and a human face replacing the beetle’s head.18 A similar openwork back appears on a scarab in the Metropolitan Museum bearing the name of Amenemhet III,19 and an almost identical openwork side is found on a royalname scarab bearing the names of Amenemhet III and IV.20 A human face replacing the beetle’s head is first attested on scarabs of the late Middle Kingdom.21 Three of the Byblite-rulers scarabs display features of the early scarab workshop at Tell el-Dab‘a.22 The archaeological contexts of such scarabs at Tell elDab‘a argue for their date of manufacture in the late 2000, 152; Ward 1971, 61–63. 2010. 11 Montet 1928, 155–214; Teissier 1996, 2–3; Ryholt 1997, 89. 12 Montet 1928, 165, 174, 196; Teissier 1996, 2–3; Ryholt 1997, 89. 13 Kopetzky 2015. 14 Montet 1928, 35–38; Ben-Tor 2007a, 177, and pl. 23.2. 15 Montet 1928, 155–214; Lilyquist 1993, 38–44. 16 Ben-Tor 2007a. 17 Ben-Tor 2007a, 178; 2016, 35, cat.-no. 5b. 18 M artin 1971, no. 105; Kopetzky 2016, fig. 12. 19 MMA 26.2.1. H ayes 1953, 239. 20 Tufnell 1984, pl. 53.3091. 21 K eel 1997, 228–229, no. 372; M arkowitz 1997, 83–84, fig. 3.8; Quirke 2003. 22 M artin 1971, nos. 261, 810 = Ben-Tor 2007a, pl. 23.3–4, and a scarab in a private collection in Europe (Ben-Tor forthcoming).

Middle Kingdom, though a handful were found in later contexts,23 a common occurrence with scarabs.24 The prominence of Byblos with regard to EgyptianLevantine relations during this period is reflected also in the number of Middle Kingdom Egyptian statues found at the site. Twenty-five Middle Kingdom statues and statue fragments were found at Byblos, forming by far the largest group compared with all other Levantine sites, and most likely representing a sample of the actual number.25 The evidence therefore suggests that Byblos was the most important Levantine site with direct connections to Egypt during the Middle Kingdom. Yet Egyptian imports of this period, including royal and private statues, luxury stone vessels and a large variety of scarabs, were found also at other sites in the northern Levant, such as Sidon, Qatna, Ugarit and Tell Hizzin.26 Also, a substantial amount of Middle Bronze Age pottery from the northern Levant was found in levels dated to the late Middle Kingdom at Tell el-Dabʽa,27 occurring also at other sites in northern Egypt.28 Moreover, imported Middle Kingdom pottery was discovered in recent excavations at Sidon, FadousKfarabida, and Tell Arqa in the northern Levant.29 It is therefore reasonable to assume that the Middle Kingdom imports in the northern Levant reflect the active maritime trade and cultural interaction between Egypt and this region at that time. This deduction has however been questioned in view of the ambiguous archaeological contexts of many of the Egyptian objects found in this region, which are often unknown or unclear due to their discovery during old excavations. It was first suggested by Wolfgang Helck, and recently by Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky, that a significant number of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom objects found in the northern Levant were plundered from their original contexts in Egypt during the Hyksos period, when the plundering of tombs and temples in Egypt is well attested, and were brought to the Levant at that time.30

9 Callender 10 Flammini

23 M linar

2004, 116–122, 133, fig. 15. 1995, 262–263, §692–§693. 25 I am most grateful to Ashley Fiutko Arico for sharing with me this information, which is based on her comprehensive as yet unpublished study of Egyptian statues found in the Levant. 26 A hrens 2010; 2011; 2013; 2015; 2016; Forstner-Müller and Kopetzky 2009; Kopetzky 2010/2011. 27 Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004; Forstner-Müller and Kopetzky 2009, 145–147; Kopetzky 2010/2011, 168; 2016, 157; Bietak 2010, 150. 28 A rnold, A rnold and A llen 1995; Forstner-Müller and Kopetzky 2009. 29 Kopetzky 2010/2011, 169–170. 30 H elck 1976; A hrens 2011; 2015; 2016; 2020, 277–288; Kopetzky 2016, 157; 2018, 353–354. Compare as well the contribution by A hrens and Kopetzky in this volume. 24 K eel

Egyptian-Levantine Relations in the Hyksos Period – The Southern Levant vs. the Northern Levant

The archaeological contexts of many of these imports are indeed unclear, and some postdate the Middle Kingdom, yet, the suggested arrival of these objects during the Second Intermediate Period is problematic as it is challenged by archaeological evidence. It is questioned first and foremost by the conspicuous absence of Egyptian Second Intermediate Period imports in the northern Levant, including the city of Byblos,31 in contrast to the unparalleled number of Middle Kingdom imports at that site and the ample evidence for strong Egyptian cultural influence on its rulers during this period. The latter was recently challenged by Kopetzky who argued for dating royal tombs I, II, and III at Byblos to the Second Intermediate Period, thereby suggesting that the late Middle Kingdom objects found in these tombs were interred after being plundered from their original contexts in Egypt during the Hyksos period.32 The difficulties associated with dating the royal tombs at Byblos were noted early on by Montet.33 However, the arguments presented by Kopetzky for dating these tombs to the Second Intermediate Period are often based on inconclusive evidence, and overlook archaeological evidence that strongly argues for dating them contemporary with the late Middle Kingdom. It is indisputable that all the Egyptian royal names attested at Middle Bronze Age Byblos, including those found in the royal tombs, are of pharaohs of the late 12th and early 13th Dynasties, the period comprising the late Middle Kingdom. Moreover, as correctly observed by Kopetzky, the Egyptian imports found in the royal tombs date exclusively from the late Middle Kingdom.34 Also, as shown above, the scarabs bearing names of rulers of Byblos display distinctive features indicating their production in Egypt in the late Middle Kingdom. The green jasper cylinder seal impression found below the Hyksos palace at Tell el-Dabʽa, which bears the inscription “ruler of Retenu, great chieftain of chieftains, Ipi-Shemu” was considered by Kopetzky as possibly naming Ipi-Shemu-abi, the ruler associated with tomb II at Byblos.35 Based on its context, Kopetzky suggested that the impression provides evidence for a post Middle Kingdom date for this Byblite ruler.36 There is however no conclusive evidence for identifying the ruler mentioned on the

sealing with this or any other Byblite ruler, as the title “ruler of Retenu” is not attested with any of the rulers of Byblos who regularly used the title H# t y - o.37 Moreover, the date of the cylinder seal in question is uncertain, and is not necessarily contemporary with the impression, or with the context in which the impression was found. Seal impressions made by earlier seals are well attested at Tell el-Dabʽa in both Hyksos and 18th Dynasty contexts.38 The three imported Egyptian storage jars (Zirs), as well as the local Middle Bronze Age pottery found in royal tombs I, II, and III, include items displaying a wide chronological range, whether between the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period, or the Second Intermediate Period and the early 18th Dynasty.39 The latter may suggest continued use or reuse of the tombs during these periods, and do not necessarily argue for dating the interment of the entire burial assemblage in the tombs. The Egyptian-style locally produced jewelry items found in the royal tombs at Byblos display clear inspiration from late Middle Kingdom Egyptian jewelry,40 and this is also true for locally produced burial paraphernalia simulating Egyptian burial customs in the royal tombs.41 This was properly recognized by Kopetzky who nevertheless dates them to the Second Intermediate Period though finding it difficult to explain the preference by the Byblite elite for late Middle Kingdom prototypes. Her suggestion that the rulers of Byblos associated themselves with the past glory of Middle Kingdom Egypt and stepped in as ideological heirs to the Egyptian crown in the area after the fall of the Middle Kingdom42 is not supported by the evidence. Moreover, her comparison of the Byblos scenario with that of the C-Group people in Lower Nubia who adopted Egyptian customs only after Middle Kingdom control of the region collapsed43 is inappropriate, as the political situation in Nubia was completely different. Although trade contacts between Egypt and Nubia are well-attested during the Middle Kingdom, no interaction is indicated between the Egyptian forts and the local population of Lower Nubia at that time,44 unlike the situation at Byblos. Only when the central administration of Egypt collapsed at the end of the Middle Kingdom, a substantial increase in native Nubian pottery is

37 31 Montet

1928, 214; Negbi and Moskowitz 1966, 21–26; Lilyquist 1993, 42–44; Teissier 1996, 3; Ben-Tor 2007a, 182. 32 Kopetzky 2016, 157; 2018, 353–354. 33 Montet 1928, 213–214. See also Ben-Tor 2007a, 181– 182. 34 Kopetzky 2018, 310–321. 35 Kopetzky and Bietak 2016, 369. 36 Kopetzky 2016, 154.

245

Montet 1928, no. 653; 1928, nos. 787, 852, 853; Dunand

1939, no. 3065; 1958, no. 16980; Montet 1964, no. 4; A lbright 1964, 40; Ben-Tor 2007a, 178. 38 Bietak 2004; Sartori 2009. 39 Kopetzky 2016, 143, 149–151, 154; 2018, 325–330, 334– 352, and figs. 42–44. 40 Kopetzky 2015, 398–403; 2018, 326–327. 41 Kopetzky 2015. 42 Kopetzky 2016, 157–158; 2018, 354. 43 Kopetzky 2018, 354. 44 Smith 1995, 79–80.

246

Daphna Ben-Tor

attested in the Egyptian forts, indicating collaboration between the Egyptians who still constituted a dominant ethnic element in the forts while serving the rulers of Kerma, and the local population.45 It was thus the initial interaction with Egyptians which triggered the emulation of Egyptian customs by the local population in Lower Nubia, contrary to the scenario suggested by Kopetzky for Byblos. A significant number of the Middle Kingdom imports in the northern Levant were found in association with religious structures like temples or shrines, or with royal tombs or palaces.46 Were some of these imports diplomatic gifts? This is conceivable in the case of royal statues and objects bearing royal names, which may have been presented to local rulers, or dedicated to local temples. As for private statues, there is no evidence to suggest they were brought to the Levant by their original owners. Moreover, it has been convincingly argued by Ahrens that surviving inscriptions on Middle Kingdom statues from the northern Levant imply their original contexts in funerary or temple contexts in Egypt.47 There is indeed ample evidence for the plunder and reuse of Middle Kingdom tombs and tomb offerings in Egypt during the Hyksos period and later.48 There is however also evidence for the plunder and reuse of Middle Kingdom tombs and tomb offerings during the late Middle Kingdom at various sites in Egypt, e.g. el-Lahun, Beni Hassan, Abydos, and el-Lisht.49 In view of the close commercial contacts and cultural interaction between Egypt and the northern Levant during the Middle Kingdom, and the absence of Second Intermediate Period Egyptian imports in this region, it is reasonable to argue that a significant number of the Middle Kingdom imports in this region arrived during the Middle Kingdom. The arrival of some of these objects in the New Kingdom should also be considered.50

45 Ben-Tor

2007b, 52–53 with bibliography. 2010; 2011; Kopetzky 2015; 2016. 47 A hrens 2006, 18–20, 22–27; 2010; 2011; 2016. 48 A hrens 2011 with bibliography; 2016; H ill 2015. 49 Petrie 1890, 31; Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, 17–18; Garstang 1907, 48; H ayes 1953, 178; A rnold, A rnold and A llen 1995, 15. 50 With the exception of scarabs (below), the great majority of Middle Kingdom imports in the southern Levant come from New Kingdom or later contexts. The only possible exception is a block statue from Tell el-‘Ajjul (Petrie 1931, 8, pl. 21) found in a tomb associated with city III of the final phase of the Middle Bronze Age. Based on ceramic assemblages associated with city III and palace I, Kopetzky has argued for dating this occupation level to the early 18th Dynasty (Kopetzky 2011, 207–209; Bietak and Kopetzky 2012, 115). This was, however, questioned by Winter (Winter 2018, 16–17) who points out the problematic contexts of the pottery used by Kopetzky, which cannot be confidently employed to date this phase. 46 A hrens

In contrast to the wealth of Egyptian Middle Kingdom objects unearthed at Byblos, and the number of Middle Kingdom imports at other sites in the northern Levant, archaeological evidence in the southern Levant indicates a much smaller number of Middle Kingdom imports, and their almost complete absence in contexts corresponding to the Middle Kingdom in Egypt.51 The archaeological evidence thus argues that in contrast to the northern Levant, Egypt’s relations with the southern Levant at that time were negligible, probably because trade with Byblos and other cities in the Lebanese coastal region sufficiently supplied the needs of the Egyptian courts for luxury goods from the Levant.52 It was not until a radical political development took place in Egypt at the beginning of the Second Intermediate Period in the early 17th century BCE that Egypt’s interest shifted from the northern Levant to the south. The earliest Egyptian Middle Kingdom imports in the southern Levant come from MB IIA occupation levels at Tell el-Ifshar in Israel, located in the Sharon Coastal Plain, about 5 km from the Mediterranean Sea on the northern side of the Alexander River. These imports include one complete pottery bottle and some pottery shards representing between eight and twelve vessels.53 Their fabrics point to origins in both Upper and Lower Egypt, and their typological profiles suggest a chronological range between the middle and late 12th Dynasty, with some forms possibly continuing into the early 13th Dynasty.54 The items typologically dated to the 12th Dynasty, constitute the only contemporary Egyptian imports of this period in the southern Levant. These unparalleled finds can be explained by the geographical location of Tell el-Ifshar, which allowed for riverine-maritime communication, and where trade was probably a feature of the site’s economy from a very early stage.55 This is supported by the occurrence of some northern Levantine pottery at the site,56 which may suggest that the isolated 12th Dynasty Egyptian pottery items arrived through trade with Byblos.57 The earliest clear evidence for direct commercial contacts between Egypt and the southern Levant in the Middle Bronze Age comes from the port city of Ashkelon on the southern coast of Israel. Recent 51 Weinstein

1975; Ben-Tor 2007b, 117–120; 2016, 27–29. A recent article by Susan Cohen (Cohen 2015) argues that Egypt’s minimal contacts with the southern Levant during the Middle Kingdom relate to Egypt’s commercial focus on Nubia at that time. This is however highly unlikely considering that Egypt’s focus on the northern Levant while disregarding the southern Levant occurred also in the Old Kingdom, when there is no evidence for trade with Nubia before 2300 BCE. 53 M arcus et al. 2008. 54 M arcus et al. 2008, 206–213. 55 M arcus, Porath and Paley 2008, 240. 56 M arcus, Porath and Paley 2008, 240. 57 Ben-Tor 2016, 34, cat.-no. 4. 52

Egyptian-Levantine Relations in the Hyksos Period – The Southern Levant vs. the Northern Levant

excavations at the site yielded a unique find of forty-one clay sealings stamped almost exclusively by late Middle Kingdom Egyptian scarabs.58 The archaeological context in which the sealings were found – the ash lining of the earliest moat of the MB IIA gate – is contemporary with the early 13th Dynasty in Egypt.59 The sealings had originally sealed containers and probably also doors,60 thus reflecting a standard Egyptian Middle Kingdom administrative practice, which is so far unique outside the Nile Valley. Petrographic analysis performed on the clay of the sealings revealed their local production,61 thus suggesting the Canaanite adoption of an Egyptian Middle Kingdom administrative practice at Ashkelon in the period corresponding to the late Middle Kingdom in Egypt. This is somewhat surprising considering the marginal evidence in the southern Levant for commercial relations with Egypt during this period, when Egypt’s commercial contacts with the Levant focused on the Lebanese coast. Taking into consideration the archaeological evidence associated with this period in Egypt and the Levant, it was suggested that the contacts between Egypt and Ashkelon were initiated by the large Canaanite population settled at Tell el-Dabʽa in the eastern Delta at that time, which eventually took over the region in the Second Intermediate Period.62 The initial contact with the port city of Ashkelon occurred after a considerable Canaanite population had already settled at Tell el-Dabʽa,63 and it was most likely these settlers who were responsible for promoting relations with their kinfolks in the southern Levant. This is supported by the fact that the foreign settlers at Tell el-Dabʽa played a key role in the Levantine maritime trade during this period.64 A turning point in Egypt’s relations with the Levant seems to coincide with the takeover of the eastern Delta by the Canaanite settlers in the early 17th century BCE, the event that marks the beginning of the Second Intermediate Period.65 This political development prompted a dramatic change in Egypt’s commercial and cultural relations with the Levant, which now focused on the southern Levant.66 Archaeological evidence from both regions suggests that the dramatic decline in trade contacts between

Egypt and Byblos coincided with the beginning of substantial trade contacts between Egypt and Palestine sometime in the early 17th century BCE.67 The last Middle Kingdom pharaoh attested at Byblos is Ibiaw Wahibre of the 13th Dynasty, whose reign is dated to the last decade of the 18th century BCE.68 No Egyptian royal name, private name, or design scarabs of the Second Intermediate Period have been found at Byblos or at any other site in the northern Levant.69 Regardless of her dating of the royal tombs at Byblos to the Second Intermediate Period Kopetzky has properly recognized that the close commercial contacts between Egypt and the northern Levant changed in the advanced 13th Dynasty, the period corresponding to stratum F at Tell el-Dabʽa, when the site was apparently taken over by the foreign settlers. She further comments that this change was followed by a constant decline in Egypt’s relations with the northern Levant during the MB IIB until the end of the Second Intermediate Period, to be renewed only in the early 18th Dynasty.70 This is also supported by the considerable drop in imported Levantine pottery at Tell el-Dab‛a after stratum F.71 Considering the close commercial and cultural contacts between Egypt and the northern Levant during the Middle Kingdom, a northern Levantine origin was proposed for the Asiatic settlers at Tell el-Dabʽa.72 This was supported by the northern Levantine origin suggested by petrographic analysis for the Canaanite pottery found in late Middle Kingdom levels at Tell el-Dabʽa,73 which is not surprising considering the large-scale trade with Byblos at that time. Also, northern Levantine cultural influence demonstrated at Tell el-Dabʽa was considered as supporting evidence for suggesting this region as the most likely geographical origin of the foreign settlers at the site.74 However, as correctly stated by Bietak,75 the origin of trade commodities need not reflect the origins of people. Moreover, the northern Levantine cultural influence at Tell elDabʽa can be explained as resulting from the strong commercial contacts between Egypt and this region since the early 3rd millennium BCE throughout the Middle Kingdom. It is not surprising that these contacts generated reciprocal cultural influence at

67 Ben-Tor

58 Ben-Tor

and Bell 2018. et al. 2008, 49–52. 60 Brandl 2018. 61 Ben-Tor and Bell 2018, 337 and fn. 4. 62 Ben-Tor and Bell 2018, 337–338 with bibliography. 63 Bietak et al. 2008, 49–52. 64 Aston 2002, 55–57. 65 Bietak 1997, 105–109; Ben-Tor 2007b, 187–188. 66 Ben-Tor 2004, 29; 2007b, 188–192. 59 Bietak

247

2004, 29; 2007a, 182; 2007b, 119, 186–187. See also Weinstein 1974. 68 Ryholt 1997,197, tab. 36, 353, no. 13/32. 69 Ben-Tor 2007a, 182; 2007b, 188–189; Boschloos 2012, 179–181. 70 Forstner-Müller and Kopetzky 2009, 154; Kopetzky 2016, 157; 2018, 353–354. 71 Vilain 2019, 388–391. 72 Bietak 2010, 140–142, 150–151. 73 Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004, 80–85; Bietak 2010, 150. 74 Bietak 2010, 153–163. 75 Bietak 2010, 150.

248

Daphna Ben-Tor

both regions.76 Based on the evidence at Tell el-Dabʽa, Bietak has properly proposed that the early wave of Canaanite settlers at the site most likely included skilled ship builders and sailors from the northern Levant, probably from Byblos.77 The evidence at Tell el-Dabʽa implies, however, more than one wave of foreign infiltration from the Levant,78 and it has been argued that evidence from Egypt and the Levant, especially evidence provided by scarabs, points to Palestine as the most likely place of origin of the foreign settlers in the Second Intermediate Period.79 Commercial contacts between Egypt and Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age were initiated after a millennium of minimal contact between the two regions.80 The long hiatus in commercial contacts between Egypt and Palestine coincides with the Old and Middle Kingdoms in Egypt, the period of strong commercial contacts between Egypt and Byblos. As shown above, the initial contact with the southern Levant took place after a large Canaanite population had settled at Tell el-Dabʽa. These contacts strengthened significantly following the Canaanite takeover of the eastern Delta (below), when commercial contacts with the northern Levant are no longer attested in the archaeological record. The early Second Intermediate Period saw the beginning of mass production of scarabs in Palestine which continued throughout the Middle Bronze Age.81 The large number of Middle Bronze Age scarabs in Palestine is unparalleled in this region at any other period and most likely relates to the rule of a dynasty of Canaanite origin in Egypt. In contrast to the clear Egyptian Middle Kingdom origin of the scarabs found at Byblos,82 including the items bearing names of local rulers (above), the great majority of Middle Bronze Age scarabs in Palestine were made locally, arguing for relations of a different nature between Egypt and Palestine.83

2010, 142–145. 2010, 142. The evidence also argues for Asiatic warriors at the site during this period, although their exact place of origin is uncertain (Bietak 2010, 140–142). 78 Bietak 2010, 151–152, although Bietak interprets the evidence differently. 79 Ben-Tor 2007b, 189–190; 2009. 80 Ben-Tor 2009, 3; 2016, 32–33. 81 Ben-Tor 2007b, 117–121, 155–156. 82 Ben-Tor 2003, 242–243. 83 Ben-Tor 2007b, 186–192; 2009.

Archaeological evidence in Egypt indicates largescale importation of Canaanite scarabs during the Hyksos period.84 Moreover, Second Intermediate Period royal-name, private-name, and design scarabs, most likely produced at Tell el-Dab‘a, display clear inspiration from Middle Bronze Age Canaanite scarabs.85 The fact that scarab production in the Middle Bronze Age is attested only at Tell el-Dab‘a and in Palestine supports kin relations between the two populations. This is further supported by the number of Second Intermediate Period royal and private-name scarabs found in Palestine,86 vs. their complete absence in the northern Levant.87 The Palestinian origin of the Canaanite population in the eastern Delta is further indicated by jar handles stamped by scarabs, which are well-attested in Palestine,88 and appear on imported jars at Tell elDab‘a and el-Lisht,89 while they are completely absent in the northern Levant. Further support for the shift in Egypt’s commercial contacts towards the southern Levant in the early Second Intermediate Period is provided by the recently published Neutron Activation Analysis of Canaanite pottery from Tell el-Dab‘a.90 The evidence therefore suggests close commercial and cultural contacts between Egypt and Palestine during the Second Intermediate Period, while no such contacts are attested with the northern Levant at that time. Summing up, the evidence presented above suggests that during periods of unification under strong central rule, Egypt’s first choice for trade contacts with the Levant was with the northern Levant, especially with the port city of Byblos on the Lebanese coast. The unique situation of the Second Intermediate Period, when Egypt’s commercial and cultural contacts focused on the southern Levant, is best explained by kin relations between the Canaanite populations in the eastern Delta and Palestine.

76 Bietak 77 Bietak

84 Ben-Tor

2007b, 190–192. 2007b, 104–110; 2010. 86 Weinstein 1981, 8–10. 87 Boschloos 2012, 179–181. 88 K eel 1995, 119–120. 89 Ben-Tor 1994, 10, and n. 9; Bietak 1996, 60, fig. 51; A rnold, A rnold and A llen 1995, 28, fig. 1. See also BenTor 2007b, 189. 90 McGovern and Wnuk 2020. 85 Ben-Tor

Egyptian-Levantine Relations in the Hyksos Period – The Southern Levant vs. the Northern Levant

249

Bibliography A hrens, A. 2006 A Journey´s End: Two Egyptian Stone Vessels with Hieroglyphic Inscriptions from the Royal Tomb at Tell Mišrife/Qatna, Ägypten & Levante 16, 15–36. 2010 A Stone Vessel of Princess Itakayet of the 12th Dynasty from Tomb VII at Tell Mišrife/Qatna (Syria), Ägypten & Levante 20, 15–29. 2011 A “Hyksos Connection”? Thoughts on the Date of Dispatch of Some of the Middle Kingdom Objects Found in the Northern Levant, in: J. Mynářová (ed.), Egypt and the Near East – The Crossroads. Proceedings of an International Conference on the Relations of Egypt and the Near East in theBronze Age, Prague, 21–40. 2013 Aegyptiaca in the Northern Levant: Contextualization and Perception onEgyptian and Egyptianizing Objects during the Bronze Age, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 5.4, 1–2. 2015 The Egyptian Objects from Tell Hizzin in the Beqa‘a Valley (Lebanon): AnArchaeological and Historical Reassessment, Ägypten & Levante 25, 201–222. 2016 Remarks on the Dispatch of Egyptian Middle Kingdom Objects in the LevantDuring the Second Intermediate Period, Göttinger Miszellen 250, 21–24. 2020 Aegyptiaca in der nördlichen Levante: Eine Studie zur Kontextualisierung undRezeption ägyptischer und ägyptisierender Objekte in der Bronzezeit, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 41, Leuven. A lbright, W.F. 1964 The Eighteenth-Century Princes of Byblos and the Chronology of Middle Bronze, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 176, 38–46. A llen, J.P. 2008 The Historical Inscription of Khnumhotep at Dahshur: Preliminary Report,Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 352, 29–39. A rnold, Do., A rnold, F. and A llen, S. 1995 Canaanite Imports at Lisht, the Middle Kingdom Capital of Egypt, Ägypten & Levante 5, 13–32. Aston, D.A. 2002 Ceramic Imports at Tell el-Dab‘a during the Middle Bronze IIA, 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, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna, 43–87. Ayrton, E.R., Currelly, C.T. and Weigall, A.E.P. 1904 Abydos III, London. Bagh, T. 2003 The Relationship between Levantine Painted Ware, Syro/Cilician Ware and Khabur Ware and the Chronological Implications, in: M. Bietak (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 - EuroConference, Haindorf 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, Contributions

2013

to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4, Vienna, 219–237. Tell el-Dab‘a XXIII: Levantine Painted Ware from Egypt and the Levant,Untersuchungen der Zweig_ stelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 37, Vienna.

Ben-Tor, D. 1994 The Historical Implications of Middle Kingdom Scarabs Found in Palestine Bearing Private Names and Titles of Officials, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 294, 7–22. 1998 The Absolute Date of the Montet Jar Scarabs, in: L.H. Lesko (ed.) Ancient Egyptian and Mediterranean Studies in Memory of William A. Ward, Providence, 1–17. 2003 Egyptian–Levantine Relations and Chronology in the Middle Bronze Age: Scarab Research, in: M. Bietak (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 - EuroConference, Haindorf 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4, Vienna, 239–248. 2004 Second Intermediate Period Scarabs from Egypt and Palestine: Historical and Chronological Implications, in: M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds.), Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications, Papers of a Symposium, Vienna, 10th13th January 2002, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 8, Vienna, 27–41. 2007a Scarabs of Middle Bronze Age Rulers of Byblos, in: S. Bickel, R. Schurte and C. Uehlinger (eds,), Bilder als Quellen/Images as Sources: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts and the Bible Inspired by the Work of Othmar Keel, Orbis Biblicus et Oientalis Sonderband, Fribourg Switzerland, 177–188. 2007b Scarabs, Chronology, and Interconnections: Egypt and Palestine in the Second Intermediate Period, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 27, Fribourg. 2009 Can Scarabs Argue for the Origin of the Hyksos, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 1.1, 1–7. 2010 Sequence and Chronology of Second Intermediate Period Royal-Name Scarabs, Based on Excavated Series from Egypt and the Levant, in: M. M arée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth– Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192, Leuven, 1–108. 2016 Pharaoh in Canaan: The Untold Story, Exhibition Catalogue, Jerusalem. forthc. Some Observations on Egyptian-Levantine Relations in the Middle Kingdom, Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar of New York 20. Ben-Tor, D. and Bell, L. 2018 Clay Sealings from the Moat Deposit, in: L.E. Stager, J.D. Schloen and R.J. Voss (eds.), Ashkelon 6: The Middle Bronze Age Ramparts and Gates of the

250

Daphna Ben-Tor North Slope and Later Fortifications, Winona Lake, IN, 337–381.

Bietak, M. 1996 Avaris: The Capital of the Hyksos – Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dab‘a, London. 1997 The Center of Hyksos Rule: Avaris (Tell el-Dab‘a), in: E.D. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, University Museum Monograph 96, Philadelphia, 87–139. 2004 Seal Impressions from the Middle till the New Kingdom – A Problem for Chronological Research, in: M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds.), Scarabs of The Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia Crete and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications, Papers of a Symposium, Vienna, 10th-13th January 2002, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 8, Vienna, 43–55. 2010 From Where Came the Hyksos and Where Did They Go?, in: M. M arée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192, Leuven, 139–181. Bietak, M., Kopetzky, K., Stager, L.E. and Voss, R.J. 2008 Synchronisation of Stratigraphies: Ashkelon and Tell el-Dab‘a, Ägypten & Levante 18, 49–60. Bietak, M. and Kopetzky, K. 2012 The Egyptian Pottery of the Second Intermediate Period from Northern Sinai and its Chronological Significance, in: M. Gruber, S. A hituv, G. Lehmann and Z. Talshier (eds.), All the Wisdom of the East: Studies in Near Eastern Archaeology and History in Honor of Eliezer D. Oren, Orbis Biclicus et Orientalis 255, Fribourg, 105–128. Boschloos, V. 2012 Egyptian and Egyptianising Scarab-Shaped Seals in Syria and Lebanon, Bibliotheca Orientalis 69.3–4, 175–181. Brandl, B. 1992 Evidence for Egyptian Colonization in the Southern Coastal Plain and Lowlands of Canaan during the EBI Period, in: E.C.M. van den Brink (ed.), The Nile Delta in Transition, 4th–3rd Millennium BC, Tel Aviv, 441–477. 2018 Morphology and Function of the Sealings from the Moat Deposit, in: L.E. Stager, J.D. Schloen, and R.J. Voss (eds.), Ashkelon 6: The Middle Bronze Age Ramparts and Gates of the North Slope and Later Fortifications, Winona Lake, 383–426. Callender, G. 2000 The Middle Kingdom Renaissance (c. 2055–1650 BC), in: I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford, 148–183. Cohen, S.L. 2015 Periphery and Core: The Relationship between the Southern Levant and Egypt in the Early Middle Bronze Age (MBI), in: J. Mynářová (ed.), There and Back Again – The Crossroads II, Proceedings of an International Conference held in Prague, September 15–18, 2014, Prague, 245–263.

Cohen-Weinberger, A. and Goren, Y. 2004 Levantine-Egyptian Interactions during the 12th to the 15th Dynasties, Ägypten & Levante 14, 69–100. De Miroschedji, P. 2001 Gaza et l’Égypte à l’époque prédynastique à l’Ancien Empire. Premiers resultats des fouilles de Tell es-Sakan, Bulletin de la Société Française d’Egyptologie 152, 28–52. Dunand, M. 1939 Fouilles de Byblos, Tome Ier. 1926–1932, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 24, Paris. 1958 Fouilles de Byblos Tome II. 1933–1938, République Libanaise, Direction de l’Instruction Publique et des Beaux-Arts, Études et documents d’archéologie 3, Paris. Flaminni, R. 2010 Elite Emulation and Patronage Relationships in the Middle Bronze: The Egyptianized Dynasty of Byblos, Tel Aviv 37, 154–168. Forstner-Müller, I. and Kopetzky, K. 2009 Egypt and Lebanon: New Evidence for Cultural Exchange in the First Half of the 2nd Millennium B.C., in: A.-M. M aila A feiche (ed.), Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean: Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium Beirut 2008, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises Hors-Série 6, 143–157. Garstang, J. 1907 The Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt as Illustrated by Tombs of the Middle Kingdom, London. H ayes, W.C. 1953 The Scepter of Egypt I, Cambridge, Ma. Helck, W. 1976 Ägyptische Statuen im Ausland – ein chronologisches Problem, Ugarit Forschungen 8, 101–115. Hill, M. 2015 Later Life of Middle Kingdom Monuments: Interrogating Tanis, in: A. Oppenheim, Do. A rnold, Di. A rnold and K. Yamamoto (eds.), Ancient Egypt Transformed, The Middle Kingdom, Exhibition Catalogue, New York, 294–299. K eel, O. 1995 Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/ Israel, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 10, Fribourg. 1997 Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/ Israel: Katalog Band I, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 13, Fribourg. Kopetzky, K. 2010/ Egyptian Pottery from the Middle Bronze Age in 2011 Lebanon, Berytus 53–54, 167–179. 2011 The Southern Coastal Plain: Tell el-‘Ajjul, in: M. M artin (ed.), Egyptian-Type Pottery in the Late Bronze Age Southern Levant, Contributions to

Egyptian-Levantine Relations in the Hyksos Period – The Southern Levant vs. the Northern Levant

2015

2016

2018

the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 29, Vienna, 201–209. Egyptian Burial Customs in the Royal Tombs I–III of Byblos, in: A.-M. M aila A feiche (ed.), Cult and Ritual on the Levantine Coast and its Impact on the Eastern Mediterranean Realm. Proceedings of the International Symposium Beirut 2012, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises HorsSérie 10, 393–412. Some Remarks on the Relations Between Egypt and the Levant during the Late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period, in: G. Miniaci and W. Grajetzky (eds.), The World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1550 BC): Contributions on Archaeology, Art, Religion, and Written Sources, Middle Kingdom Studies 2, London, 143–159. Tell el-Dab‘a and Byblos: New Chronological Evidence, Ägypten & Levante 28, 309–358.

Kopetzky, K. and Bietak, M. 2016 A Seal Impression of the Green Jasper Workshop from Tell el-Dab‘a, Ägypten & Levante 26, 358–375. Lilyquist, C. 1993 Granulation and Glass: Chronological and Stylistic Investigations at Selected Sites, ca. 2500–1400 BCE, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 290/291, 29–94. M arcus, E.S., Porath, Y., Schiestl, R., Seiler, A. and Paley, S.M. 2008 The Middle Kingdom Egyptian Pottery from Middle Bronze Age IIA Tel Ifshar, Ägypten & Levante 18, 203–219.

251

uary 2002, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 8, Vienna, 107–140. Montet, P. 1928 Byblos et l’Égypte: Quatre Campagnes de Fouilles à Gebeil, 1921–1922–1923–1924, Paris. 1964 Notes et documents pour servir à l’histoire des relations entre l’Égypte et la Syrie XIII, Quatre nouvelles inscriptions hiéroglyphiques trouvées à Byblos, Kemi 17, 61–68. Negbi, O. and Moskowitz, S. 1966 The “Foundation Deposits” or “Offering Deposits” of Byblos, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 184, 21–26. Petrie, W.M.F. 1890 Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara, London. 1931 Ancient Gaza I: Tell el-Ajjul, Publications of the British School of Archaeology in Egypt 53, London. Quirke, S. 2003 Two Thirteenth Dynasty Heart Scarabs, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society ‘Ex Oriente Lux’ 37, 31–40. Ryholt, K.S.B. 1997 The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period c. 1800–1550 BC, Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 20, Copenhagen. Sartori, N. 2009 Die Siegel aus Areal F/II in Tell el-Dab‘a, Erster Vorbericht, Ägypten & Levante 19, 281–292.

M arcus, E.S., Porath, Y. and Paley, S.M. 2008 The Early Middle Bronze Age IIA Phases at Tel Ifshar and Their External Relations, Ägypten & Levante 18, 221–244.

Smith, S.T. 1995 Askut in Nubia: The Economics and Ideology of Egyptian Imperialism in the Second Millennium B.C., New York.

M arkowitz, Y. 1997 Seals from Kerma, in: E.D. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, University Museum Monograph 96, Philadelphia, 83–86.

Sowada, K.N. 2009 Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Old Kingdom, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 237, Fribourg.

M artin, G.T. 1971 Egyptian Administrative and Private-Name Seals, Principally of the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period, Oxford. McGovern, P.E. and Wnuk, C. 2020 Appendix 4: Afterword, Petrographic Addendum, and Pottery Figures, in: P.E. McGovern, The Foreign Relations of the “Hyksos”: A Neutron Activation Study of Middle Bronze Age Pottery from the Eastern Mediterranean, with a contribution by Tine Bagh, BAR International Series 888, BAR 2000, Oxford, 244–485. Mlinar, C. 2004 The Scarab Workshops of Tell el-Dab‘a, in: M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds.), Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications, Papers of a Symposium, Vienna, 10th-13th Jan-

Teissier, B. 1996 Egyptian Iconography on Syro–Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 11, Fribourg. Tufnell, O. 1984 Scarabs and Their Contribution to History in the Early Second Millennium B.C. Studies on Scarab Seals 2, 2 vols., Warminster. Tufnell, O. and Ward, W.A. 1966 Relations between Byblos, Egypt, and Mesopotamia at the End of the Third Millennium BC: A Study of the Montet Jar, Syria 43, 165–241. van den

1995

Brink, E.C.M. En Besor Cylinder Seal Impressions in Retrospect, in: R. Gophna (ed.), ‘En Besor, Tel Aviv, 201–214.

Vilain, S. 2019 The Foreign Trade of Tell el-Dab‛a During the Second Intermediate Period: Another Glance

252

Daphna Ben-Tor at Imported Ceramics under Hyksos Rule, in: J. Mynářová, M. K ilani, and S. A livernini (eds.), Egypt and the Near East – The Crossroads. Proceedings of an International Conference on Foreigners in Ancient Egyptian and Near Eastern Societies of the Bronze Age, Prague, 387–404.

1975 1981

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 213, 49–57. Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the Middle Kingdom, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 217, 1–16. The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 241, 1–28. Byblos, in: D.B. R edford (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol. I, Oxford, 219–221.

Ward, W.A. 1971 Egypt and the East Mediterranean World 2200– 1900 B.C, Beyrouth.

2001

Weinstein, J.M. 1974 A Statuette of the Princess Sobeknefru at Tell Gezer,

Winter, H.A. 2018 Tell el-‘Ajjul Palaces I and II: Context and Function, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 150.1, 4–33.

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

253

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions: The Diffusion of Looted Middle Kingdom Objects Found in the Northern Levant, Egypt and Nubia by Alexander Ahrens1 and Karin Kopetzky2

Abstract

In recent years, a growing body of archaeological evidence suggests that many Egyptian objects, dating to the Middle Kingdom, were dispatched to the northern Levant and Nubia during the Second Intermediate Period. The reuse of funerary and temple equipment during this period, and the related phenomenon of tomb robbing, is one of the major factors for the presence of Egyptian Middle Kingdom objects in various northern Levantine find-contexts. Tomb robbing and subsequent reuse of Egyptian objects, already noted by earlier scholars, has also been linked to statues discovered in the Levant, and in Nubia. Some scholars, who interpreted Egyptian objects as proof of direct contact and diplomatic exchanges between Levantine rulers and the Egyptian pharaohs named on the objects, rejected this view. However, many of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom objects, attested in the Levant and Nubia, feature inscriptions that clearly reflect an original use context in Egypt, without any direct reference to the Levant or Nubia or to the sites where they were found. Additionally, specific find-contexts, in Egypt proper, hint at the fact that the looting of tombs, funerary installations and temple repositories occurred during the Second Intermediate Period. This paper reviews some of the well-known older finds and their specific contexts. We also present new finds that have a bearing on the date of dispatch of these objects, and argue that some of these Middle Kingdom objects, found in the northern Levant and Nubia during the Second Intermediate Period, resulted from tomb robbing and subsequent dispatch.

1. Introduction

The presence of Middle Kingdom Egyptian statuary, and other inscribed Egyptian objects found in the Levant and Nubia, has been – and still is – the subject of much controversy. In the early days of Egyptology and Near Eastern archaeology, Egyptian objects, especially those with inscriptions, were used to synchronise Egyptian chronology with the (at the time) less well-known, regional chronologies of the Levant. Egyptian objects were thus perceived as a means of giving absolute dates to their find-contexts.3 This was based, primarily, on the assumption that they were once part of an existing gift exchange between the Egyptian kings, named on the objects, and Levantine rulers. They may even have served as archaeological proof of an (alleged) Egyptian empire in the Levant and Nubia during the Middle Kingdom.4 However, seminal studies by J. Weinstein5 and W. Helck6 presented a different approach to the presence of statues in the Levant and Nubia. They proposed a revised date for their dispatch from Egypt. According to Weinstein and Helck, most of the Egyptian statuary found in the Levant and Nubia arrived later, i.e. during the Second Intermediate Period when statues and other inscribed objects, dating to the Middle Kingdom, were looted from temples, cultic installations and tombs.7 Weinstein and Helck based their arguments, mainly, on the inscriptions of these statues. They linked the titles, names, toponyms, or gods and their associated cults (mentioned in the inscriptions), with either their place of origin in Egypt, or with the date of the objects’ find-contexts in the Levant or Nubia. More recent scholarship is divided between these two contradictory notions, with scholars falling into two groups. The first group emphasises the direct connections between Egypt and the Levant and Nubia during the Middle Kingdom, based on the Egyptian objects in question. While the second group argues for a later dispatch of the same objects 3 4 5 6 7

1 German

Archaeological Institute, Orient Department, Damascus Branch, [email protected]. 2 Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austrian Archaeological Institute, [email protected].

Schaeffer 1932, 19. Albright 1959, 33; R edford 1992, 76. Weinstein 1974; 1975. Helck 1971; 1976. At that time, a similar scenario concerning Egyptian objects in the Aegean had also already been put forward by Leon Pomerance (Pomerance 1973). Clearly, also the earlier works of Egyptologists Säve-Söderbergh (SäveSöderbergh 1941) and Hintze (Hintze 1964) which had focused on Egyptian-Nubian interconnections had an influence on Weinstein’s and Helck’s interpretation of the Egyptian objects outside of Egypt proper.

© by the author This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc by 4.0 license DOI: 10.13173/9783447117371.253

254

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

Fig. 1 Map of sites mentioned in the text

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

to the northern Levant and Nubia during the Second Intermediate Period. Along the same lines, the various chronological and historical reconstructions pertaining to these scenarios differ widely.8 Evidence arguing for the dispatch of most of the Middle Kingdom statuary and other inscribed objects9 to the northern Levant during the Second Intermediate Period, (and not during the Middle Kingdom), may be gained by new and old reassessed finds. The associated find-contexts and other archaeological evidence from both Egypt, the northern Levant and Nubia, is presented, in more detail, below. Also, specific find-contexts in Egypt hint that the looting of tombs, funerary installations and temple repositories most probably occurred during the Second Intermediate Period. While it is out of the scope of this presentation to cover all objects, dating to the Middle Kingdom, found in the northern Levant and Nubia as well as their respective original use contexts in Egypt (if known or detectable), a presentation and compilation of the most significant finds and contexts, for the northern Levant, Egypt and Nubia, are deemed sufficient to emphasise both the chronological and historical implications of this argument (Fig. 1).

2. Case Studies: The Northern Levant10 2.1 Byblos

From the predynastic period Egypt had a keen interest in trade with Byblos.11 It was most likely timber and especially cedarwood, which led to this intensive exchange, because the Nile valley lacked the tall trees necessary for the construction of temples, palaces, tombs and ships. Furthermore, cedarwood resin was an essential ingredient for the mummification process. The city of Byblos was, for the ancient Egyptians, the closest harbour which provided, via the el-Fidar valley and the Nahr Ibrahim,12 direct access to one of the largest timber sources in Lebanon. This trade with Byblos and its rulers continued, with varying intensity, from the early dynastic period, through the Old, to the Middle Kingdom. At the beginning of the

Middle Kingdom, Egyptians painted a belligerent picture in their attitude towards the Levant, whether from depictions in tombs or inscriptions on stelae13 or texts from execration figurines.14 The observer was meant to get the impression that Egypt was the dominant power controlling these foreign rulers. In addition to this official and aggressive attitude, however, there were important commercial links with the early MB I (=MB IIA)15 culture, which is more difficult to detect.16 It becomes visible in the appearance of early Levantine Painted Wares from Ezbet Rushdi17 and Lisht,18 in the famous wall paintings of the Asiatics in the tomb of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hassan,19 and the cedar coffins of the early 12th Dynasty,20 in early Middle Kingdom scarabs from the Montet jar in Byblos,21 and from the tombs in Sidon 22 and the Egyptian pottery from Tell Mirhan.23 These exchanges had an impact on the cultures of both regions. Egypt knew how to defend its commercial interests when these were threatened. This becomes evident from an inscription which the vizier Khnumhotep III had engraved on his tomb in Dahshur, in the late 12th Dynasty.24 Here we read that, during the reign of Senwosret III, a skirmish broke out between Byblos and Ullaza, with Egypt intervening militarily in favour of Ullaza. In this text the ruler of Byblos was, like other rulers in the Levant, addressed as Ho3 with the addition of m3kj, which Allen likes to equate with the Semitic word for ‘king’.25 However, from Amenemhat III onwards the rulers of Byblos were addressed as H3tj - a ,26 a title used in Egypt during the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period for governors of a domain.27

13 14 15

16

8

Due to the limitations of space, the present contribution

cannot present the divergent chronological and historical reconstructions. 9 The Middle Kingdom generally believed to comprise the 12th and early 13th Dynasties until the reign of Merneferre Aya, the late 13th Dynasty thus considered a part of the Second Intermediate Period. Recent research claims that the Second Intermediate Period did not start earlier than the very end of the 13th Dynasty in the Memphite region, see M arée 2010, XIII–XIV. 10 The sites presented here are arranged starting from Levantine littoral to sites farther inland. 11 Prag 1986; Hartung 2001; H artung et al. 2015. 12 H arfouche and Poupet 2015; Francis-A llouche and Grimal 2016.

255

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27

Altenmüller and Moussa 1991. Sethe 1926; Posener 1940. The time periods given here follow the Syrian chronology

(Nigro 2002) with Albright´s classification for the southern Levant in brackets (A lbright 1938). Marcus 2007. Bagh 2013; for the dating of these finds see: Czerny 2015. Compare also the contribution by M arcus in this volume. Do. Arnold, F. Arnold and Allen 1995, fig. 2. Newberry 1893, fig. XXX. For example, the coffins of Ashait (Cairo 47355), Wah (MMA 20.3.202), Djehutynakht (B 20.1822). Ben-Tor 1998. Mlinar 2004. Kopetzky et al. 2019, fig. 15.2. Allen 2008; 2009. Allen 2008, 33. The same title can be found in the story of Sinuhe for the ruler of Qatna, see: Schneider 2002, 261−263. Ryholt 1997, 87; Allen 2008, 37. Ryholt 1997, 87.

256

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

Towards the latter part of the 12th Dynasty, contact with Byblos intensified. Although there is hardly any evidence for this in Byblos,28 in Tell el-Dab‘a the quantity of pottery imported from the Northern Levant, amongst them imports from Byblos rose from the late 12th to the middle of the 13th Dynasties.29 With the end of the Middle Kingdom this trade dropped by half 30 and in the following early MB II (=MB IIB) period we see an array of Egyptian and Egyptianised objects appearing in the Levant. A large number of these objects date to the 12th and early 13th Dynasties. Amongst these groups of imports were several objects found inside tombs believed to be the final resting places of the Middle Bronze Age rulers of Byblos. Due to the local materials used, these tombs should be dated to the second part of the Middle Bronze Age.31 Four of these objects were inscribed with royal names of the later 12th Dynasty. 2.1.1 The Cosmetic Jar of Amenemhat III (61032/BNM 17308) (Fig. 2) In February 1922, after heavy rainfall, the first of nine tombs was discovered on the falaise, between the fortification system in the north of Byblos and the MB palace south of it. Unfortunately, locals entered the tomb and looted some of the objects before archaeologists could get to the site. The excavator, Ch. Virolleaud, who observed glass shards amongst the stones of the entrance closure, from the shaft to the burial chambers, suggested that the tomb had already been breached in Roman times.33 In contrast, P. Montet believed the tombs were not robbed in antiquity, and that the glass had fallen from the Roman tombs that had once covered the shaft.34 Virolleaud and Montet both believed that the sarcophagus had never been opened. It stood opposite the entrance from the shaft to the chamber, next to the western wall of the chamber, oriented north-south. Inside the limestone sarcophagus were the remains of a rectangular wooden coffin, from which only parts of its decoration were preserved. R. Schiestl was able to reconstruct, from 28

29 30 31 32 33 34

the ivory inlays found inside the coffin, that it was once adorned with a pair of Wedjat eyes.35 Inside, and also partly outside, the sarcophagus, Virolleaud found hundreds of mainly yellowish faience inlays36 mixed with a lot of gold foil, in the head area,37 which were interpreted as the remains of a possible second coffin.38 And indeed, some of the (published) inlays could have come from an anthropoid coffin,39 while other parts, most likely, belonged to little boxes or chests.40 The wood of the coffin had completely disintegrated to what Virolleaud called a thick layer of ‘ash’. On top of this layer he found the imprints of woven material in a brittle, and in some places shiny, substance, which according to chemical analyses of the time were the remains of bitumen.41 These remains might indicate that the body of the deceased was treated with a special substance and then wrapped in bandages or a shroud. However, if this body treatment was copied from the ancient Egyptians, the substance found could have been the remains of resin rather than bitumen, since the latter was not used for mummification in Egypt at the time.42 Amongst all this material, the scant remains of a possible male skeleton was also found.43 Deposited inside the sarcophagus, but outside a possible anthropoid coffin, were objects in precious metals and stones, as well as the remains of little boxes, a ceremonial weapon and what could be a staff.44 Bones of different animals, the remains of meat offerings, were also found as part of the burial goods.45 35 36 37 38

39

Dunand 1964. The tomb under the Hyksos rampart might

date to the early 13th Dynasty based on the Egyptian Zir rim type 4 (Kopetzky 2010, fig. 49) and Bader vessel type 57e (Bader 2001, fig. 43), which dates in Tell el-Dab‘a from Phase G/4 till E/1. The open bowls with flaring rims depicted there are very similar to Egyptian Nile C bowls of the MK and could have been imported or were local imitations. From this tomb came two scarabs which Martin (1971, nos. 551a and 564) dates to the 12th or early 13th Dynasty. Kopetzky 2010, fig. 66. Kopetzky 2010, fig. 52. Compare also the contribution by Vilain in this volume. Kopetzky 2016; 2018. The number here and in the following objects of Byblos is referring to the numbering system in Montet 1928. Virolleaud 1922, 274. Montet 1928, 146.

40 41 42

43 44

45

Schiestl 2007. Virolleaud 1922, 289, fig. 7. Virolleaud 1922, 287. Vincent 1925, 179. If the inlays from outside the

sarcophagus also belonged to the coffin then the lid must have been opened some time after the burial took place. This would also explain the rather far south position of the sandals, unless they were originally deposited on top of the rectangular coffin. For this habit, see Garstang 1907, figs. 41, 80, 99, 170. Some of the inlays resemble feathers and would thus be a very early version of a rishi-coffin. For the rishi- coffins: Miniaci 2011. It would also be possible that instead of a second coffin a burial mask could have covered the head of the deceased: Kopetzky 2015a, 395. Schiestl 2007. Virolleaud 1922, 79−80. In Egypt bitumen was used for mummification only from the end of the New Kingdom onwards, see Clark, Ikram and Evershed 2016, 12. Virolleaud 1922, 282. Virolleaud 1922, fig. 4, no. 9. This metal tip might be the lower end of a staff as they were found, albeit in wood, e.g. in the tombs of Senebtsi at Lisht (M ace and Winlock 1916, pl. XXIX) and Princess Ita at Dahshur (de Morgan 1903, fig. 105) where they were laid down at the right side of the deceased in front of their face. Montet 1928, 186, writes that in similar examples from tomb II he has found the remains of wood still inside the socket. Virolleaud 1922, 282.

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

257

Fig. 2 Cosmetic jar of king Amenemhat III from Tomb I at Byblos made of obsidian and gold (Montet 1928, no. 610/BNM 17308; photo courtesy of the National Museum of Beirut; drawing by M.A. Negrete Martinez) Amongst these precious objects was the obsidian cosmetic jar of Amenemhat III, which was found on the right side of the head of the deceased.46 46

Virolleaud 1922, fig. 4. no. 1; Montet 1928, no. 610;

Kopetzky 2018, figs. 8, 9.1. In the Near East very often the deceased would rest on their right side with the weapons and precious objects in front of them, as can be seen e.g. in Baghouz (du Mesnil du Buisson 1948), Sidon (Doumet-Serhal and Kopetzky 2012) and Tell el-Dab‘a (Forstner-Müller 2008, fig. 101b). In the sarcophagus of Tomb I in Byblos the scimitar along with the staff were placed to the right side of the coffin. In Egypt anthropomorphic coffins were often laid twisted to the left side with the head in the north and facing the Wedjat-eyes on the east side of the rectangular coffin. In Byblos however, given that the position of the sandals in the tomb are any indication, the body rested neither on the left nor on the right side, but on its back, but with the weapons positioned according to the MB tradition.

This vessel is made of highly polished obsidian and gold. It consists of a cylindrical jar covered with a fitting lid. The jar (height: 11.6 cm; rim diameter: 7.8 cm; minimum diameter 4.0 cm; base 5.3 cm) has a nearly square rim section and a convex body, with its minimum diameter in the lower part of the body. The rim and base are covered in a thick gold sheet. Two, approximately 1.2 cm wide, strips of gold also frame the top and the bottom of the lid, and overlap on the narrow side edge of the rim. Damage to the top and bottom of the obsidian lid, in the form of flaking, probably occurred in antiquity. Soldered to the diametrically opposing points of the gold sheet, framing the rim of the lid, are two oval-shaped cells (length: 0.9 cm; width: 0.65 cm). Inside the cells, golden hieroglyphs, soldered onto an oval gold plate, form the throne name of King Amenemhat III (Nj - m3 a t -R a). When the jar was discovered, these

258

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

golden inlays were missing and were only retrieved by a careful search inside the sarcophagus.47 On the foil around the rim is a horizontal unburnished stripe (width 0.2 cm) from which two unburnished vertical stripes run diametrically to the rim. They continue on the lid, run beneath the golden cells and end at the edge of the gold foil. Straight faint incisions on the lid, between the two cells, indicate a continuation of these stripes. On these unpolished stripes one can still find a substance which is, presumably, the remains of a material used to solder the metal. It appears that the jar and the lid were originally tied together with a small band of gold foil, which ran over the lid from one side of the jar to the other. The above-mentioned golden cells, set on top of this small band, symbolise seal impressions that were usually made of mud and often stamped with a scarab. These inscriptions are mirrored, to create a kind of symmetry that is also known from the pectorals of this king.48 On one side of the vessel between the two cells are two inscriptions, one at the edge of the lid and one on the jar below. When the lid is positioned correctly on the jar, the two inscriptions align. Virolleaud observed, in the base of the jar and on one side of the wall, the remains of a whitish substance, which he interpreted as the remains of the content in the vessel. Whether this was the original content or one added later remains unknown. Since the golden ribbons that once closed the vessel are missing, it is obvious that the jar was opened before it was deposited in Tomb I. Vessels like this cosmetic jar were a normal part of funerary equipment in Egypt. Several such jars were found inside the tombs of royal princesses at Illahun and at Dahshur. In Illahun, three very similar pieces were discovered in situ, together with a small kohl pot,49 in Tomb 8.50 The tomb belonged to princess Sit-Hathor-Iunet, a daughter of king Senwosret II, who died in the reign of Amenemhat III.51 These four vessels were stored together in a small wooden box, which once rested on top of a larger box. Together, they were deposited in a small niche, cut into the western wall of the tomb, next to the southern end of the sarcophagus.52 The three cosmetic jars are nearly identical to the one from Byblos in shape and production technique.53

Another similar example comes from the pyramid of Amenemhat III in Dahshur. It was discovered inside Tomb 7 (rooms W11−W13) and belonged to an unknown queen.54 Together with this jar and a fitting lid, three additional lids were found made of the same materials (obsidian and gold). The jars matching these lids were missing.55 According to the excavator, this unknown queen was probably buried during the first part of the reign of king Amenemhat III.56 Five cosmetic jars, made of obsidian, were discovered in the ‘second treasure’ in Dahshur. They were found in the princess gallery north of the pyramid of Senwosret III.57 The gallery is located on a lower level, east of the eastern most of the queen’s pyramids, and is connected to them by a corridor. In the floor of this corridor, in front of the tomb of princess Mereret(?), who was buried during the reign of Amenemhat III, is a small niche, in which the remains of a wooden box were discovered filled with jewellery and cosmetic items,58 amongst which were the five obsidian jars. Three of the jars and their lids had no gold fittings.59 One smaller but stockier version was covered with a gold sheet on the edges but was missing its lid,60 and one additional example had gilded edges on both the jar and lid.61 When it was found, the latter was closed in a similar way to the cosmetic jar from Byblos. According to von Bissing, golden ovals were mounted diametrically on the lid, each inserted with lapis lazuli. The two ovals were connected by a strip of gold sheet which was divided lengthwise by a middle groove.62 In all these royal burials the obsidian vessels appeared in groups of four or seven, stored in separate boxes outside the coffin and were associated with jewellery and other precious objects. Analysis done on the contents of the three jars from Illahun suggested for one vessel, rouge made of red ochre mixed with a type of fat, and for the other two a type of perfume made from herbs and resins.63 As mentioned above, in Byblos the cosmetic jar was found lying, as a single item, inside the coffin. In Egypt, the position inside a coffin is rare. One example from Dahshur, where two such ointment vessels were found next to the head of the deceased, was inside the

54 55

Virolleaud 1922, 286. 48 See: Chéhab 1937, pl. I, de Morgan 1895, pl. XX. 49 Brunton 1920, pl. IX; Winlock 1934, pl. XVI. 50 Brunton 1920, pl. XII, Area E; Winlock 1934, 19−20., 47

51 52 53

fig. 2. Grajetzki 2014, 46. Winlock 1934, fig. 1. Their golden edging was, like for the Byblos piece, cut from a stout golden sheet, see: Winlock 1934, 67.

56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

D. Arnold 1987, 49–51; 1980, 19−20, pl. 14b. Interestingly enough, there are several cases in late 13th Dynasty tombs, where such jars were discovered without their lids. D. Arnold 1987, 93. De Morgan 1895, figs. 105, 128. De Morgan 1895, 64. De Morgan 1895, 71, no. 62, pl. XXV. De Morgan 1895, 71, no. 61, pl. XXV. De Morgan 1895, 71, no. 60, pl. XXV. Von Bissing 1904, 168/18775. Winlock 1934, 67.

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

coffin of princess Nubhetepti-khered,64 whose tomb is north of the pyramid of Amenemhat III. It is located next to that of King Awibra Hor, a ruler of the early 13th Dynasty, of whom she is believed to be the daughter. In Tell el-Dab‘a, which was strongly influenced by Middle Bronze Age funerary traditions, this type of cosmetic jar is rare and was found in situ mainly in burials dating to the early MB IIA (=MB IIB) period.65 The four burials, three females66 and one disturbed,67 each had one cosmetic jar, albeit made of calcite, either in the vicinity of the head or of the legs. Single occurrences of these jars also appeared in early MB IIA (=MB IIB) tombs at Sidon (see below, 2.2) and Jericho.68 Very similar in shape and material is a jar that was found in Tomb VII in Qatna.69 This rock-cut tomb has two connected chambers and is accessed via a shaft from a room in the LB palace. Inside, human remains were discovered, which were once stored in wooden boxes surrounded by grave goods. It is assumed by the excavator that these boxes contained the remains of burials which took place somewhere else and were subsequently moved to new locations when the original tomb became overcrowded. Due to the quality of the finds, it is suggested that the bones came from the Royal Hypogeum and were transferred at the beginning of the LB I period to Tomb VII. According to the excavator, the material remains dated mainly to the MB II (=MB IIA and B) period (for the dating of tomb VII, see below, 2.5.3).70 In all the above-mentioned cases, including the one from Byblos, only one jar of this type was found and deposited next to the deceased. They were all 64

De Morgan 1895, fig. 264. See for the tomb also:

65

The fragment of a cosmetic jar published by Schiestl

66

Tomb F/I-j/23N, no. 13 – phase late c; tomb F/I-i/22, no.

67 68

69 70

Grajetzki 2018.

2009, 360, fig. 320.1, was found outside the tomb.

38 – phase b/3. Forstner-Müller 2008, 145, fig. 82b. The layer from where this tomb originally was cut has not been excavated. It seems however that some levelling has taken place in this area for the layers covering the tomb pit date into the Hyksos period, when an additional burial took place inside this mud-brick tomb. As such, the tomb must be dated by its contents based on other stratified material. The latter suggests a date for the initial burial in phase E/3 instead of the proposed phase F. Tomb F/I-m/18, no. 13 – phase b/2. K enyon 1965, Tomb B 48, 208, fig. 100.4 − early Group II, early MB IIB; Tomb J 14, 315, fig. 154.12, the piece was found on the abdomen of a child. This burial (P) was lying on a platform made of mudbrick and belonged probably to the last burials in this tomb. Kenyon puts the use of this tomb into her Groups II to early IV, with the latter dating towards the end of the MB IIB period. Pfälzner 2014, 151, fig. 19. Pfälzner 2014, 148. It needs to be noted that it seems that some of the 14C dates of the bones date older than the objects found with them.

259

discovered in contexts dating to the MB IIA (=MB IIB) period, with the main bulk from the beginning of this phase. In the case of the Byblos jar, a vessel once part of burial equipment, most likely for King Amenemhat III himself or a member of the royal family, reappeared in a tomb of a foreign ruler four generations later. This does not appear to be the result of a diplomatic gift exchange between the king and a contemporary sovereign but rather the result of systematic looting of the tombs in the Memphite-Fayum region after cult activities at the pyramids of the kings of the 12th and early 13th Dynasties ceased (see below, 3.2). 2.1.2 The Obsidian Casket (611/BNM 17299) (Fig. 3) In October 1923, a second tomb (Tomb II) was discovered at Byblos. The chamber was filled with a 70 cm thick layer of mud, which over the centuries had infiltrated through the entrance, blocking the chamber and covering everything. Just behind the entrance blockage, which formed the western wall of the chamber, once stood a large wooden coffin which had completely disintegrated. The only evidence of its existence was four rectangular in situ stone blocks on the floor of the chamber, on which it rested.71 Most of the precious objects were found in the centre of this area.72 Amongst which were two bronze uraei inlaid with electrum.73 Together with several faience inlays,74 similar to the ones from Tomb I, they were the remains of a possible anthropomorphic coffin, in which the body was laid to rest.75 A beautifully inlaid scimitar from this tomb gives us the name and title of the tomb’s owner written in Egyptian hieroglyphs: ‘Ipy-shemuAbi, son of Abi-shemu, governor of Byblos’. It is very likely that the well-known little box of King Amenemhat IV came from this central area.76 When discovered, the little box was lying up-side down in the mud with its lid a few centimetres away.77 Made of obsidian and gold, it is of rectangular shape with four legs (15.1 x 9.4 x 11 cm). On top, the box is decorated with a golden cornice on which rests a fitted lid. The lid is shaped like the roof of an Egyptian shrine. Wrapped around the base of each foot is a strip of gold foil used to hold, in place, wooden braces sheathed in gold. Although the wood did not survive the humidity in the tomb, the sheaths covering them are still preserved. While these braces are solely decorative on this stone box, in wooden furniture they are essential for stabilising the legs of the objects. At the opening

Montet 1928, pl. LXXIV. Montet 1928, 147. 73 Montet 1928, nos. 647, 648 (BNM 16247). 74 Montet 1928, no. 726. 75 Kopetzky 2015a. 76 Montet 1928, 157−159, no. 611, pl. LXXXVIII, XC; 71

72

Kopetzky 2020.

77

Montet 1923, 338.

260

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

Fig. 3 Box of Amenemhat IV from Tomb II at Byblos made of obsidian and gold (Montet 1928, no. 611/BNM 17299), and plaque of Amenemhat IV made of gold (EA 59194; photos courtesy of the National Museum of Beirut and © The Trustees of the British Museum) of the box, a cornice covered with a golden sheet was attached with the help of six pegs. Only the golden sheet covering the cornice survived, while its possible wooden core and pegs disintegrated over time.78 However, the cornice is missing the torus and consists only of the cavetto, a mistake an Egyptian craftsman would not have made. Although ending a box with a cornice is nothing unusual in Egypt, stone boxes of this size, however, were designed differently during the Middle Kingdom (see below, box of Neter-isy, infra). Their shape is usually simple with no cornice. It is evident from other Egyptian objects found in the Byblos tombs that some of them had been altered to fit the taste and/or purpose of the people buried there (see below, scarabs, 2.1.4). At each of the small sides of the box, a 5.8 cm long horizontal groove is cut into the stone to fix some type of decoration or inscription. On one of these sides three small holes are drilled into the stone above the horizontal groove. They form the endpoint of an isosceles triangle, 2 cm in length. Into these three holes fits perfectly a little golden plaque stored in the British Museum (EA 59194) that has three studs soldered to its backside. It depicts King Amenemhat IV before god Atum of Heliopolis. The inscription on the lid of the box is dedicated to the same god. The rim of the lid is framed with a strip of gold sheet. In the middle

78

For a detailed description of the box see: Kopetzky 2020, 43−45.

of one of the small sides a perforation is visible where once, probably, a peg was inserted. Engraved into a cartouche in the middle of the lid, is the following text: an x nTr- n f r n b - tAwj njswt - bj t MAa- x rw -Ra m rj It m n b Iwn w dj.w an x mj Ra Dt ‘Long live the good god, Lord of the two lands, King of Upper and Lower Egypt, MA a - x rw -Ra – beloved of Atum, Lord of Heliopolis – to whom life is given in eternity like Ra’. Like other objects found in the Levant, this little box has a connection to Heliopolis, a place where several of the most important temples of the ancient Egyptians once stood. Atum is closely connected with kingship and the power of the king. His symbol, the benben stone, symbolised the primeval mound from whence Atum ascended.79 His temple in Heliopolis was important for the enthronement of the king. It was where his name was written on the leaves of the ished tree to guarantee a long reign. In the pyramid texts, this god creates the king before anything else.80 According to legend, it is also the place where Atum created himself and then the other gods of Heliopolis. He is the first of all gods in the Egyptian pantheon, just like the king is the first of all men. It is not surprising, therefore, that the king had a close connection to this temple.

79 80

PT spell 600, § 1652. K ákosy 1975, 551.

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

261

The golden plaque shows the king offering an unguent vessel to Atum of Heliopolis. Text, figures and frame of this highly detailed piece are all cut from one sheet of gold. Above the King is his name M3 a - x rw -R a written in a cartouche, while above the god one reads:

sphinx of this king,88 while two other sphinxes were found in Abukir, but are presumably from Heliopolis89 and one sphinx, that was purchased by the British Museum together with the plaque of the obsidian box (BM 58892), was also dedicated to god Atum.90

n f r nTr Tm n b Iwn w ‘the good god Atum, Lord of Heliopolis.’

2.1.3 Diorite Jar with Lid (614/BNM 76900) (Fig. 4) Amongst the inventory of Tomb II from Byblos was also an Egyptian stone jar.91 Its precise location inside the tomb was, unfortunately, not mentioned by Montet. The jar 92 and its matching lid (diameter 9.4 cm, thickness 0.9 cm) are made of diorite. According to Montet, the lid may have been damaged in antiquity (see missing circle segment) and was repaired with a piece of the same stone.93 In the middle of the lid is a cartouche engraved with the name an x n f r nTr Im n - m -Hat D. t an x. Unfortunately, there are several kings named Amenemhat in the Middle Kingdom and Montet suggested, based on the obsidian box of Amenemhat IV in the same tomb, that this vessel also belonged to him. Palaeographically, the style of the hieroglyphs depicted on the lid do indeed match with inscriptions of the later 12th Dynasty, and specifically those of King Amenemhat IV, and can be compared with the inlaid cartouches from the box of a storekeeper and cupbearer named Kemeni, which was found in a tomb in Thebes (see below, 3.4). So indeed this king might have been the one to whom this jar once belonged. Below the central cartouche, almost in the middle of the lid, are three hieroglyphic signs visible which were identified by Montet as Hm-signs.94 However, with close inspection, it becomes clear that in the area of these three signs abrasion marks are visible (Fig. 4d). By zooming in on a detail of Montet’s published photo95 (Fig. 4a−c) and from photos recently taken in the National Museum in Beirut,96 it appears as if the original sign was different. On these photos weak traces of what was originally a x n t-sign97 are still visible as well as the ones from additional t-signs, changing the reading to x n t t. If this reading is correct, then this jar once contained ḫntt-oil, which was some kind of unguent

Below the unguent jar and between the king and the god is written: Dj. t mD. t ‘giving of unguent.’ From the text one learns the original content of this box was a kind of ointment, which the king, it seems, donated to the temple of Heliopolis. Ointments (m d . t) were used in the daily rituals performed for the statues of the gods.81 We do not know which particular ointment was donated, as mD. t was used as both a generic term for ointments offered to temples,82 and for the seven sacred oils used during mummification rituals and the ‘opening of the mouth’ ceremony.83 Ointment boxes made of stone similar to the one from Byblos are not very common. There is one example from a treasurer and steward called Neterisy and his wife.84 It is red granite from Aswan (11.6 x 18 x 10.5 cm) and like the Byblos box, it rests on four feet and has a shrine-like lid. But in this case, the box was closed by sliding the lid into position from one of the small sides. The text inscribed on the casket and the lid is written in a ductus which is, according to Bennett 85 and Satzinger,86 typical for the late 12th Dynasty, while, Marée suggested a date in the later 13th dynasty.87 The inscription in the middle of the lid again mentions m d . t as the content of the box. However, in this case the box was probably part of Neter-isy’s funerary equipment, since it is dedicated to Sobek-Ra of Kom Ombo for the k3 of Neter-isy together with the epithet m3 a x rw ‘justified’. This dedication together with the materials used to manufacture the box suggests that Neter-isy and his family were originally from the first Upper Egyptian nome. The obsidian box of Amenemhat IV is not the only object which connects this king with Heliopolis and the god Atum. From the area of Heliopolis comes a

Pignattari 2018, 61. Pignattari 2018, 60. 90 This sphinx, however, seemed to have reached Beirut 88 89

91

Moret 1902, 191−195. 82 Koura 1999, 127. 83 Otto 1960, 1; Willems 1996, 83−88. 84 Kopetzky 2020, 47−48. 85 Bennett 1941, 79. 86 Satzinger 1997, 184. 87 We thank I. Forstner-Müller for this information. 81

92 93 94 95 96 97

only during the Hellenistic or Roman period, since it was reworked during the Ptolemaic period. Montet 1928, no. 614, pl. XCI. For the measurements see: Montet 1928, 160, fig. 70. Montet 1928, 160. Gardiner 1957, U 36. It seems that Montet powdered the inscription with chalk to make it visible on the photo. We would like to thank Dr. Anne-Marie Afeiche for granting us access to this object. Gardiner 1957, W 17.

262

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

Fig. 4 Jar of king Amenemhat made of diorite from Tomb II at Byblos; a−c) detailed photos of the reconstructed part of the inscription with the traces of the engravings marked with red arrows (b) colour reversed photo); d) detail photo of abrasion marks; e) position of measure capacity signs (Montet 1928, no. 614, lid: BNM 76900, photo courtesy of the National Museum of Beirut; drawing by M.A. Negrete Martinez) refined with incense.98 It seems that by attempting to erase this inscription, somebody wanted to disguise the information about the original contents of the vessel but instead managed a rather sloppy job. The jar itself is piriform in shape with a high shoulder and, in comparison to other stone vessels of that period, is not as elongated (see below, jar of princess Itakayet, 2.5.3).99 Its angular rim is as wide as its flat base. In the area of the shoulder two signs were chiselled into the stone (Fig. 4e), which Montet interpreted as an early version of a peculiar Levantine alphabetic writing system or as marks of a workshop.100 However, recently these signs were recognised as being Egyptian. One of the authors of this article was able to prove that these are unit fractions of the ancient Egyptian measure capacity of a heqat.101 T. Pommerening, who analysed ancient Egyptian measure capacity signs, identified them as unit fractions of ‘1/4’ and ‘1/16’, which were in use during the Middle Kingdom.102 By taking Montet’s measurement of the jar and assuming a wall thickness 98 99

Hannig 2006, 1910. According to the director of the National Museum of

Beirut, Dr. Anne-Marie Afeiche, this vessel was smashed during the civil war and will be restored in the future. The lid lost a substantial part above the inscription (see drawing). 100 Montet 1928, 160−161. 101 A hrens 2012. 102 Pommerening 2005, 138−139, tabs. 5.2.3a−b.

of 1.5 cm, which is the average size for this kind of vessel, a volume capacity of 1600 to 1640 ccm was calculated, which equals a volume of 1.6 litres. There are, however, some peculiarities about the various signs and inscriptions on this object. The inscription on the lid runs from right to left and was neatly carved, the one naming its content is in the opposite direction, while the measure of capacity signs are, according to Montet, only cursory with103 one of them rotated at a 90° angle compared to other attestations of the writing of this sign. To explain this combination, it is necessary to think about the production process until this vessel was deposited in its original context in Egypt. Lid and jar were certainly made to order by the same craftsman. It is possible that he was also responsible for the measure capacity signs. The fact that one sign is rotated might result from the way the craftsman held the jar when inserting these signs. The jar was then given to a master engraver who chiselled the cartouche with the king’s name on the lid. The fact that only the king’s name without any dedications to a god, or the mention of another person’s name on the lid without any dedication to a god or a private person was found, suggest that this jar was most likely part of the burial equipment of the king or of the cult at his pyramid rather than a gift to a temple. Finally, when the jar was

103

Montet 1928, 160.

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

filled, the information about its contents was added to the lid. This was probably done by yet another craftsman, who paid no attention to the direction of the main inscription on the lid. 2.1.4 Amethyst and Gold Scarabs (Fig. 5) In Tombs I, II and III, five amethyst scarabs were found. Four of them are mounted on golden rings, while one is the focus of a golden bracelet. One ring (Fig. 5.1: 640/BNM 16249)104 comes from Tomb I where it was found inside the sarcophagus amongst other pieces of jewellery. When discovered, this scarab was separated from its golden base and clamp. Three of the scarabs, two rings (Fig. 5.2: 641/BNM 16250 and Fig. 5.3: 642/ BNM 16251)105 and the bracelet (Fig. 5.4: 636/BNM 16240),106 were retrieved from Tomb II, where they were found in the middle of the chamber, in the area where the coffin once stood. The fifth piece (Fig. 5.5: 643/AO 9094)107 comes from Tomb III. Amethyst, as a material for scarabs and jewellery, was very popular during the Middle Kingdom. One of the key mining areas for this stone is the Wadi el-Hudi, where mining activities are attested from the late 11th to the first part of the 13th Dynasties.108 With their naturalistic backs and engraved legs, these scarabs belong to the group of hard stone scarabs of the late 12th and early 13th Dynasties.109 Similar examples were found in the tombs of the royal princesses in Illahun and Dahshur. Amethyst scarabs were discovered in both treasures at Dahshur. Two amethyst and one lapis lazuli scarabs come from the ‘first treasure’,110 where one of the amethyst scarabs has the name of Senwosret III engraved on its golden base.111 Another piece was retrieved from the ‘second treasure’,112 again naming this king. At Illahun, two lapis lazuli scarabs were found in the burial of princess Sit-Hathor-Iunet with one carrying the name of king Amenemhat III.113 It is possible that hard stone scarabs with these features were still being produced at the beginning of the 13th Dynasty, as a similar amethyst scarab was found in a burial in Tell el-Dabʻa from the same period.114 A roughly carved inscription was found on the base of this scarab. Based on the inscription, Virolleaud 1922, 286−287; Montet 1928, 171, pl. XCVI. For the drawings of these scarabs see: Kopetzky 2018, figs. 1−3. 105 Montet 1928, 171, pl. XCVI. 106 Montet 1928, 170, pl. XCVII. 107 Montet 1928, 171, pl. XCVI. 108 Shaw and Jamerson 1993, 95. 109 It must be noted here that the characteristic features of hard stone scarabs follow a different stylistic development than scarabs made of steatite. 110 De Morgan 1895, pl. XVI.19, 21, 22. 111 De Morgan 1895, fig. 132. 112 De Morgan 1895, pl. XX.48. 113 Brunton 1920, pls. VII, X; Winlock 1934, pl. XII.D, E. 114 Schiestl 2009, fig. 48.2. 104

263

Mlinar suggested that the scarab was an heirloom and the inscription was added later.115 However, similar crude inscriptions appear on several examples of nonroyal hard stone scarabs, and one might suspect that these were once covered with a gold sheet on which the inscription is repeated. One such example comes from Tomb 453 in Lisht North. It was a disturbed shaft tomb containing the remains of two burials.116 Amongst the burial goods was a green jasper scarab naming a hall-keeper Imeny, with the same naturalistic features as the above-mentioned amethyst scarabs.117 Belonging to the same person was also a shabti inscribed with mutilated hieroglyphs. The use of shabtis started, according to G. Miniaci, around the end of the reign of Amenemhat III and lasted till the late Middle Kingdom in the Memphite area.118 J. Bourriau dates tomb 453 from the late 12th Dynasty onwards.119 Another scarab with an inscription on the golden cover of its base, albeit nearly invisible, is from Tomb I (Fig. 5.1). Virolleaud observed that it was obvious that the original hieroglyphic inscription, on the base, was erased in antiquity.120 A practice the Egyptians applied when, for some reason, the memory of a person should be expunged. However, in the case of the Byblos objects, it was probably done to disguise the origin of these objects before reselling them. Eliminating names and inscriptions from objects makes it possible for the person who purchased them to integrate the objects into their personal property. As with the lid from the diorite jar (see above), it was also possible in the case of the ring from Tomb I to reconstruct its inscription.121 This ring once belonged to sA. t njswt Nb w - m -Iwn t, a king’s daughter whose name was written in the centre of the base framed by

Mlinar 2001, 69. Bourriau 1991a, 17. 117 MMA 15.3.135. The inscription on the golden base covering carries an additional wHm a n x, which is missing on the base of the jasper scarab. It is possible that the golden cover was added to the piece only once it became part of the burial equipment. 118 M iniachi 2010, 116−120. 119 According to Bourriau, a beer bottle of a type that starts during Senwosret III–early Amenemhat III, is amongst the pottery material. In Tell el-Dab‘a this type is found until the middle of the 13th Dynasty, see: Kopetzky 2010, 134, (257) Bierflaschen, Typ 2. Hemispherical cups with an Index of 150, like the one from this tomb, existed in the early 13th Dynasty between the phases G/4 and G/1−3 at Tell el-Dab‘a. She also mentions fragments of Tell elYahudiyeh ware, of which the earliest examples were found in Tell el-Dab‘a in phase G/4: Aston and Bietak 2011, pl. 1.3. It should be noted that the jug TD 5971E, Aston and Bietak 2011, pl. 1.1, is a surface find and thus problematic. 120 Virolleaud 1922, 287. 121 I thank Marcel Maree for his help with deciphering this inscription. 115 116

264

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

Fig. 5 Scarabs made of amethyst and gold: Tomb I − 1. (Montet 1928, no. 640/BNM 16249); Tomb II − 2. (Montet 1928, no. 641/BNM 16250), 3. (Montet 1928, no. 642/BNM 16251), 4. (Montet 1928, no. 636/BNM 16240); Tomb III − 5. (Montet 1928, no. 643/Louvre AO 9094) (photos courtesy of the National Museum of Beirut and the Louvre)

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

interlocking spirals.122 This name is not very common and so far, there is only one other scarab known to the authors of a princess with this name. It is made of steatite and was bought in the antiquities market.123 The back and legs of this scarab belong to the socalled ‘Sobekhotep’ group,124 which dates to the first half of the 13th Dynasty. If the Nub-em-Iunet from the steatite scarab and the one from Tomb I in Byblos are the same person, then the production of high quality hard stone scarabs continued into the first part of the 13th Dynasty. However, it cannot be excluded that the owner of the Byblos ring is an, as yet, unknown princess of the late 12th Dynasty, whose unidentified burial location was plundered. One of the scarabs of Tomb II (Fig. 5.3) suffered the same fate as the ring from Tomb I. Weak traces of the original inscription are still visible on its golden base. But in this case a better job was done to erase the original, leaving behind only the faint lines of the spiral that once framed it. The other scarab from this tomb (Fig. 5.2) was mounted on a ring but had its golden base cut away, leaving behind the gold sheet covering the legs and the edge of the base. Whether this was done to disguise the original ownership of the scarab for a potential buyer, or to destroy the spiritual connection an object has when inscribed with the name of its owner, remains a mystery. The third scarab from this tomb has also been altered (Fig. 5.4). Of all the amethyst scarabs found inside the Byblos tombs, this one is of the highest quality. It too was once mounted on a ring but was taken off the ring and with its golden base soldered onto a golden bracelet, still leaving the golden rings at both ends of the drilling canal in place.125 Very likely during that process the scarab was slightly twisted in its golden setting, for the drilling holes are not aligned anymore with their golden protections.126 The bracelet itself is designed from a simple rectangular sheet of gold tapering towards the terminals of the bangle, which are rounded and pierced in the middle (length: 19.9 cm, width: 2.2−2.6 cm). The gold sheet has enough flexibility to fit around a man’s wrist.127 Finally, the amethyst scarab from Tomb III (Fig. 5.5) was discovered with a plain base. It is possible that this too was once covered by a golden base,128 inscribed with the name of its owner. Kopetzky 2018, fig. 4.2. Hornung and Straehelin 1976, 550, pl. 62. I thank Marcel Marée for alerting me to this scarab. 124 Ben-Tor 2007b, 40. 125 Kopetzky 2018, fig. 3. 126 However, it cannot be excluded that this might have happened during a restoration process. 127 It would be too large for the wrist of a woman or child. However, it is possible that it once adorned the upper arm of a gracile woman or child. 128 The same phenomenon was already suspected by BenTor for scarabs of Amenemhat II found at Dahshur. See: Ben-Tor 2004, 19. 122 123

265

Fig. 6 Cosmetic jars from Sidon: 1. Alabaster jar from Tomb 69; 2. Steatite jar from Tomb 102 (after Doumet-Serhal 2013, fig. 2)

2.2 Sidon

During the Middle Bronze Age the city of Sidon was well integrated into the trading system connecting the major harbours of the Eastern Mediterranean. It is not surprising, therefore, that goods from the northern and southern Levantine coast as well as from Egypt, Cyprus and Crete were found in this trading centre. Egyptian material accounts for the majority of the imports during this period. Besides goods traded in jars, scarabs imported to the site during the MB I (=MB IIA) period are amongst the earliest evidence for this trade during the Middle Kingdom.129 There is evidence that contact with Egypt continued during the MB II (=MB IIB and C) period. In two tombs of the MB IIA (=MB IIB period/ Sidon level 5) two cosmetic jars were discovered.130 These are the only jars of this type discovered in Sidon so far. One jar, made of alabaster, comes from Tomb 69. Oriented north-south, it is a rectangular stone-built tomb with several burials inside. One burial is of a male (?) child found at the northern end of the tomb.131 Its body was lying on its right side in a flexed position with the head in the north facing west. Several juglets and a cosmetic jar without its lid were found, beside the legs of the skeleton, along the eastern wall of the tomb. A black steatite scarab is also associated with this burial.132 According to V. Boschloos, it is most likely an Egyptian import dating to the 13th Dynasty.133 The other cosmetic jar was found in a north-south orientated stone-lined tomb, which contained two burials. The lower of these burials, burial 102, was a female lying in a supine position with her head to

Mlinar 2004. Doumet-Serhal 2013, fig. 2. 131 Behind the spine of the child was a spear deposited along the eastern wall of the tomb, see Doumet-Serhal 2010, 118, fig. 9. 132 Loffet 2012, 108. 133 We thank Vanessa Boschloos for this information. 129 130

266

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

Fig. 7 Fragmented and reconstructed sphinx of Amenemhat III, Ras Šamra/Ugarit (after Schaeffer 1962, fig. 25; idem 1939, pl. III.2)

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

the south.134 Her arms were crossed over her chest area and together with the finds of textile fragments, this position hints at the possibility that she was buried wrapped either in bandages or a shroud. A cosmetic jar, again without a lid, was found at her feet. In addition, two kohl pots were discovered in this burial.135 It is noticeable that in the Levant these vessels always appear individually, while in Egypt they are often part of a set (see above).

2.3 Middle Kingdom Statues from Ras Šamra/Ugarit

Ugarit is another important harbour in the northern Levant, its political and economic role well attested in both the archaeological and textual records. Inhabited from the Neolithic period, the site’s importance as an interregional trading hub flourished during the Bronze Age period. Connections between Ras Šamra/Ugarit and Byblos, and presumably other political entities of the Middle Bronze Age, are indirectly attested to in a cuneiform document from Mari which mentions Zimri-Lim, king of Mari, receiving a gift from the Byblite ruler Yantin-ʿAmmu (Entin) while on a visit to Ugarit.136 Numerous Egyptian objects were discovered in Ugarit, several of which date to the Middle Kingdom, and are of interest as they highlight many of the issues dealt with in this paper. Of special interest are a number of Middle Kingdom statues found in a deep trench (called ‘Sondage 1’) east of the Temple of Baʿal, in the acropolis. The Middle Kingdom finds from this context consist of one royal sphinx, a triad statue of a high-ranking official, and a statue of a princess. 2.3.1 The Sphinx of Amenemhat III (Fig. 7) The fragmented sphinx made of greywacke (Fig. 7.1) – the head is not preserved – was recovered in 1930 in ‘Sondage 1’ east of the Temple of Baʿal (length: approx. 69 cm; height: approx. 19 cm; width: approx. 27 cm).137 A hieroglyphic text is inscribed between the paws of the sphinx: njswt - bj tj (Nj - mAa. t -Ra) Ra m R(a) -Ht p - j b or Ht p - j b -R(a) […] ‘King of Upper- and Lower Egypt, Nimaatre (Amenemhat III), of Ra in Ḥtp-ib-Ra […].’ In addition to the pharaoh’s throne name (Nj - mAa. t Ra) – clearly linking the sphinx with Amenemhat III – the short inscription also includes a toponym, which refers to a specific cult and/or temple district of the sun god Ra in Egypt, the exact location of which is unknown. In any case, it can be assumed that the Doumet-Serhal and Kopetzky 2012, 40. Doumet-Serhal 2013, fig. 3. 136 Villard 1986. 137 Schaeffer 1929, 119–121, pl. XV.4; 1939, 21, pl. III.2. 134 135

267

sphinx was most likely formerly located in this unknown temple district from ‘Ra-Ht p - j b/Ht p - j b R(a)’, which was dedicated to the sun god Ra or, less likely, placed in another unknown location dedicated to the cult of this specific god. 2.3.2 The Triad of Senwosret-Ankh (Figs. 8 and 9) The fragmented triad of Senwosret-Ankh was found in proximity to the statue of the princess with the name or title Khenemet-nefer-hedjet (see below, 2.3.3) and the sphinx of Amenemhat III (see above, 2.3.1).138 Only the lower part of the central male person seated on a chair is preserved, the hands resting on the thighs, the upper body and the head are missing (Fig. 8).139 On the right and left, the person is flanked by two well preserved female figures identified by name in the inscriptions, but on a much smaller scale. On the back of the chair is a larger inscription (Fig. 9): Ht p dj njswt PtH-Ck r dj=f prt - x rw Hn o. t kA.w Ap d .w Ss m n x . t 2 n kA n j mj - rA njw. t TAtj tAj tj Cn ws r. t -an x 3 m sj. n &tj mAa(. t) x rw mH- j b n njswt m nD-Hr=f 4 oAj x rw m sx w @rw wHm an x n b j mAx w 5 [Dd . n =f n b w] n Hswt m HAt s m r.w ‘A boon which the king gives to Ptah-Sokar to give bread and beer, beef and poultry, alabaster and linen, to the ka of the chief of the pyramid town, vizier and tAj tj (?), Senwosret-Ankh, born of Teti, justified. The King’s trusted at his greeting, in a loud voice in the hall of Horus, repeating life, justified. [He was given the] honorary gold at the head of the officials.’ 1

Inscriptions on the base area of the statue (Fig. 9) also mention Senwosret-Ankh’s wife Henutsen (@ n w. t =s n m sj. t n Pr. t) and a daughter Satamun (CA. t -Jm n m sj. t n @n w. t =s n) in short dedicatory inscriptions.140 The triad of Senwosret-Ankh dates either to the end of the 12th or the beginning of the 13th Dynasty. Senwosret-Ankh is known from a number of sources, making it possible to reconstruct his career. He began as ‘personal scribe of the king’s document’ and was appointed from there to ‘the overseer of fields’. From this position he was most likely appointed to the position of vizier. The triad found at Ras Šamra/Ugarit must, therefore, date to the later part of his life.141 Due Schaeffer 1939, 31, pl. V; 1962, 215–217, figs. 21–23. The triad is presumably made of granite, while the triad´s exact proportions are not known. 140 According to the specific titles given on the triad (j mj rA n w. t TA. tj TAj. tj ¤ n - ws r. t - an x), the individual is not the same as Senwosret-Ankh, Chief Priest of Ptah and Overseer of Works at Memphis, who is prominently buried in a mastaba in the direct vicinity of the pyramid of Senwosret I at el-Lisht. 141 The triad of the Senwosret-Ankh dates to the period of the late 12th or 13th Dynasty due to the use of the specific addition ‘wHm an x’ in the inscription, see Kubisch 2008, 335; Grajetzki 2009, 35. 138 139

268

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

Fig. 8 Triad of Senwosret-Ankh, find context and front view, Ras Šamra/Ugarit (after Schaeffer 1962, fig. 22)

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

269

Fig. 9 a) Triad of Senwosret-Ankh, Ras Šamra/Ugarit, side view (after Schaeffer 1939, pl. V; idem 1962, fig. 23) b) Triad of Senwosret-Ankh, back view (after Schaeffer 1939, pl. V; idem 1962, fig. 23) to the mention of the god Ptah-Sokar in the inscriptions, the triad may originally have come from a location within the Memphite-Fayyum region. The ‘Ht p - dj n sw-formula’ clearly refers to a funerary context. The ‘Chief of the pyramid town’ Senwosret-Ankh, his wife Henutsen and daughter Satamun probably lived in one of the numerous pyramid towns of the late Middle Kingdom. Therefore, one can assume that the location of the burial site of Senwosret-Ankh and his family is in such a place. Above-ground cultic shrines, which were often directly related to underground tombs, are likely to have had such statues. Almost all of these tombs and the installations associated with them, however, were probably looted during the Second Intermediate Period, so that a date of looting and subsequent dispatch to the Levant would appear plausible in the late 13th Dynasty and beyond, after the collapse of the Middle Kingdom.142 A direct connection with Ras Šamra/Ugarit, or the northern Levant, is therefore not ascertainable for Senwosret-Ankh and his family.

142

Senwosret-Ankh and his family are also depicted on a stela in the Museo Archeologico di Firenze, see Bosticco 1959, stela no. 2579.

2.3.3 The Statue of a Princess with the Name or Title ‘Khenemetneferhedjet’ (Fig. 10) The statue represents a seated female in a tight-fitting, vertically striped dress sitting on a stylised chair, her forearms resting on her thighs.143 Only the lower part of the statue, up to the height of the lower abdomen, is preserved, (the height of the preserved part of the statue is approx. 30 cm).144 To the left of the foot is a short hieroglyphic inscription in the area of the footstool of the chair: sA. t njswt n . t X. t =f £n m . t - n f r-HD. t an x . tj ‘The king’s daughter, of his body, Khenemetneferhedjet, she may live’. The statue of the princess, without doubt, dates to the 12th Dynasty. The excavator C.F.-A. Schaeffer wanted to identify the statue with a princess of a similar, but shortened version of the name (Chnumit or Khenemet), then believed to be both a daughter of Amenemhat II (1914–1879 BCE) and the later wife of Senwosret II (1882–1872 BCE), and whose double tomb complex in the pyramid complex of Amenemhat II in Dahshur, 143 144

Schaeffer 1932, 20–21. According to the excavator Schaeffer (Schaeffer 1932, 20; 1962, 212), the statue was made of ‘basalte noir’, but granite or granodiorite is a more likely option.

270

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

Fig. 10 Lower part of a statue of a Princess with the name or title “Khenemetneferhedjet”, find context and side view, front view, Ras Šamra/Ugarit (after Schaeffer 1962, fig. 19). which she shared with a princess named Ita, had already been discovered by J. de Morgan in 1894.145 Quite interestingly, a fragmented Middle Kingdom sphinx of a princess named Ita had already been found by R. Comte du Mesnil du Buisson in the so-called ‘Sanctuaire’ of the Late Bronze Age Royal Palace of Tell Mišrife/Qatna in 1927 (see below, 2.5.1). Schaeffer wanted to see a direct connection between the two princesses, the Egyptian royal court and the northern Levant: he assumed that the princesses had sent their ‘images’ to the Levant so that they could be placed in the local temples. However, the contexts of the finds strongly argue against such a presumption, both in the Levant and in Egypt. Probably the statues of the princesses were only later brought to the Levant – presumably during the Second Intermediate Period (late 13th–15th Dynasty). A secure identification of the princess named in the inscription on the statue with princess Chnumit/ Khenemet, from the tomb in the pyramid complex of Amenemhat II, is not possible, since several princesses are known by this name or title. The designation Xn m . t - n f r-HD. t (‘She, who unites with the white crown’) was used not only as a personal name but also as a title, which several princesses and queens of the 12th Dynasty are attested to have carried (from Amenemhat II to Senwosret III). Additionally, typological investigations, into the pottery found in the double tomb of Ita and Chnumit/Khenemet, also seem to indicate that the burial of the two princesses took place during

145

De Morgan 1903, 45−67; Grajetzki 2014, 50–54 (Ita), 54–60 (Chnumit/Khenemet).

the late Middle Kingdom (Amenemhat III to Senwosret III), but probably not during the time of Amenemhat II. Thus, a chronological assignment of the tomb complex to the time of Amenemhat II cannot be maintained without problems, although a familial relationship between the two princesses with Amenemhat II is still a possibility. Recently, I. Stünkel suggested that the statue of the king’s daughter with the name or title Khenemetneferhedjet, found at Ras Šamra/Ugarit, may belong to either princess Chnumit (Khenemet), who shared the tomb complex with princess Ita (whose sphinx was found at Qatna), or to princess Itaweret, (who is buried in another tomb complex, within the pyramid complex of Amenemhat II),146 since she carried both the name Itaweret, and the hypocoristic Ita as well as the longer name Khenemetneferhedjet Itaweret, on both her coffin and canopic chest.147 Both identifications would imply that the statue from Ras Šamra/Ugarit and the sphinx found at Qatna come from the same, or at least one, of the tombs within the pyramid complex of Amenemhat II, arguing for a joint plundering of this tomb complex (see below, 2.5.1).

146 147

In a double tomb complex together with a princess named Sathathormeryt, see Grajetzki 2014, 60–61. Stünkel 2018, 421–423, nos. 8 and 9. Stünkel (2018, 403–425) also provides a thorough compilation of all Middle Kingdom individuals with the name and title Khenemetneferhedjet attested so far including a review of past identifications and interpretations, and also describes the difficulties with securely identifying inscribed statues to specific individuals. Nonetheless, she also considers it most likely that the statue found at Ras Šamra/Ugarit belongs to one of the two princesses.

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

2.3.4 ‘Sondage 1’ and the Middle Kingdom Egyptian Statues: Chronological Implications Schaeffer (the excavator) suggested that the sphinx of Amenemhat III, as well as the other Egyptian statues of the Middle Kingdom (see above), were sent to Ugarit as gifts, from the pharaohs of the Middle Kingdom, their dating giving a ‘termini ad quem’ to their arrival in the Levant. In these artefacts, Schaeffer wanted to find evidence of Egypt’s direct political influence on Ugarit during the Middle Kingdom. Therefore, his conjecture that the sphinx (or, as wrongly assumed by Schaeffer, two sphinxes148) flanked the entrance area of the Baʿal temple must be understood in this light. The context of the finds, however, does not allow for such a reconstruction. The deep trench was east of the temple, but directly in the area of the courtyard of the Late Bronze Age ‘House of the High Priest’ (‘Bâtiment du Grand-Prêtre’), i.e., a good 30 m away from the Baʿal Temple. A direct contextual connection between the sphinx and the Baʿal Temple is, therefore, not secured by the localisation of the deep section alone. There are also other uncertainties regarding the context of the find which relate to the chronological implications of the sphinx. If one looks at Schaeffer’s reconstructed ‘Coupe Schématique’ of the deep trench, it is noteworthy that the sphinx was found in layers of which the associated material seems to date to the late Middle Bronze Age or the early Late Bronze Age.149 Schaeffer’s interpretation of the find assumed that in the late Middle Bronze Age, the inhabitants of Ugarit rebelled against foreign rulers from Egypt and smashed their statues, which were then overturned (“bouleversé”) into a later level. With this interpretation, Schaeffer was able to explain the late find-context of the sphinx (and presumably the other finds), while maintaining the suggestion of early Middle Kingdom political influence on the port city of Ugarit. The find-context, however, clearly speaks against a dispatch of the sphinx (including the other Egyptian finds) during the 12th Dynasty, but rather hints at a later date for this to have happened, probably during the Second Intermediate Period. Doubts as to whether or not the Baʿal Temple was already built in the Middle Bronze Age (as postulated by Schaeffer), would argue against the sphinx flanking the entrance of the temple. Because in the area of ‘Sondage 1,’ a multiphase and extensive necropolis had existed since the second half of the Middle Bronze Age and was used until the late MB IIB period (=MB IIB–C). The sphinx, therefore, could have come from a tomb in the necropolis or from the area surrounding the Late Bronze Age temple.

This was based on the fact that numerous fragments of the sphinx were found during excavation and only later joined together. Additionally, the presumed existence of two sphinxes also seemed to support Schaeffer´s idea of a pair of sphinxes, one at each side, flanking the entrance to the temple. 149 Schaeffer 1948, 20–25; see also al-M aqdissi 2008, 53– 56, tables II and IV. 148

271

2.4 The Egyptian Statues from Tell Hizzīn in the Beqa‘a Valley

Tell Hizzīn is in the central Beqa‘a Valley, c. 18 km south of Baalbek. The site was tentatively identified with the city of Ḥasi mentioned in the Amarna Letters, as well as the toponym Ḥsswm given in the Execration Texts of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, albeit both identifications have not been confirmed archaeologically yet. In the finds from Tell Hizzīn, fragments of two Egyptian statues stand out.150 Interestingly, it was the fragment of the statue of Pharaoh Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV of the 13th Dynasty, which brought Tell Hizzīn to the attention of M. Chéhab.151 An antiquities dealer showed Chéhab the fragment which was said to have come from there.152 Archaeological excavations undertaken at the site, in 1949 and in 1950,153 led to the discovery of fragments of yet another Egyptian statue, which named Djefaihapi (Djefaihapi I) a high ranking Middle Kingdom governor of Asyut (Siut) in Middle Egypt, from the 12th Dynasty.154 Not long after these discoveries, Egyptian objects from Tell Hizzīn were considered an important contribution to the understanding of the relationship between the northern Levant and Middle Kingdom Egypt (i.e. the 12th and 13th Dynasties). Some scholars postulated an Egyptian political dominion or hegemony over the Beqa‘a Valley in the Middle Bronze Age, while others thought the objects indicated a gift exchange between the Egyptian pharaohs and the rulers of the northern Levant during the second millennium BCE.155

Regrettably, the present location of these two Egyptian statues is not known. Originally stored within the magazines of the National Museum of Antiquities Beirut, the objects now seem to have been lost in the course of the Lebanese Civil War (Genz and Sader 2008, 185–186), see also Fisk 1991. 151 Chéhab 1968, 4–5, pl. VIa; 1969, 28, pl. IV.2. 152 Galling 1953, 88; Chéhab 1983, 167; Genz and Sader 2008, 184; Sader 2010, 638. 153 The excavations at Tell Hizzīn were conducted from April to September 1949 and from June to December 1950 under the direction of M. Chéhab, see Sader 2010, 639–640. 154 Chéhab 1968, 4–5, pl. IIIc; 1969, 22, pl. IV.1. 155 The find-contexts of the statues, according to the pottery found at the site in general, seem to date to the MB IIB, see Genz and Sader 2008; see also Ahrens 2015. Generally, see also Chéhab 1949/1950, 109; Galling 1953, 88–90; Montet 1954, 76; Kuschke 1954, 107, note 9; 1958, 84–86, 89; Chéhab 1968, 4–5, pls. IIIc and VIa (the photograph of the statue of Djefaihapi was mistakenly published upside down here); 1969, 22, 28, pls. IV.1–2; Helck 1971, 70–71; 1976; Chéhab 1975, 12–14; 1983, 167; Gubel 1985; Teissier 1990, 69; Redford 1992, 81, note 64 (mistakenly referred to as a statue of ‘Sobekhotep VI from Baalbek’ here); Doumet-Serhal 1996, 97; Marfoe 1998, 165, note 27; Forstner-Müller, Müller and R adner 2002, 162; Verbovsek 2004a, 213; Sievertsen 2006, 51. 150

272

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

Fig. 11 Lower part of a statue of Sobekhotep IV, Tell Hizzīn (after Ahrens 2015, figs. 5, 6 and 8) 2.4.1 The Statue of Sobekhotep IV (Fig. 11) Although known to the scholarly community for a long time,156 photographs of the fragment of the statue of Sobekhotep IV (c. 1738–1731? BCE)157 were only published by Maurice Chéhab in 1968 and then again in 1969.158 The hieroglyphic inscription on the base of the statue, however, was published as a line drawing by the French Egyptologist Pierre Montet in a brief article in 1954.159 Nothing was known about the size of the statue or the Chéhab 1949/1950; Galling 1953, 88–90; Leclant 1954, 78; 1955, 315–316. 157 Reigns of Egyptian kings are given according to K itchen 2000, 49. 158 Chéhab 1968, pl. VIa; Chéhab 1969, pl. IV.2. 159 Montet 1954, 76. Interestingly, according to M. Chéhab (1969, 28) the French Egyptologist Jacques Vandier apparently also read and translated the inscription. Whether Vandier or Montet translated the inscription first is not known. It is interesting to note that Montet (1954, 76) does not give a transcription or translation of the inscription (although clearly referring to the inscription and discussing its content), while Chéhab (1969, 28) credits Vandier for the translation he presents. 156

material used. Montet refers to the fragments of the statue as “d’une statue de petit format”,160 causing A.J. Spalinger to write (in his entry for ‘Sobekhotep IV’ in the Lexikon der Ägyptologie), that “a small statue of S. IV (which) was later brought to Tell Hizzīn near Baalbek”.161 The actual size of the statue could not have exceeded 30−50 cm in total (given the execution of the hieroglyphic inscription162), although both larger and smaller examples of this type of statue are attested in Egypt. Judging by the photographs, either diorite,163 or anorthosite gneiss164 or schist would be the material most likely used for the statue, however, there is no definitive proof of this. The actual fragment – from the lower part of the statue (lower legs and pedestal) – shows the king in the customary royal striding position, his left leg forward and his feet and legs bare. It can be surmised that the complete statue once showed the king dressed in a short kilt (the lower part of the kilt is still partly visible where Montet 1954, 76. Spalinger 1984, 1043. 162 Quirke 2010, 64, VI.27.7 (‘Tell Hizzīn, size unclear’). 163 Galling 1953, 89. 164 Quirke 2010, 64. 160 161

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

it joins the upper part of the right leg), bare chested and – most probably – wearing the nemes headdress. The inscription on the base of the statue is framed by a rectangular square. It is well preserved and consists of three vertical lines: nTr n f r n b tA.wj (¢a- n f r-Ra) ‘The Good God, Lord of the Two Lands, Khaneferre,’ sA Ra m rj=f (¤ bk -Ht p) ‘Son of Ra, his Beloved, Sobekhotep.’ m rj.w Ra−@r-Ax . tj ‘Beloved of Ra-Horakhty.’ While of little historical value, with no explicit details pertaining either to the function of the statue or its place of origin, the inscription clearly points to the original emplacement of the statue at Heliopolis (Egyptian Jw n w; Biblical On) if only by the mention of Ra-Horakhty (literally ‘Re-Horus of the two horizons’), the main deity of ancient Heliopolis.165 It is very likely that the statue of Sobekhotep IV originated there166 from one of the city’s temples or sanctuaries, dedicated to the god Ra-Horakhty, before it reached Tell Hizzīn.167 Sobekhotep IV’s reign is relatively well attested, one of the better known and more important pharaohs of the 13th Dynasty, considering the general dearth of historical sources relating to the 13th Dynasty.168 Born in Thebes in Upper Egypt, Sobekhotep IV is believed to have reigned at least ten years (although the highest attested regnal year is eight),169 during which time at least one military campaign in Nubia had taken place.170 Monuments carrying his name are known throughout Egypt, with building activities primarily attested at Memphis, Abydos and Karnak. Rock inscriptions bearing his name in the Wadi

Montet 1954, 76. For recent archaeological work at the site and its temple precinct, also yielding monuments of the Middle Kingdom and exposing levels of the Second Intermediate Period, see R aue 2006; 2007; A bd el-Gelil et al. 2008, 4; M ahmud et al. 2008, 189. 167 Montet’s idea of a possible conceptual connection between the Egyptian Heliopolis (=Jwn w) and the Heliopolis in the Beqa‘a Valley (=Baalbek), however, does not seem plausible. The idea expressed in the title ”D’Héliopolis d’Égypte a Héliopolis de Syrie” and in the note itself (”Il est donc permis de penser que ce n’est pas par hasard que son monument a été trouvé si près d’un site voué sans doute de toute antiquité au culte du soleil”) would seem to ignore the archaeological and historical evidence of the 2nd millennium BCE (Montet 1954, 76). 168 Spalinger 1984; Ryholt 1997; Quirke 2010. 169 K itchen (2000, 49) ascribes only seven years to Sobekhotep IV. 170 Spalinger 1984, 1043; Ryholt 1997, 92; Kubisch 2008, 108–109. 165

166

273

Hammamat and Wadi el-Hudi (Eastern Desert) relate to expeditions, to obtain raw materials.171 It is still unclear whether or not his successor Sobekhotep V was a son of Sobekhotep IV.172 Shortly after Sobekhotep IV’s reign (probably during the reign of Merneferre Aya (c. 1717–1694 BCE) Egyptian central authority fell into disarray. The later kings of the 13th Dynasty were obscure monarchs of fragmented political units.173 A cartouche with the prenomen and nomen of his predecessor (and brother) Neferhotep I Khasekhemre (c. 1749–1738 BCE) is featured on a well-known relief found at Byblos, which is assumed to depict the enthroned ruler of Byblos ‘Entin/Yantin (i.e. Yantin-ʿAmmu).174 This relief, traditionally, serves as a basis for synchronisms between Egypt, the Levant and Babylonia in the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE.175 Yet, the nature and actual extent of relations between Egypt and the northern Levant, during the reign of Sobekhotep IV, remain mostly unknown.176 The reigns of Pharaohs Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV, however, are generally considered to be a period of short-lived political stability in the 13th Dynasty.177 Trade in cedar, in the reign of Sobekhotep IV, however, is attested in an inscription on a stela from Karnak (Cairo JE 51911, lines 10–12), which mentions two sets of doors erected in the temple of Amun,178 indicating (direct?) ongoing commercial contacts with the ports of the Levantine littoral, primarily Byblos, before the collapse of the Middle Kingdom in the second quarter of the 13th Dynasty

Von Beckerath 1964, 57–58, 246–250; Spalinger 1984, 1043; Ryholt 1997. 172 Ryholt 1997, file 13/31; 1998a, 31. 173 Bourriau 2000, 185; Quirke 2004, 171; Ben-Tor 2007a, 181; see now M arée 2010, XIII–XIV. The Middle Kingdom generally believed to comprise the 12th and early 13th Dynasties until the reign of Merneferre Aya, the late 13th Dynasty thus considered a part of the Second Intermediate Period. Recent research claims that the Second Intermediate Period did not start earlier than the very end of the 13th Dynasty (M arée 2010, XIII–XIV). 174 However, for the identification see Kopetzky 2016. The inscribed fragment of a stone vessel in hieroglyphic script, apparently naming the same Yantin, led Albright to believe that Yantin-ʿAmmu was the person interred in Tomb IV of the royal tombs at Byblos (Albright 1964, 38–43). 175 Dunand 1939, 197–198, pls. XXX and CCVII; A lbright 1941; 1945; 1964; 1965; 1966, 29–30; Ryholt 1997, 87; contra Schneider 2006, 179–180. 176 Kubisch 2008, 104–105. 177 Altogether these two kings ruled for approximately twenty years, not counting the reign of the obscure king Sahathor, who seems to have reigned little more than a few months between Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV, see Kopetzky 2016. 178 Helck 1969, 194–200; Ryholt 1997, 89; Ben-Tor 2007a, 182. 171

274

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

of Ibiaw Wahibre, who followed Sobekhotep V to the throne of Egypt, and was in turn succeeded by Merneferre Aya.180 The fragment of the statue from Tell Hizzīn is hitherto the only monument found in the Levant that bears the name of Sobekhotep IV Khaneferre. Egyptian temples, from the Delta and the Memphite region, seem to have been pillaged during the rule of the Hyksos.181 The temple of Ra-Horakhty at Heliopolis was probably plundered too, though we have no archaeological proof of this it could well be that the statue of Sobekhotep IV was taken from one of the site’s sanctuaries during the Second Intermediate Period (see below, 3.3).182 Apart from the fragment of the statue of Sobekhotep IV from Tell Hizzīn and the relief naming Neferhotep I from Byblos, the only other object found in the northern Levant183 believed to date to the 13th Dynasty is the so-called ‘ceremonial mace’ of Pharaoh Hotepibre Harnedjheritef (c. 1770/50 BCE), which was found in the late Middle Bronze Age ‘Tomb of the Lord of the Goats’ at Tell Mardikh/Ebla, but which actually may not be an Egyptian object at all (see below, 2.6.1).184 2.4.2 The Statue of Djefaihapi (Fig. 12) The fragments of the second statue from Tell Hizzīn, which belonged to the 12th Dynasty provincial governor (‘nomarch’) Djefaihapi, were published, along with the statue of Sobekhotep IV, by Chéhab in Ryholt 1997, 89–90, n. 287. Ryholt 1997, 139, note 500, 143–149; Verbovsek 2004a, 213. 182 A hrens 2011a; see also below. Several colossi and statues of Sobekhotep IV have also been found at Tanis in the eastern Nile Delta, see Quirke 2010, 64, VI.27.1–4. The statues found at Tanis may have been removed from the region of Tell el-Dab‘a at the end of the Ramesside Period. Originally, the statues were then probably first moved to Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris from their original locations in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period (14th and 15th Dynasties) and only later removed to Tanis. Some of this statuary also seems to have been dispatched to the Levant during the Second Intermediate Period, see A hrens 2011a. 183 Not considering the scarabs dating to the 13th Dynasty, see Ryholt 1997, 85–86. The scarabs attested in the Levant bear the names of several officials and kings; for scarabs of the 13th Dynasty in the Levant, see also Tufnell 1984, 154–159; Ben-Tor 2007b. 184 Scandone Matthiae 1979; 1997; Lilyquist 1993; Ryholt 1998b; Nigro 2002, 304, 314–316. Note, however, that Ryholt (1997, 84–85, note 245) clearly dismisses the mace as evidence for direct political contacts between Egypt and Ebla during the 13th Dynasty. Instead, Ryholt (1998b, 5) along with Lilyquist (1993, 46) believe that the mace may actually be of Levantine manufacture or the result of a secondary mounting of the hieroglyphic signs on an object of local Levantine manufacture. Nigro (2002, 304) regards the mace as of genuine Egyptian origin. 180 181

Fig. 12 Fragment of a statue of Djefaihapi I, front view and drawing of hieroglyphic inscription on the statue, Tell Hizzīn (after Ahrens 2015, figs. 11 and 12) (i.e. during the final phase of MB I (=MB IIA).179 To date the latest Egyptian import found at Byblos, prior to the New Kingdom, is a royal-name scarab 179

In this case, the relief featuring the cartouche of Neferhotep I from Byblos and the statue of Sobekhotep IV from Tell Hizzīn might be seen as indirect proof of the existing Egypto-Levantine contacts, especially with Byblos, during their reigns. Thus, it would not seem too far-fetched to believe that Sobekhotep´s statue from Tell Hizzīn actually reached the site via Byblos. Needless to say, this cannot be proven on the basis of archaeological and historical evidence at hand, but see Durand 1999, 159. For clay sealings featuring the throne names of Sobekhotep III and Neferhotep I found in a Hyksos palace of the 15th Dynasty at Tell el-Dab‘a in the eastern Nile Delta, see Sartori 2009, 284–285; Kopetzky 2016.

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

1968 and 1969.185 While the fragments of the statue were found in the course of excavations, little is known about their archaeological context.186 Apparently, the fragments were all discovered relatively close to each other,187 though a more detailed description of the context was not provided by Chéhab.188 Nothing is known about the size of the fragments or the material used as they were lost during Lebanon’s civil war. While Chéhab refers to the material simply as “pierre grise”,189 diorite, greywacke or granite would seem to be the best options for the stone utilised. The specific size of the fragments (and therefore the overall size of the statue as well) are difficult to determine on the basis of the photographs, but the statue appears not to have been taller than approximately 40–50 cm in total (again based upon the execution of the hieroglyphic inscription).190 Altogether four fragments of the statue are preserved. These form the lower part of an Egyptian private statue with a long kilt and the upper part of the legs preserved. This costume is characteristic of officials and dignitaries of the Middle Kingdom. Traces of the right arm are still visible on the left side of the statue. The upper part of the statue was apparently broken off in antiquity, although it is not clear whether this occurred in Egypt or, at a later date, in the Levant or at Tell Hizzīn. No further fragments belonging to this statue were found at Tell Hizzīn. The hieroglyphic inscription consists of a single column engraved on the front of the kilt. Due to the fragmentary state of the statue, several parts of the inscription that lie within the fractured areas are not preserved, but they can be reconstructed with reasonable certainty.191 Thus, the complete inscription of the statue – including the areas reconstructed – could probably be read as follows: Ht p dj n sw Wsj r n b tA-an x Hsj m rj=f HA. tj -a ¡(a) pj ‘A royal offering of Osiris, Lord of the ‛Land of Life,’ Chéhab 1968, pl. IIIc; 1969, pl. IV.1. Genz and Sader 2008, 185. 187 Chéhab (1969, 22) writes: “Un sondage, fait à l’endroit présumé de la découverte, m’a permis de retrouver d’autres fragments de la même statuette”. 188 Chéhab 1969, 22. 189 Chéhab 1969, 22. 190 A rather small size for the statue may be supported by Chéhab’s (1968, 4; 1969, 22; 1983, 167) designation of the object as a ‘statuette’ (rather than a ‘statue’). 191 Although M. Chéhab linked the statue to Djefaihapi as early as 1968 (Chéhab 1968, 4), a translation or transcription of the hieroglyphic inscription was never published. It appears that Chéhab planned to publish the inscription in a separate article with the French Egyptologist Georges Posener, who is likely to have read the inscription first (Chéhab 1969, 22, “nous nous proposons, le Professeur Posener et moi, de publier les fragments de cette statuette inédite“); see also Revez 2002. 185

186

275

may he (Osiris) praise (or: bless) and (may he) love him,192 the Hereditary Prince, Djefai’. The inscription states that the well-known 12th Dynasty provincial governor Djefaihapi (Djefaihapi I)193 of the town of Asyut (Siut; 13th Upper Egyptian nome, ‘Lycopolis’, Egyptian: ¤Awty in Middle Egypt (dated to the reign of Senwosret I, c. 1953–1908 BCE) was the person for whom the statue was made.194 Although his name is not completely preserved on the statue, it can be reconstructed with certainty. The reference relating to Osiris,195 the Lord of the ‛Land of Life’ additionally proves that the statue must have originally been displayed in Asyut where Djefaihapi I For this specific construction and the omission of the suffix pronoun (“gespaltene Kolumne”), see also the tomb inscriptions of Djefaihapi I (Tomb I), especially Griffith 1889, pl. 4, where the same construction is used. This very distinctive feature may, thus, further link the statue to governor Djefaihapi I and his tomb at Asyut. 193 Older readings of the name include ‘Hept´efa’ (Griffith 1889), ‘Hepzefa’ (R eisner 1918; 1923) and ‘Hapidjefai’ (Chéhab 1968; 1969). For the hieroglyphic writing of the name, see Griffith 1889, pls. 4–6; Becker 2006. 194 Griffith 1889; Beinlich 1975a; Becker 2006. It is important to note here, that – apart from Djefaihapi I (Siut Tomb I, Senwosret I) – three further governors named Djefaihapi are attested at Asyut, i.e. Djefaihapi II (Tomb II at Asyut, now Tomb O13.1, dating to the reign of Amenemhet I or early in the reign of Senwosret I) and Djefaihapi III (probably dating to the reign of Amenemhat II; Tomb VII at Asyut, i.e. the so-called ‘Salakhana-Tomb’), and Djefaihapi IV (Tomb VI, reign of Amenemhat II or later); for the alleged chronology of the governors, see recently K ahl 2012, 163–188, esp. 170, fig. 5; for the tombs, see Griffith 1889, 10; Moss 1933, 33; Doxey 1998, 12; 2009; also K ahl 2007, 17, fig. 8, 85–93, 130–132; Zitman 2010, 11–44, esp. 38–43 (listed here are at least two more Djefaihapis with the same titles, i.e. Tombs VI and XVI, not taking into account a further Djefaihapi without titles). Recently, K ahl (2007, 85–93; 2012) also proposed a new chronological order for the governors called Djefaihapi and attested at Asyut, placing Djefaihapi II before Djefaihapi I (based on typological and chronological considerations of the tombs´ layout). According to this order, governor Djefaihapi II would date prior to the reign of Senwosret I (probably to the reign of Amenemhat I), governor Djefaihapi I to the reign of Senwosret I, and governor Djefaihapi III to the reign of Amenemhat II or Senwosret II. Recently, Zitman (2010, 14–43) has presented another appraisal concerning the number and chronology of the nomarchs of Asyut named Djefaihapi. With regard to the origin of the statue from Tell Hizzīn, Zitman (2010, 38, note 249) remarks: “The inscription visible in the publication does not exclude that the statue may have belonged to another Djefaihapi (Tombs II, VII or XVI?)”. 195 The name of the god Osiris is written here with signs D 4 (‘parts of the human body’), Q 1 (‘Domestic and funerary furniture’) and A 40 (‘man and his occupation’), see Gardiner 1957, 544–546. 192

276

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

had his tomb built (Siut Tomb I),196 as tA-an x (the ‛Land of Life’) is to be identified as one of the Egyptian names of the town’s necropolis.197 Later, in the 18th Dynasty, Djefaihapi I was even deified in this region.198 The overall composition of the inscription, and the Ht p -Dj - n sw formula (or: offering formula)199 at the beginning, clearly demonstrate that the statue was created for use in a cultic context. Egyptian officials of the Middle Kingdom continued to equip their tombs, and connecting chapels, with statues as a focal point for the offering cult. Additionally, south of Djefaihapi’s tomb, a large wooden statue was discovered suggesting that statues were in use inside the tomb and its vicinity.200 It is therefore likely that Djefaihapi’s statue was originally set-up in his tomb at Asyut or the associated court or cultic chapel connected to the tomb,201 and only later removed (see also below, 3.5 and 4.2).

2.5 Egyptian Objects from Tell Mišrife/Qatna

The site of Qatna is located on the eastern side of the Wadi Zora in the upper Orontes Valley, c. 17 km north-east of modern Homs. The site occupies a strategic crossroads of important trade routes passing south−north, from the southern Levant via the Beqa‘a Valley, and east−west, along the southern route, from Mesopotamia, via Mari and Tadmor, and continuing to the coast. Djefaihapi´s tomb is the largest nonroyal rock-cut tomb of the entire Middle Kingdom (Siut Tomb I); for the history of research at the site, see K ahl 2007; Zitman 2010, 28–38, 45–69. Also, P. Montet, the excavator of Byblos and Tanis, made several hand copies of inscriptions of some of the tombs in 1911, which were only subsequently published by him; see Montet 1930–35; 1936. Only recently archaeological work at Asyut has resumed, for the results of the new archaeological work at Asyut by a joint Egyptian-German mission (since 2003), see K ahl, el-K hadragy and Verhoeven 2005; 2006; 2007; 2008; K ahl et al. 2009; 2010; 2011; 2014; 2015; 2017; 2018; K ahl 2007; el-K hadragy 2007; Engel and K ahl 2009; recently K ahl et al. 2012a; 2012b. The renewed work at the site has also proven the existence of a temple dedicated to one of the nomarchs named Djefaihapi, since visitors´ graffiti dating to the Second Intermediate Period or early New Kingdom found in one of the tombs at Asyut (Tomb N13.1) refer to such a building. The temple of Djefaihapi I seems to have been located in the Nile valley and was probably connected to the tomb by a passageway (K ahl 2007, 57–58, fig. 32; see now Verhoeven 2020). 197 Satzinger 1968, 160–161; Helck 1976, 106–107; Beinlich 1975b; 1984, 149; Leitz 2002, 769; K ahl 2007, 110. 198 K ahl 2012. 199 For the offering formula, its chronology, cultic implications and divergent readings, see Smither 1939; Bennett 1941; Allen 2000, 357–359 (§ 24.10); Franke 2003. 200 For the statue, see Zitman 2010, 27, 38 (Louvre E 26915, without titles, however). 201 el-K hadragy 2007; K ahl 2007, 10–11, pls. 6–8. 196

Though Qatna’s political role in the Early Bronze Age is, as yet, unclear, the site is emerging as a major urban centre of both inland Syria and the northern Levant in the Middle Bronze Age.202 2.5.1 A Sphinx of Princess Ita of the Middle Kingdom from the ‘Sanctuaire’ of the Royal Palace (Fig. 13) The so-called ‘Sphinx of Ita’, yet another statue of an Egyptian princess of the 12th Dynasty, was discovered in 1927 by the French archaeologist R. Comte du Mesnil du Buisson in the central area (within the so-called ‘sanctuaire’ of the shrine of the goddess Bēlet-ekallim)203 of the Bronze Age palace at Qatna.204 Fragmented into more than 400 pieces, the sphinx, made of schist, was found within the debris of the Late Bronze Age palace and thus must have been on display at the time of its destruction.205 In the vicinity of the sphinx, several fragments of another statue made of calcite-alabaster were found, belonging to a royal statue,206 most probably that of a king of the Middle Kingdom (12th–13th Dynasty) depicted in a kneeling position, presumably offering n w-pots.207 An inscription, almost identical to that of Itakayet’s inscription on the vessel from Tomb VII (see below, 2.5.3), is positioned between the forelegs of the sphinx. It consists of a single column which reads: j rj. t - p a. t sA. t njswt m ry. t =f n . t -X. t =f JtA n b. t j mAx w ‘The hereditary princess, the king’s beloved daughter, of his body, Ita, possessor of honour’. Again, the inscription makes it quite likely that the sphinx was once used in a funerary context. The tomb of Princess Ita was discovered, on the 12th of February 1895 by the French archaeologist and then Director of K lengel 1992, 65–70; 2000. Du Mesnil du Buisson 1928, 9–13, pl. VII; Virolleaud 1928; 1930; Bottéro 1949; Epstein 1963; Novák and Pfälzner 2001, 167–169, fig. 6; Novák 2002; DohmannPfälzner and Pfälzner 2008, 72. 204 For the sphinx and its general findspot, see Du M esnil du Buisson 1928, 10–13, pls. VII, XII; 1934; 1935, 17; see also Fay 1996, 32, 44−45; A hrens 2006. 205 For the possibility of a dispatch during the Late Bronze Age, see Forstner-Müller, Müller and R adner 2002. Given the fact that a second Middle Kingdom statue was found associated with the sphinx, a dispatch of these two objects together and before the Late Bronze Age seems more likely, yet cannot be proven with certainty. 206 A fragment of what seems to have been a stone bowl bearing the cartouches of Senwosret I was found in the eastern part of the royal palace, see Roccati 2002. 207 Du M esnil du Buisson 1928, 10 (referred to here as ‘pierre 6’), pls. VI.6, VII and XIV.1; 1935, 17. The statue´s present location is unknown, therefore a secure date cannot be given. 202 203

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

277

Fig. 13 Sphinx of Princess Ita, Royal Palace of Qatna (after Du Mesnil du Buisson 1928, pl. VI) Egyptian Antiquities J. de Morgan, within the precinct of the burial complex of Amenemhat II at Dahshur.208 Ita’s tomb was part of a double tomb complex, which contained the tomb of another princess named Chnumit (Khenemet), whose statue was, presumably, found at Ras Šamra/Ugarit (see above, 2.3.3).209 Based on material culture and stylistic analysis, it has been argued that the tombs of Ita and Chnumit, although located in the burial complex of Amenemhat II, cannot date to the reign of this king, but must be of a later date, probably late 12th Dynasty (i.e. the reign of Amenemhat III).210 Accepting that the sphinx of 208 209

210

De Morgan 1903, 45−55. De Morgan 1903, 55−67. It could well be that this statue belongs to Princess Chnumit/Khenemet who was buried at Dahshur. Yet again, it is unclear for whom, of the many princesses (and future queens) who bore this specific name or title during the Middle Kingdom, the statue was actually made, see Perdu 1977; Ward 1979, 801–802; 1982; Sabbahy 1996, 350 (Ita-weret); 2003; Stünkel 2006; 2018. Interestingly, a burial of a princess with this name (title) probably also existed within the burial complex of Senwosret III at Dahshur, although the archaeological evidence for this is ambiguous. The princess’ pyramid (Pyramid 2) is located directly west of Itakayet´s pyramid, see Stünkel 2006, 174–148, fig. 1. Also, the owners of two additional pyramids on the south-side of Senwosret’s pyramid (Pyramids 8 and 9) are also named Khenemet-nefer-hedjet (Weret I and II), although Pyramid 8 only served as a cenotaph, see the discussion in Stünkel 2006. Williams 1976, 43; Fay 1996, 43−47; Sabbahy 1996, 350; 2003; Do. A rnold 2006, 47 (footnote 3); see also Do. A rnold 1982, 29−31.

Ita may have originated from a funerary or temple context – and thus possibly from the princess’ tomb complex and associated mortuary chapel – such a late date for these tombs would be of great importance for establishing a possible date for the dispatch of the sphinx from Egypt to Qatna. Although buried within this king’s burial complex, Princess Ita, therefore, may not have been a daughter of Amenemhat II after all.211 Apart from the difficulties and uncertainties concerning the historical chronology and the exact position of this specific Princess Ita within the

211

See Sabbahy 1996, 350; 2003, who is of the opinion that Chnumit and Ita must date later and are not daughters of Amenemhat II, see also Williams 1976, 43; Do. A rnold 1982; 2006. Nothing in Princess Ita’s tomb at Dahshur specifies a filial relationship to Amenemhat II. Fay 1996 (43–47), however, is of the opinion that the sphinx found at Qatna stylistically dates to the interval Senwosret I/ Amenemhat II. Therefore, Fay concludes that the Sphinx of Ita found at Qatna must belong to a princess who lived during the reign of Amenemhat II (Fay 1996, 44: 2) while the tomb of Ita at Dahshur, in accordance with Williams (Williams 1976), Sabbahy (Sabbahy 1996; 2003) and Arnold (Do. A rnold 1982; 2006), is to be dated to the late Middle Kingdom, probably to the reign of Amenemhat III and thus must belong to a different princess with the same name (Fay 1996, 44: 1). In the present paper, however, it is maintained that the Sphinx of Ita found at Qatna and the tomb at Dahshur actually belong to only one princess with that name, leaving aside the chronological problems pertaining to the date of the princess and her burial at Dahshur for the time being.

278

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

12th Dynasty, we can assume that her sphinx probably arrived in Qatna at a later date.212 2.5.2 A Stone Vessel of Amenemhat III from the Royal Tomb (Fig. 14) There were over sixty Egyptian and Egyptianised stone vessels amongst the numerous finds discovered by the German-Syrian expedition in the excavation campaign of 2002, at the royal tomb of Tell Mišrife/Qatna213. Two of these stone vessels also bear Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions, one of which dates to the early New Kingdom, and one to the Middle Kingdom.214 The drop-shaped alabastron made of serpentinite (height: 16.2 cm; MSH02G-i1632) (a vessel form typical of the Middle Kingdom), with an inscription mentioning Amenemhat III, was discovered lying on the floor in the north-eastern part of chamber 3, in a group of 15 other Egyptian stone vessels, all characteristic Middle Kingdom types.215 This accumulation of Middle Kingdom stone vessel types, therefore, argues for (or at least hints at) a deposition of the entire assemblage sometime in the later part of the Middle Bronze Age. The inscription, engraved in the middle of the vessel’s body, is framed by a rectangular square (measurements: 7.2 × 7.4 cm). The rectangle frame consists of three single lines at the bottom and at the sides but features a double line on top.216 The hieroglyphic inscription, of three vertical lines and one horizontal line, is well preserved. It can be read and translated as follows: sA Ra (Im n - m -HAt) ‘Son of Ra Amenemhat’, njswt bj tj (Nj - mAa. t -Ra) ‘King of Upper- and Lower Egypt Nimaatre’, m rj.w ¤ bk Šd . tj ‘beloved of Sobek Shedety’, Dj.w anX mj Ra D. t ‘given life like Ra eternally’. 212

213 214 215

216

Helck 1976, 107; Ahrens 2006, 32. It must be stated here that the tombs of Ita and Chnumit belong to the very few tombs that were apparently not disturbed in antiquity, see De Morgan 1903; Hayes 1953, 197–198. This, however, does not necessarily apply to the princesses’ cultic installations or the mortuary chapels connected with these tombs. For a preliminary presentation of the royal tomb and its finds, see al-M aqdissi et al. 2003; Pfälzner 2003. A hrens 2006. None of them bear hieroglyphic inscriptions. However, apart from the serpentinite drop-shaped alabastron MSH02G-i-1632, only one other vessel, of the assemblage of stone vessels, in chamber 3 is not made of calcite: it is a small bottle made of carnelian, its shape again dating to the Middle Kingdom, see A hrens 2011b. This frame is obviously to be seen as an abstract or rather simplified depiction of the earth-line below, the skyhieroglyph (p t) at the top, and supporting pillars at each side (normally in the form of two wAs -scepters).

King Amenemhat III (c. 1853–1806 BCE), of the 12th Dynasty, devoted much of his energy to the area of the Fayyum. He built extensively in the region including the main temple of the crocodile god Sobek at Shedet (^d . t; Medinat al-Fayyum/Kîman Fāris),217 located near the newly established capital JT- tA.wj (el-Lisht). The cult of the god Sobek, centred at Shedet, became the most prominent cult under the reign of Amenemhat III.218 Therefore, it is not surprising to find a vessel mentioning his titles and the name of the chief god of that region. It is feasible to assume from the inscription that the vessel was originally conceived and probably used for a religious purpose (although without definite proof) within the temple of the god Sobek at Shedet.219 A large number of objects and monuments appear to have been looted from the main religious centre of the Fayyum, i.e. the temple of Sobek of Shedet, after the collapse of the Middle Kingdom administration and authority. This is exemplified by the monuments of King Amenemhat III that were usurped and removed as early as the late 13th Dynasty.220 Although there is no direct proof that For the very fragmented ruins of the temple at Kîman Fāris and its religious importance, see H abachi 1937 and Hirsch 2004, 122–126. There appears to have been a temple and a cult centred at Shedet before the Middle Kingdom (Gomaá 1984; 1986, 395–367), but the main construction work was, apparently, commissioned under Amenemhat III alone. Of particular interest in this respect is an inscription found in the Eastern Desert (Wadi Hammamat), dated to year 19 of the reign of Amenemhat III. The inscription mentions an expedition sent out to quarry Greywacke for ten seated statues of the king, dedicated to the temple of Sobek at Shedet. Apart from clearly revealing the importance of the temple at Shedet, the inscription may also show that different kinds of stone were quarried in that specific region. This may also be the case for the material serpentinite – which is known to have large and easily accessible outcrops in the Wadi Hammamat – although there is, as yet, no conclusive evidence for the use of these sources during the 12th Dynasty. 218 For the importance of the cult of ¤ bk ^d . t j and the Fayyum in general, especially under the reign of Amenemhat III, see H irsch 2004, 123; Verbovsek 2004b, 129–132; 2006, 87–89. 219 As there is at the moment no direct archaeological parallel for the vessel that could hint at a better interpretation and localization of the object, the exact origin of the vessel has to remain hypothetical. It could also well be that the vessel, originating from a royal workshop, was used outside the temple of Sobek at Shedet. For the attestation of the god Sobek outside Shedet, see Hirsch 2004, 120–123. 220 For the monuments attributed to King Amenemhat III which appear to derive from Shedet and were usurped and removed from there, see Verbovsek 2006, 72– 80. Although a possible ‘connection’ between these monuments and the objects naming Amenemhat III found in the northern Levant seems appealing at first sight (especially in the case of the sphinxes), there is no way to prove this. 217

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

279

Fig. 14 Stone vessel of Amenemhat III, Royal Tomb of Qatna (after Ahrens 2006, figs. 2−5) the vessel found in the royal tomb of Qatna actually belongs to that group of objects, it is still a possibility not to be discarded. Therefore, trying to establish a date for when the vessel was dispatched, and its subsequent deposition in the royal tomb, sometime after the 12th Dynasty, appears plausible.221

221

There are signs of wear on vessel MSH02G-i1632 that might show that it had already been used for a longer period of time. These consist of a worn and roughened horizontal line around the vessel´s lower part of the body, obviously a sign of long use caused by a separate stand (without which the drop-shaped alabastron could not be securely fixed). However, no stand was discovered in the royal tomb and it seems likely that these signs of wear derive from a continuous and long period of use. However, this in no way can imply that the vessel was used at Qatna or the northern Levant for a longer period of time.

2.5.3 A Stone Vessel of a Princess Itakayet of the Middle Kingdom from Tomb VII (Fig. 15) One Egyptian stone vessel, bearing a hieroglyphic inscription, was found in the grave goods of Tomb VII (discovered in 2009) located underneath Room DA of the north-western wing of the royal palace of Qatna.222 The tall shouldered cylindrical jar (MSH09G-i0967; height: 17.2 cm; width: 13.3 cm) is made of andesite porphyry (also referred to as ‘hornblende diorite’), containing larger crystals of white feldspar within a dark-coloured, fine-grained groundmass.223 On typological grounds, the vessel can be dated to the Middle Kingdom.224

For the tomb, see Dohmann-Pfälzner and Pfälzner 2011. 223 Aston 1994, 13−15, 21−23. 224 Aston 1994, 138 (type 135); Sparks 2007, 49, type 3A (broad body and mouth, no handles). 222

280

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

Fig. 15 Stone vessel of Princess Itakayet, Tomb VII, Qatna (after Ahrens 2010, figs. 2−5) The inscription on the vessel consists of a single column (measuring 2.6 × 15.5 cm). The general execution of the hieroglyphs is very good and the inscription itself is completely preserved. The inscription can be translated as follows: j rj. t - p a. t sA. t njswt n . t -X. t =f JtA- kAy. t n b. t j mAx w ‘The hereditary princess, the king’s daughter, of his body, Itakayet, possessor of honour’.

While the inscription and the vessel are assigned to the 12th Dynasty (c. 1939–1790 BCE), Princess Itakayet’s exact chronological position within this dynasty remains unclear (see details below). The stone vessel from Tomb VII is the only Egyptian object naming Princess Itakayet hitherto attested in the Levant. The identification of the princess presents something of a problem. At least two (perhaps more) royal

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

princesses called Itakayet are known from Middle Kingdom archaeological and historical sources, both belonging to the 12th Dynasty. While one of these princesses might have been a daughter of Senwosret I, a later princess, with the same name, appears to have been a daughter or sister of Senwosret III (see details below). There is, unfortunately, nothing in the inscription to indicate which of these two princesses commissioned the stone vessel. This leaves us with only a rough date for the vessel’s manufacture, spanning the reigns of Amenemhat I or Senwosret I to Senwosret III. Therefore, the specific findcontext of Itakayet’s stone vessel, within Tomb VII, also cannot provide any conclusive answers to this problematic question of chronology.225 Since the titles given in the inscription on the vessel from Tomb VII do not allow for a clear identification of the specific individual mentioned, it is difficult – if not impossible – to date or connect Princess Itakayet to the reign of one of the specific kings in question. Furthermore, given the incomplete nature of both the archaeological and historical record pertaining to the princesses in Egypt proper, it is even more difficult to give secure and precise answers when discussing the princess’ identity. In Egypt, the first archaeological attestation of a princess named Itakayet can be dated to the reign of King Senwosret I. Located within the outer enclosure wall of the king’s burial complex at elLisht, one of the secondary pyramids in the precinct (‘Pyramid 2’) is the one most likely (given the flimsy archaeological evidence) to be identified with the burial place of a princess with that name.226 Commenting on this pyramid in 1953, W.C. Hayes wrote: “Of the others [i.e. the other pyramids] only one, south of the centre of the king’s pyramid, yielded enough inscribed material to identify its owner, the King’s Own Beloved Daughter Itĕ-kuyet. A pyramid just to the west of Itĕ-kuyet’s, however, belonged to another princess of the royal line, and the two of the remaining tombs were probably

225 226

Dohmann-Pfälzner and Pfälzner 2011. H ayes 1953, 195; D. A rnold 1992, 23−26, pls. 16−22; see also Jánosi 1996, 56, fig. 54. Existing fragments of the offering chapel indicate that at least three versions of Itakayet’s titulary existed, two of them being ‘(…) the king’s daughter of his body, whom he loves, Ita-kayet, possessor of honor’ and ‘the king’s daughter of his body, the hereditary princess and countess Ita-kayet’, see D. A rnold 1992, 24–26, pls. 17c, 20d. According to Arnold, she could have been a daughter of Senwosret I or Amenemhat I, or perhaps even of a later king, see D. A rnold 1992, 26; see also A llen 1998, 42.

281

those of the King’s Daughter Nefru-Sobk,227 and the King’s Daughter Nefru-Ptah, scraps of whose funerary furnishings were found in the vicinity of the mortuary temple”.228 “Fragments of the stela and the chapel reliefs from the next pyramid to the west of that of Queen Nefru show that it belonged to the ‘Hereditary Princess and Countess, Great of Grace and Great of Favor, She-who-beholds-the-HorusSeth, the King’s Own Beloved Daughter, Itĕ-kuyet, possessor of honour”.229 It is unclear if the pyramid was ever used as the burial place of this princess. However, the cultic installations and the offering chapel of this pyramid were completed. A tomb-robbers’ shaft was discovered, partially cutting through the stone-blocking of the tomb entrance. The shaft was “only big enough to squeeze through and remove valuable items”.230 According to B. Schmitz, the Princess Itakayet of Pyramid 2, should be considered a daughter of Amenemhat I, who later became queen under the reign of Senwosret I.231 L. Troy, however, regarded It is interesting to note here that a statue of this princess was found at Gezer in Palestine, see Weinstein 1974. The hieroglyphic inscription on this statue reads sA. t njswt n . t -Xt=f ¤bk - n fr.w anh . tj (‘the King’s daughter, of his body, Sobeknefru, may she live’). In the case of Sobeknefru, however, two princesses with this name are attested during the 12th Dynasty. While the earlier one was a daughter of Senwosret I, the latter one is most probably a daughter of Amenemhat III. There is no hint in the inscription to indicate for which of these two princesses the statue originally was made. Furthermore, three statues and a sphinx of Queen Sobeknefru, as well as a statue of Hotepibre of the 13th Dynasty, were also found in the region of Tell el-Dab‘a/Qantir. The objects’ inscriptions contain dedications to Ptah of Memphis and the Fayyumic forms of Horus and Sobek and, thus most likely, seem to originally come from the greater region of Memphis/ Fayyum. Possibly, the objects were removed from the Fayyum during the Second Intermediate Period and then set up at the royal residence at Avaris, see Naville 1888, pl. 9c; Habachi 1952, pls. VI–IX; Ryholt 1997, 133–134; 1998, 2–3. Additionally, the stone vessel found in the royal tomb at Qatna, naming Amenemhat III and the god Sobek Shedety, also seems to come from the Fayyum, see above and Ahrens 2006, 18–20. Thus, it could well be that this vessel reached Qatna via the Hyksos capital of Avaris. Also, albeit dating to later periods, the calcitealabaster lid of a princess of the 12th Dynasty (presumably originally from the princess’ tomb?) in the palace of the pre-Hyksos rulers at Tell el-Dab‘a (see below, 3.1.2) would generally seem to attest to such a practice. A fragment of a cuneiform tablet found in the filling of a well also attests to the far-flung political connections of the Hyksos, see Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2009, 108, figs. 21–22; van Koppen and R adner 2009. 228 H ayes 1953, 183. 229 H ayes 1953, 195. 230 D. A rnold 1992, 25, see also pl. 17a. The actual hole in the stone blocking of Pyramid 2 would have been big enough to remove the stone vessel found in Tomb VII at Qatna. 231 Schmitz 1976, 190: 4. 227

282

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

her as a daughter of Senwosret I,232 while S. Roth believed her to be a wife of the then crown prince – and later king – Amenemhat II, who died early in his reign.233 A cylinder seal made of steatite of unknown provenance kept in the collections of the Brooklyn Museum (no. 44.123.74)234 mentions a Princess Itaka(y)t (sA. t n j s w t JtA- kAt), in conjunction with King Amenemhat II, although this cannot be proven beyond doubt since no prenomen of a specific king is given on the seal.235 Papyrus Berlin 10222a lists provisions for the statue of King Senwosret II and, among others, that of Princess Itakayet (JtA- kAy. t).236 Finally, yet another pyramid (‘Pyramid 3’), this time located within the burial complex of Senwosret III at Dahshur, can apparently be attributed to a Princess Itakayet (relief fragments naming her sA. t n j s w t n . t -X. t = f [JtA- kA. t]).237 That a burial of this princess actually took place here seems likely because the canopic chest and related vessels were found inside the tomb.238 However, this tomb appears to have been looted in antiquity as little of its original inventory was found.239 The princess buried here may have been a sister or half-sister of Senwosret III, i.e. the Troy 1986, 158 (12.7). Roth 2001, 153 (footnote 872), 205, 434–435 (XII.∅.1). If this was the case, then Itakayet and Ita, of whom the famous ‘Sphinx of Ita’ was found within the palace of Qatna in 1927, should be regarded as contemporaries. The likelihood of this scenario, however, may be undermined since the tomb of Ita probably dates to the late Middle Kingdom, see Williams 1976, 43; Sabbahy 1996, 350; Fay 1996, 43–47; Do. A rnold 2006, 47. 234 Newberry 1906, pl. VI.20; James 1974, 44, pl. 35.104a; Perdu 1977, 81; Fay 1996, 45: 4, 47. A good parallel with similar kA-arms ending in circles dating to the reign of Senwosret I is depicted on a seal impression from Abydos, see Müller 2002, 147–149, fig. 5. 235 James 1974, 44, pl. 35.104a. James regards Amenemhat II to be the most likely option since he believes this Itakayet to have been a daughter of Senwosret I, Amenemhat II´s immediate predecessor; see also Fay 1996, 45, 47. 236 Borchardt 1899, 91; Schmitz 1976, 193: 13; Fay 1996, 45; Stünkel 2006, 149. 237 De Morgan 1895, 56−58, 73, see also 74 (fig. 176) for a stone vessel from the underground galleries resembling Itakayet´s vessel in shape; D. A rnold 2002, 63−76, figs. 20a−c, 21a; pls. 40, 76, 77a, 79a−b, 82d, 86b, 91−94, 107 (Arnold mistakenly presents the name as JtA- kAj t here. We thank I. Stünkel for bringing this to our attention); Stünkel 2006, 148–149, fig. 1 (the name of the princess is given on the right half of a tympanum block which was part of the offering chapel, drawings of the inscriptions of Pyramid 3 and its funerary chapel have not been published yet). 238 De Morgan 1895, 56−58, 73; D. A rnold 2002, 65–67. 239 The plundering of Senwosret III´s pyramid apparently already took place during the Second Intermediate Period, see D. A rnold 2002, 41−42. It seems very likely, although it is not proven, that the subsidiary pyramids of the precinct were also plundered at that time; see A llen 1998, 44; D. A rnold 2002, 65–66. 232 233

daughter of King Senwosret II also mentioned in Papyrus Berlin 10222a (see above).240 Taken altogether, the evidence seems to support the existence of at least two princesses with the name Itakayet. The first Princess Itakayet may, therefore, have lived during the reigns of kings Amenemhat I and Senwosret I, and possibly part of the reign of Amenemhat II (Pyramid 2 at el-Lisht). The second princess lived during the reigns of kings Senwosret II – Senwosret III (Pyramid 3 at Dahshur). Apart from the archaeological evidence of these two burials, all other references pertaining to a princess with the name of Itakayet (i.e the cylinder seal and Papyrus Berlin 10222a) may be assigned to either of these two princesses, although clear identifications to specific individuals on the basis of these documents cannot be given.241 The possibility that both pyramids and all other archaeological and historical evidence pertaining to a princess named Itakayet relate to only one princess seems highly unlikely, given the time span of approximately one hundred years, and could, therefore, be rejected. As mentioned before, the stone vessel from Tomb VII cannot provide any conclusive answers to the question of the princess’ identity since the inscription neither provides a name of a king nor any other means of dating Itakayet to the reign of a specific king. Due to the flimsy archaeological and historical evidence relating to the princesses in question, it is impossible to decide for which princess Itakayet this stone vessel was originally manufactured. Moreover, the inconclusive evidence regarding the titles of the princesses preserved at el-Lisht and Dahshur cannot help to settle this question. The ‘defective’ spelling of the name of the princess (i.e. JtA- kA. t instead of JtA- kAy. t)242 inscribed on the stone vessel also cannot be regarded as a means to securely date and identify the princess or link her to a particular king, as both spellings are attested to have been used for both princesses, i.e.

D. A rnold 2002, 64. Accepting the existence of two princesses, the cylinder seal naming the princess together with a king Amenemhat (here possibly naming Amenemhat II) could then be attributed to the first Itakayet possibly buried at el-Lisht. She would then seem to have died during the reign of Amenemhat II, but was buried within the pyramid complex of her father(?) or husband(?) Senwosret I (in this case, her father would then be Amenemhat I). Papyrus Berlin 10222a in turn, naming a Princess Itakayet together with Senwosret II and another princess, would then seem to mention the second Princess Itakayet who was buried within the pyramid complex of Senwosret III at Dahshur (her father being Senwosret II, her brother Senwosret III). 242 Omitting the ‘double reed’ sign (‘y’), see Gardiner 1957 (M 17). 240 241

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

the princesses buried at el-Lisht and at Dahshur.243 Rather, the different notations of the princesses’ name point to the existence of different workshops carrying out the various inscriptions or perhaps the lack of space on certain objects etc. Apart from the difficulties hampering the identification of the princess, it is presumed that the stone vessel was part of the princess’ tomb equipment or at least related to a funerary context in a more general way, e.g., as part of the mortuary chapel related to the tomb or a cultic installation at a temple. Further evidence for an original cultic use of the vessel are three rarely attested measure capacity signs, placed on the shoulder of the vessel (for similar signs on stone vessels from Byblos, see above, 2.1.3, Fig. 4), underlining the need for an exact display of the vessel’s filling capacity (Fig. 15/ bottom left).244 One could assume that the capacity signs on the vessel relate to the princess’ funerary cult, and that the vessel once contained one of the necessary oils connected with it.245 While the date of manufacture of Itakayet’s stone vessel and the execution of its inscription can be securely dated to the 12th Dynasty, a possible date of dispatch of the vessel from Egypt to the northern Levant – and thus finally to Qatna and Tomb VII – cannot be established with certainty. The stone vessel could have reached Qatna during or after the 12th Dynasty until the last burial of Tomb VII. The bulk of material recovered from Tomb VII, based on the preliminary analysis of the finds, spans the latter part of the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age transitional period (i.e. MB IIB (=MB IIB–C)–early LB I), at the latest. It appears unlikely the vessel was dispatched to the Levant during the lifetime of the princess, or during the 12th Dynasty in general. However, since both burials attributed to princesses called Itakayet (and this could account for most tombs of Middle Kingdom Egypt) were looted or reused no later than the final collapse of the Middle Kingdom state-authority, it can be presumed that a large quantity of the objects associated with these original burials, and their specific cultic installations, were retrieved by tombrobbing, perhaps carried out illegally by groups of The fragments mentioning Itakayet from Pyramid 2 and her mortuary chapel at el-Lisht feature both versions of her name, D. A rnold 1992, pls. 17c, 20d. For Princess Itakayet from Dahshur (Pyramid 3), a defective spelling of her name (JtA- kA. t) is attested on the tympanum block of the princess’ offering chapel; see D. A rnold 2002, 64; Stünkel 2006, 147−148. As already mentioned above, the princess buried at Dahshur may well be identical with the Princess Itakayet featured in Papyrus Berlin 10222a; here, however, her name is given in the full version (JtA- kAy. t), see Borchardt 1899, 91; R anke 1935, 49: 11; see the discussion in Fay 1996, 45, 4. 244 A hrens 2010. 245 Koura 1999; also Grajetzki 2014, 53, 59. 243

283

‘private’ individuals, or during periods of political turmoil when state control was weak (i.e. the second half of the 13th Dynasty and the Second Intermediate Period).246 It is also possible that in times of political turmoil, looting of burials was sanctioned by Egyptian state authorities. Therefore, a portion of these objects may have reached the Levant well after their original deposition by re-entering the life cycle as valuable and prestigious objects. Following this argument, a date sometime after the 12th Dynasty seems plausible, since the majority of the burial complexes of the Middle Kingdom kings, and the tombs of their entourages, were re-used or plundered as early as the late 13th Dynasty and the subsequent Second Intermediate Period, without establishing precise dates for the looting per se.247 In relation to Senwosret I’s burial complex, which is of prime importance for the date of dispatch of Itakayet’s stone vessel, W.C. Hayes (1953) noted that a large number of objects, and secondary burials, post-date the original tomb structures.248 Weinstein 1975, 9–10; Helck 1976. Egyptian temples located in the Delta and the Memphite region apparently also seem to have been heavily pillaged during the rule of the Hyksos, see Ryholt 1997, 139 (footnote 500), 143–149. 247 Archaeological evidence for such re-uses is generally well attested for most of the Middle Kingdom burial complexes. The burial complex of Amenemhat II was reused during the 13th Dynasty (Queen Keminub), see De Morgan 1903, 70, fig. 117; Jánosi 1994, 94–101. The burial of Amenemhat III was already reused during the late 12th Dynasty (reign of Amenemhat IV) and the 13th Dynasty (King Hor), see A rnold and Stadelmann 1977, 16; D. A rnold 1982, 21; 1987, 93−96. A rnold (D. A rnold 1987, 94) notes that “(…) der Kultbetrieb und Bewachung der Pyramide (i.e. the pyramid of Amenemhat III) bereits zu Beginn der 13. Dynastie vernachlässigt wurde, so dass sich jetzt die ersten großen Einbrüche in die Pyramide ereigneten. Ihnen dürften die “besten Stücke“ zum Opfer gefallen sein. (...E)s muss eine Mitwisserschaft der Bewacher vorausgesetzt werden.“ On the phenomenon of tomb robbing in Egypt and its chronological implications see also Phillips 1992. 248 H ayes 1953, 191–192: “An ancient rubbish heap outside the north gateway leading to the temple precinct contained the sealings, packaging, and other débris of offerings contributed by generations of pious Egyptians to the funerary foundation of king Se’n-Wosret I. Hundreds of the mud sealings from jars, boxes, baskets, and bundles bear the impressions of seals and scarabs dating from the reign of the founder of the temple to a time late in the Thirteenth Dynasty, almost two centuries after his death. (…) Nearby were found two miniature coffins and shawabty-figures of Prince Wah-Neferhotep and the Chamberlain Bener, both of the Thirteenth Dynasty. These objects, which may have been associated with tombs in the vicinity of the temple, indicate that the cemetery continued in use long after the time of Se’n Wosret I and agree perfectly with the sealings of King Sobk-hotpe III found by the temple gateway”. 246

284

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

D. Arnold noted that the burial complex of Senwosret III, and thus the entire pyramid precinct, was first looted during the Second Intermediate Period, because a broken dagger, which according to him cannot antedate the Second Intermediate Period, was found inside this king’s burial chamber.249 The dagger’s pommel, heft and the length of the two clamps (“Hefthörner”) which fix the blade, have close parallels with a dagger found in tomb E156 at Abydos (minus the vertical raised ribs on the blade).250 The pottery associated with this tomb dates from the 17th to the early 18th Dynasty.251 S. Petschel also dated (in her work on daggers in Egypt), weapons with similar clamps from the Second intermediate Period to the earliest dated examples from the period of Nebiryrau I and Bebiankh 252 and daggers with very long clamps to the 17th and early 18th Dynasties.253 She cautiously placed only the Dahshur example in the 12th Dynasty, because of its find circumstances and probably because it has a ribbed blade. This ribbed decoration appears, in securely dated contexts, only in the Middle Kingdom, while later examples were designed with a faintly defined wider middle ridge and no decoration. The best parallel for the Dahshur blade comes from an early 13th Dynasty tomb at Tell el-Dabʻa. 254 By combining this type of blade with the later common type with clamps, the Dahshur dagger represents a link between the daggers of the Middle Kingdom and those of the late Second Intermediate Period. It would thus fit stylistically into the second half of the 13th dynasty, exactly when the tombs in the Memphite-Fayyum region were looted. More persuasive evidence for the looting may also be found inside the pyramid, where a large number of graffiti feature ‘foreign-looking’ male profiles.255 De Morgan 1903, 97, fig. 141; D. A rnold 2002, 41−42. For a photo of this dagger see: Petschel 2011, 132−139, 406, cat. no. 82. 250 Garstang 1901, pl. XIV and XVI. 251 Garstang 1901, pl. XVII. 252 Petschel 2011, cat. nos. 17−18. 253 Petschel 2011, cat. nos. 83−85. 254 Schiestl 2009, fig. 337.12. 255 D. A rnold 2002, 42−43, pls. 24−25. Arnold (D. A rnold 2002, 42) believes that “the first trespassers were certainly tomb robbers, who may have entered the pyramid in the Second Intermediate Period”. Since “(i) t is improbable, however, that tomb robbers had enough time and courage to leave their portraits at the scene of their crime [i.e. during the Second Intermediate Period]”, he dates these graffiti to the Ramesside period (D. A rnold 2002, 42). It must be noted here that this may not necessarily be the case since at the time of the Second Intermediate Period the burial complex of Senwosret III – if not all burial complexes of the Middle Kingdom – were probably not in use anymore. Thus, already during the Second Intermediate Period the looters literally would have had enough time ‘on their hands’ to leave these graffiti inside the pyramid without having to fear punishment.

The late Middle Bronze Age is a potential date for the dispatch and deposition of the stone vessel from Tomb VII to the northern Levant (a time span roughly comprising the late 13th Dynasty and the Second Intermediate Period in Egypt). This date appears to fit well with the period of use of Tomb VII.256 Whether the stone vessel reached Qatna from Egypt or via another northern Levantine kingdom is a moot point since there is no conclusive archaeological evidence to either prove or disprove such a hypothesis yet. The important harbour city of Gubla/Byblos, in contact with Egypt since the 3rd millennium BCE, would be a likely candidate as a ‘mediator’ of Egyptian objects into inner Syria during the 2nd millennium BCE.257 Interestingly, some finds made within Tomb VII mirror finds made at Byblos, perhaps underlining this connection. Among these finds is an obsidian beaker trimmed with golden caps which has close parallels with a beaker displaying the cartouche of Amenemhat III found in Royal Tomb I at Byblos (see above), and a well-preserved Middle Kingdom faience statuette of a hippopotamus.258 Presumably, these two Egyptian objects originally stemmed from funerary contexts in Egypt and may, therefore, have reached Qatna (via Byblos?) at a later date. Since Tomb VII might still have been in use at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (early LB I), a date for the stone vessel’s arrival at this time cannot be ruled out, but at present this seems unlikely, especially given the parallels for such imports at other sites, e.g. at Tell Mardikh/Ebla or Byblos, which can clearly be dated to the latter part of the Middle Bronze Age.

249

Dohmann-Pfälzner and Pfälzner 2011. At Qatna, the earliest evidence of Egyptian influence attested from a secure archaeological context is a Levantine pottery vessel featuring a clearly locally executed ankh-sign (an x) on its body. The vessel was part of a tomb assemblage dating to the MB IB–MB IIA (= late MB IIA−MB IIB) periods (tombeau I), most probably roughly contemporary with the 13th Dynasty in Egypt. Concerning the tomb and its dating, see Du Mesnil du Buisson 1927a, 13–28, pls. 5–6; Bagh 2003, 225–229, fig. 3; see also Bietak 1998. Although likely, a direct connection with the royal palace cannot be established with certainty for the tomb. 257 See also Durand 1999, who suggested that Egyptian objects were possibly termed ‘gublayu’, i.e. ‘Byblite’, or ‘from Byblos’, in the cuneiform documents of the Middle Bronze Age. 258 For the beaker, see Ahrens apud Dohmann-Pfälzner and Pfälzner 2011, 128–130, fig. 52; A hrens 2015, 146, fig. 3; for the statuette of a hippopotamus made of faience, see Ahrens apud Dohmann-Pfälzner and Pfälzner 2011, 122–125, fig. 48–49. 256

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

2.6 Egyptian Objects from Tell Mardikh/Ebla

Located in inland Syria, c. 60 km south of Aleppo, Tell Mardikh, ancient Ebla, was a thriving city-state from at least the Early Bronze Age. Ebla was a distribution point for numerous materials and goods coming from Mesopotamia in the east and the northern Levantine harbours in the west. The city’s importance, in the Early Bronze Age, is reflected by the finds retrieved from Palace G, dating to the Early Bronze Age IV period (Mardikh Phase IIB1), including a large number of Egyptian stone vessels.259 2.6.1 The ‘Ceremonial Mace of Hotepibre’ (Fig. 16) In the second half of the Middle Bronze Age, Ebla resumed its role as a powerful city-state. Various Egyptian imports were discovered in a number of subterranean tombs, dating to the Middle Bronze Age IIA−B (=MB IIB−C),260 located in the area below Palace Q, in the lower city. The finds included Egyptian stone vessels, and a ceremonial mace of an obscure Pharaoh Hotepibre from the 13th Dynasty (c. 1750/1700 BCE) found in the ‘Tomb of the Lord of the Goats.’261 The excavators suggested that the mace was repaired in antiquity by someone unfamiliar with Egyptian hieroglyphs, as the Ht p-sign (part of the name of Hotepibre) was turned upside down, and the phonetic complement p of Ht p and the cartouche are missing. This implies that the repairs were made in the Levant. However, recent scholarship has convincingly suggested that the mace is not, in fact, an Egyptian import, but rather a Levantine object using ‘recycled’ parts from an (older, unknown) Scandone M atthiae 1998; Sowada 2009; recently A hrens 2015. 260 Called the ‘Tomb of the Princess’, the ‘Tomb of the Lord of the Goats’, and ‘Tomb of the Cistern’. For other possible Middle Kingdom Egyptian imports found within these tombs, see also Scandone M atthiae 1995, 466–468, NOS. 386–390. Additionally, a silver bowl (TM.78.Q.497) found within the ‘Tomb of the Lord of the Goats’ at Tell Mardikh/Ebla naming a certain ruler or prince Immeya also features a locally executed ankhsign on its body, see A rchi and M atthiae 1979, fig. 87. The only other securely stratified Egyptian object from inner Syria during the Middle Bronze Age is the mace of Hotepibre (¡t p - j b -Ra, 13th Dynasty) found in the same tomb, see Scandone M atthiae 1979. However, see also the doubts cast on the origin of the object by Lilyquist 1993 (45−46) and Ryholt 1998b, suggesting that the mace may actually be of Levantine manufacture and might use material of an older object which originally featured the cartouche of Amenemhat I of the 12th Dynasty or even that of yet another obscure king of the 13th Dynasty named Sehotepibre (¤Ht p - j b -Ra). 261 For a discussion of the mace and its historical implications, see Scandone M atthiae 1979; 1997, 417–422; see also Lilyquist 1993, 45–46; Ryholt 1997, 86–90; 1998b, 3–4. According to Lilyquist and Ryholt, it is also possible that the mace is actually of Levantine manufacture, see Lilyquist 1993, 46; Ryholt 1998b, 5. 259

285

Egyptian object. This suggestion is based on several observations. For instance, the production techniques used to create the mace point to a Levantine origin.262 A second mace, discovered in the ‘Tomb of the Cisterns’, is of similar type and shape, albeit without Egyptian hieroglyphs. There are no parallels or matching examples for either mace in Egypt in this period.263 A very similar mace-head comes from a tomb context at Yabrūd, close to the Damascene region in the AntiLebanon mountain range.264 It has been argued that ancient artisans re-used parts of an object, perhaps a wooden box with inlays, which featured the throne name of Pharaoh Amenemhat I (Sehotepibre), to create this mace.265 A second possibility, for the production of the mace, could be the re-use of an object of yet another obscure Pharaoh, Sehotepibre II of the 13th Dynasty, who may not have existed at all.266 For a long time, this king was known only from the Turin canon and from one, lapis lazuli, cylinder seal. The seal, of unknown provenance, was bought by a private collector in Cairo and sold in 1926 to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where it is now on display. The seal bears Sehotepibre’s prenomen and is dedicated to ‘Hathor, Lady of [Byblos]’. The seal is inscribed, in cuneiform, with the name of Yakin-Ilu, a governor of Byblos.267 It appears likely that the mace was not an Egyptian import, but a Levantine product. As such, it cannot be used to establish a direct link or chronological connection between the 13th Dynasty and Middle Bronze Age Ebla. The origin of the mace – as a genuine Levantine product – is to be sought at Byblos, where the exact same techniques are attested during the Middle Bronze Age.268 A likely scenario, therefore, could be that the mace was produced at Byblos, using parts of an older Egyptian object, and then dispatched to Tell Mardikh/Ebla as part of an exchange between the two Levantine kingdoms.

3. Case Studies: Egypt269

In archaeology, there is a tendency to automatically refer to older artefacts, found in an archaeological context, as heirlooms, regardless of the time difference between the objects. However, the historical setting, in which each of these objects is found, must be taken into consideration. Occasionally, there are older objects found in tombs, dating to the period between the late Middle Kingdom Lilyquist 1993, 46; Ryholt 1998b, 5. M atthiae, Pinnock and Scandone M atthiae 1995, 240 (here also referred to as “mazza ceremoniale egiziana”). 264 A bou Assaf 1965; 1967. 265 Lilyquist 1993, 45–46. 266 Ryholt 1998b. 267 Pinches and Newberry 1921; see also Kopetzky 2016. 268 Nigro 2009. 269 The sites presented here are arranged in a north to south direction. 262

263

286

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

Fig. 16 So-called ‘Ceremonial Mace of Hotepibre’, Tomb of the Lord of the Goats, Tell Mardikh/Ebla (after Matthiae 2008, figs. 12, 12 detail and 13). Details of centrepiece (after Matthiae, Pinnock and Scandone Matthiae 1995, 383, 394 and 478)

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

and the Second Intermediate Period, which might have been looted from the Memphite-Fayum regions.

3.1 Tell el-Dab‘a

3.1.1 Hardstone Scarab and Necklace (Fig. 17) Finds of older objects, in early MB IIA (=MB IIB) contexts, in Tell el-Dabʻa support this theory. Two such objects were retrieved from a mud-brick tomb dating to the transitional MB I−II (=MB IIA−B) period (Tell elDabʻa Phase F). The tomb A/II-m/16, no. 3 contained three burials,270 and shared its tomb pit with tomb no. 4. However, since it was found to be leaning into, and encroaching over, the front wall of tomb no. 4, it was probably built later. The tomb chamber is NNW−SSE oriented with its entrance in the south. Shortly after the last burial took place, the tomb was disturbed.271 The oldest burial is a young adult woman, found lying on her back with her head aligned south and facing west. Her arms were crossed above her pelvis, and her legs were flexed and had fallen to the right.272 Between the finger bones of the left hand were two scarabs, a smaller one made of steatite and a larger one made of a green stone (TD 2592) (Fig. 17.1).273 The latter has the same naturalistic features as the above-mentioned scarabs from the royal tombs of Byblos and from the tombs of the royal princesses in Illahun and Dahshur. The scarab’s base is plain but there are slight abrasions on its back and the right side of its head which appear to be traces of wear. No remains of a ring setting, either in gold or in silver, were found with this scarab. It is possible that it was fixed, by a string, to one of her fingers for the burial ritual. Compared to other hard stone scarabs, found in Tell el-Dabʻa and the Levant during the MB IIA (=MB IIB) period,274 it is obvious that this scarab belongs to an earlier period.275 Around her neck, the woman wore one or two necklaces made of small golden shells spaced with beads of carnelian, turquoise, gold and blue faience (TD 2590) (Fig. 17.2).276 Rethreading these necklaces was only partially possible and, therefore, it was decided to string the smaller shells separately from the larger ones, leaving the option open that the beads and shells were originally one necklace. Examples of shell-pendant necklaces are known from the tombs of the late 12th and early 13th Dynasties, where the find situation allowed us to reconstruct the original Forstner-Müller 2008, 164−174. The last burial was pulled into the robber’s pit in the SW corner of the tomb. It was still articulated at the time. 272 It is not proven whether this was her original burial position or if she was moved when the second burial took place. If the latter was the case, hardly any time could have passed between these two burials since her skeleton, apparently, was still articulated. 273 Forstner-Müller 2008, fig. 97a.2. M linar 2001, 180, swayed between serpentinite or green jasper as its material. 274 David 2019. 275 Kopetzky forthcoming. 276 Forstner-Müller 2008, fig. 97a.7, 8. 270 271

287

threading. This was possible in the case of a necklace found on the mummy of the lady Senebtisi at Lisht, 277 and for a necklace found in the second treasure at Dahshur.278 Two other examples are known from undisturbed burials 41279 and 206280 in the cemetery around the pyramid of Teti at Saqqara. In all these cases, the shells, of uniform size, are evenly spaced along the entire length of the necklace. In the case of the Tell el-Dabʻa examples, however, one cannot exclude the possibility that the shells and beads were re-threaded before they were placed in the tomb, approximately two generations later. 3.1.2 Lid of Princess Sit-Hathor-Duat (Fig. 18) In Tell el-Dab‘a a large palace dating to the Hyksos period was excavated in area F/II. Below this palace was an older pre-Hyksos building of which only a very small section has been excavated.281 This section was destroyed by a massive conflagration. Whether this fire affected the whole building or only the area excavated still needs to be ascertained. An alabaster lid (TD 9568) was found, lying upside down, on the floor inside the last of a series of storerooms in this building close to the south-eastern wall (Fig. 19).282 It was broken into three parts, probably due to a fall from some height. Evidence of collapsed shelves, which would have stood against the walls of this room, support this observation.283 The lid (diameter: 7.15 cm, thickness: 0.4−1.2 cm) has a finely carved inscription (width: 1.3 cm), running across the middle from edge to edge, naming its owner: j rj. t - p a. t sA. t - njswt m rjj Hw. t -Hrw n b. t aA. t %A. t Hw. t -Hrw - d wA. t ‘The hereditary princess, beloved by Hathor, lady of the ointment vessels, Sit-hathor-duat.’284 The burnished slightly convex lid is of high quality, however, the name Sit-hathor-duat is not very common in the Middle Kingdom.285 As a private name it was also found on a stela from Abydos.286 M ace and Winlock 1916, pl. XXII. De Morgan 1895, pl. XXIII.10. 279 Firth and Gunn 1926, pl. 37A.6. 280 Firth and Gunn 1926, pl. 35B.2. 281 Bietak et al. 2012, Fig. 15, Str. d. 282 Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2009, 111, fig. 29. 283 Bietak et al. 2012, 35. 284 In this case the word aA.t is written in a phonetic way, which is rather unusual. Normally Gardiner´s sign O 29 is used to write this term (WB I, 166, 1). As a determinative Gardiner’s sign W 22 was used. Bietak and ForstnerMüller 2009, 111, read this part of the inscription as n b. t an tj w, lady of the myrrh. However, in this reading the n-sign is missing. Furthermore, it seems that this title for Hathor is only attested from the New Kingdom onwards (Leitz 2002, vol. VI, 31). We thank Roman Gundacker for this information. 285 R anke 1935, 291, 21. 286 Lange and Schäfer 1908, CG 20441. 277 278

288

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

Fig. 17 1. Green hardstone scarab (TD 2592) and 2. necklaces with shell pendants (TD 2590) from A/II-m/16, tomb 3 (after Forstner-Müller 2008, figs. 97a.2, 7 and 8) The convex lid has, on the outer edge of its base, a 1.3 cm wide contact area, where it rested on the jar. This wide zone and the slightly convex lid suggest that it once belonged to a slightly larger vessel, similar to the diorite vessel from Byblos and the one from Itakayet’s tomb, found at Qatna (for both see above, 2.1.3 and 2.5.3). However, no remains of a larger jar were found inside the storeroom. It is possible that the larger jar was used elsewhere and the inscribed lid, naming the original owner, was left behind. The lid seems to date to the 12th Dynasty although the style of the inscription is different to the one from Byblos and the one from Itakayet’s jar.

Besides this lid, the storeroom held a large variety of other objects and raw materials, like blue pigments stored in large jars, found leaning against a wall, and high-quality products such as a faience sistrum and an ivory djet-pillar decorated with gold. There were also magic wands made of ivory, faience bracelets and a plethora of small bowls and locally produced pottery of Cypriot287 and Levantine shapes.

287

Kopetzky 2015b, fig. 5; Vilain 2019.

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

Fig. 18 Jar lid of princess Sit-hathor-duat made of calcite from Tell el-Dab‘a (TD 9568, photo by A. Krause, drawing by M.A. Negrete Martinez, © ÖAI/ÖAW archive)

Fig. 19 In situ position of lid of princess Sit-hathor-duat in area F/II-j/26, L1421 (photo by A. Krause, © ÖAI/ÖAW archive)

289

290

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

3.2 The Memphite Region

In the middle of the 13th Dynasty the authorities of the central state lost control over large areas of the country. The emergence of regional rulers led to a reorganisation of the administration on a local level.288 This meant that the king lost both his influence over these provinces and his access to their products; many of which had been exchanged for imported goods in the past. The loss of influence can be perceived through the abandonment of the fortresses in the south and the subsequent rise of the kingdom of Kerma, which began to control trade in the region; resulting in a trade crisis with the south. This intra-Egyptian crisis affected the economy of the country and consequently the security of cults at pyramids and tombs. In the 13th Dynasty, the population of Illahun decreased rapidly.289 There is evidence that houses were abandoned,290 and the construction of silos inside small courtyards291 hint at the fact that the local population could no longer rely on imported food supplies, but had to provide for themselves. As a result of this decline, safeguarding necropoli was also neglected, which left the tombs of Middle Kingdom nobles vulnerable to looters. Do. Arnold observed similar circumstances for the cult at the pyramid of Amenemhat III in Dahshur, which appeared to have ceased in the middle of the 13th Dynasty, c. 1700 BCE.292 The same is true for the pyramid complex of Senwosret I at Lisht 293 and its surrounding tombs.294 In Lisht, isolated houses were constructed in the cemetery area from the beginning of the 13th Dynasty onwards. They covered older shaft tombs and by the mid-13th Dynasty the area was densely populated, probably as a suburb of the spreading capital, Itj-tawj. The people living there may have been descendants of the religious personnel once responsible for the cult at the pyramids and the tombs. In the premises of these buildings they constructed their own tombs. While the inhabitants of the earlier settlement where provided with imported food,295 it appears that in the later occupation phase a less wealthy population practiced a largely self-supported, mixed economy.296 The latter probably emerged because the demise of the cult at the pyramids and tombs led to the economic This regionalism must not automatically lead to an economic decline in the provinces as Seidlmayer 1990, 440−441, has demonstrated for the First Intermediate Period. Individual provinces might have prospered under a smaller and more local administration. 289 F. A rnold 1990, 5. 290 Petrie 1891, 6. 291 Petrie 1890, 24. 292 Do. A rnold 1982, 40. 293 D. A rnold 1992, 80. 294 D. A rnold 2008, 20, 23, 24. 295 F. A rnold 1996, 13. 296 F. A rnold 1996, 19.

decline of this community. A limited occupation of this settlement continued until the beginning of the Hyksos period.297 Whether these people still had knowledge of the positions of the 12th Dynasty tombs or whether they came across them by accident, while digging their own, remains unanswered. For the disturbed tombs in this cemetery D. Arnold observed that the thieves did not work in haste but had enough time and resources to plunder thoroughly. There is even evidence of systematic looting because the same techniques to access the burial chambers were used on several tombs in Lisht.298 Systematic looting required organisation. Tomb robbery was only possible when the state could no longer protect cemeteries, and the thieves, who knew the terrain well, felt safe from prosecution. Such security was given when either the crown or high officials had prior knowledge of looting activities and received a share of the loot or when the local population felt safe enough to side-step law enforcement. In a dire economic situation, the income from selling stolen goods probably served the local population as a substitute for the loss of state allowances. As mentioned above, graffiti of men with Asiatic hairstyles, discovered in a room opposite the main burial chamber of Senwosret III’s pyramid,299 indicate that this tomb was breached when the pyramid was no longer protected. Do. Arnold suggested that the graffiti was drawn either by Asiatics, who had more freedom in their ways and customs than conventional Egyptian images allowed, or they depict a group of people newly arrived in Egypt and not fully acclimated.300 If the latter is the case, then the period when the graffiti was painted might have been the middle of the 13th Dynasty. This is the same period when new foreign elements are detected, in many aspects of life and death, in Tell el-Dab‘a. In a corridor301 adjacent to the room with the graffiti, a 13th Dynasty jar base302 (re-used as a lamp) was discovered. It was left there either by visitors or tomb robbers. Similar pottery (used during clandestine activities, dating to the second half of the 13th Dynasty303 and the Hyksos period 304 ) was left behind in the tombs of the nobles at Lisht 305 as well as in the pyramid of Amenemhat III in Dahshur.

288

F. A rnold 1996, 19. D. A rnold 2008, 30. 299 De Morgan 1903, figs. 137−140., Do. A rnold 2010, 200−206, figs. 3−5. 300 Do. A rnold 2010, 204. 301 Do. A rnold 2010, 204. 302 Do. A rnold et al. 1995, fig. 4.15. For this type see: Schiestl and Seiler 2012, 536−537, type II.E.1.a.3. 303 Do. A rnold 1982, fig. 12. 304 D. A rnold 2008, 13. 305 D. A rnold 1992, 21, fig. 4. 297 298

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

Early in the second half of the 13th Dynasty, the rulers of the 14th Dynasty began to exploit the region by transporting statues of the kings of the 12th and early 13th Dynasties to Avaris, a practice attested for the first time under king Nehesi.306

3.3 Abydos

The re-use of burial equipment from the late Middle Kingdom in Second Intermediate Period contexts is also attested in southern Egypt and Nubia. In Abydos, the Penn State University expedition excavated the tombs of two ‘Abydos Dynasty’ kings, which J. Wegner dated to the early−mid 15th and the Theban 16th Dynasties.307 One of these tombs belonged to the recently discovered king Woseribre Senebkay, whose tomb chamber was constructed of limestone blocks originating from the mortuary chapels of high-ranking mid-to-late 13th Dynasty families. Another tomb, CS 6 was constructed using a quartzite sarcophagus chamber that, according to Wegner, was possibly originally intended for the burial of King Sahathor of the mid-13th Dynasty, but was never completed.308 Whereas, the nearby tomb S10 originally belonged possibly to his brother Sobekhotep IV. The cedarwood planks of his coffin 309 were reused as a canopic chest inside the burial chamber of King Senebkay. Tomb S9, next to tomb S10, is of similar architecture and was also completely robbed. Based on the archaeology, the excavators think that this might have been the burial place of Sobekhotep’s predecessor King Neferhotep I,310 for whom a connection to the Northern Levant is proven by an inscription found at Byblos which mentions him together with a local ruler.311 J. Wegner and K. Cahail link the phenomenon of extensive tomb robbing with the economic problems at the end of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period at Abydos. Mounting evidence hints at the systematic plundering of these tombs at the latest during the late 13th to early 15th Dynasties.312. Such an undertaking did not go unnoticed and thus must have had the support of local authorities.313 Restricted access to raw materials might have been another reason for the plundering. It seems the quarries of the north and Nubia, where many of the raw stone materials originated, were no longer accessible to the rulers of the Theban and Abydos areas. The logistics underpinning mining expeditions Sourouzian 2006, 341−344. Wegner and Cahail 2015, 128. 308 Wegner 2020. 309 Sobekhotep IV is the last king of the 13th Dynasty of whom we have evidence that he had cedar wood shipped from Byblos to Egypt (see above 2.4.1). 310 Wegner and Cahail 2015, 161. 311 Dunand 1939, 197−198; see also: Kopetzky 2016, 144. 312 Wegner 2020, 1672. 313 Wegner and Cahail 2015, 162−163; see also A hrens 2016. 306

307

291

were based, for centuries, on a well-established administration system, which no longer existed. The same holds true for the acquisition of cedarwood, a highly valued material for burial equipment.314 If Senebkay, as Wegner has suggested, reigned during the early to middle Hyksos period,315 the purchase of cedarwood would have been nearly impossible, due to the political situation. It appears that during that period trade with the Hyksos, along the Nile valley, came to a halt.316 There is however evidence for low level trade, along the oases tracks, carried out by people that belonged either to the Pan-grave culture or were related to them.317 The nature of this trade seems to have been restricted to smaller, more manageable commodities. It is unlikely that large and bulky goods like cedar logs were transported via these tracks.

314 315 316 317

Most likely for its insect-resistant qualities and the ability to cut it into long and thick planks. Wegner 2018, 304. See: Kopetzky 2010, 148, 275, fig. 43. In L81 at Tell el-Dab‘a several sherds of Pan-grave, and possible desert tribes, pottery was discovered (for L81, see below, 4), while Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglets dating to the 15th dynasty appeared in small numbers in Upper Egyptian cemeteries that had a strong Pan-Grave and Nubian presence. See: Aston and Bietak 2011, 206, 231, 257, 265). Only two juglets from Rifeh Cemetery S (Petrie 1907, 20−21, pl. XXVI.92, 94), two pieces from Mostagedda (Brunton 1937, pl. LXXII.59, 60; Aston and Bietak 2011, 265), one juglet from Abydos (R andallMacIver and Mace 1902, pl. LIV.13; Aston and Bietak 2011, 231), and the three examples from Hu (Petrie 1901, pl. XXXVI.186−188; Aston and Bietak 2011, 206, 231) came from contemporary contexts. Rifeh Cemetery S dates according to Bourriau (1999, 43−48) to the 13th or 15th Dynasties and after de Souza (2016, 52) later in the Second Intermediate Period proper. He places Mostagedda Cemetery 3100 in the period between the mid Second Intermediate Period to the end of the 17th dynasty (de Souza 2016, 52). The Abydos piece was found in Cemetery D in the plundered tomb 21 together with late Second Intermediate Period material (R andall-MacIver and Mace 1902, 98, pl. LIV.1−18) and the examples from Hu come from tombs Y204, Y207, Y300 in cemetery Y and date according to Bourriau (2009, 72, 76) to the Second Intermediate Period. De Souza (2016, 55) puts this cemetery in the later stages of the Second Intermediate Period, and possibly into the early 18th dynasty. While the example from Koptos (K aplan 1980, fig. 53d, Boston MFA 47.1665) comes, probably, from a small and unpublished excavation done by Dunham in 1923 (Reisner 1925, 18), the piece from Edfu (K aplan 1980, fig. 17e, Medelhavsmuseet Stockholm E.979) was purchased on the art market. One piece from Abydos (Garstang 1901, pl. XVII tomb E10) was found in an 18th dynasty context and the origin of a piece from Deir el-Ballas (K aplan 1980, fig. 4c, Philadelphia E. 1042) is, according to the museum’s website, uncertain https://www. penn.museum/collections/object/25856.

292

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

Fig. 20 Box of the royal steward Kemeni made of cedar wood, ebony and ivory from Tomb CC 25 in Thebes, Edward S. Harkness gift 1926 (MMA 26.7.1438, photo with the courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art)

3.4 Thebes

The differentiation between heirlooms and looted objects, inside Egypt, is a difficult one. It should be considered only in very rare cases where the archaeological circumstances might allow such a conclusion. One such object is a wooden box found in a collective tomb at Deir el-Bahari. Under the court of the temple of Hatshepsut, a series of late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate period shaft tombs were excavated by George Herbert, the 5th Earl of Carnarvon and Howard Carter, amongst which was tomb CC 25.318 The entrance to CC 25 was through a vertical, rectangular shaft cut into the local rock. At its base, a northern and a southern side chamber were carved out. The latter gave access to a sloping passage at the end of which another smaller chamber was found.319 The remains of several burials were discovered inside the tomb, amongst them the coffin of a man named Renseneb. His coffin appeared to have been dragged out of its original resting place by looters but had not been opened. Underneath Renseneb’s coffin, fragments of a wooden chest were found (Fig. 20), which fit parts discovered at the entrance to the southern chamber. According to the inscription on the chest, it belonged to a royal steward, of King Amenemhat IV, called Kemeni. A drawer, 318 319

Carnarvon and Carter 1912, 55f, pl. XLIX. For a plan of this tomb see: Lilyquist 2020, Carter Tombs, ‘Carnarvon 62 in context’, fig. 18.

found inside the chest, had eight round cut-outs for cosmetic jars. Four such jars, made of alabaster, were collected from the shaft, where they were found lying next to the fragments of the chest. Additionally, three cosmetic jar lids were found in the entrance area of the southern chamber. Carter also mentioned fragments of three more vessels of this type. Above the drawer, in a second compartment of the chest, is a scooped out area for a mirror, and into which a mirror, found inside Renseneb’s coffin, fits perfectly. The mirror was found next to the chest area of Renseneb’s mummy inscribed with the name of its owner. Renseneb’s coffin was inscribed with mutilated hieroglyphs. This writing style appeared, according to Miniaci, late in the 12th Dynasty, in the north of Egypt, and vanished around the mid-13th Dynasty. Whereas in the south of Egypt it appeared only after the middle of the 13th Dynasty and ceased to be in use by the late 17th Dynasty.320 The pottery left behind by the looters supports a similar date for the use of this tomb during the late 13th and possibly until the late 17th/early 18th Dynasties.321 As mentioned above, Renseneb was not the original owner of the chest, but a man named Kemeni, a member of the royal court who appears to have received it as part of his burial equipment from King Amenemhat IV. The chest is dedicated to Sobek of Hn . t, who was worshipped in the Fayyum, an area of special interest to the rulers of the late 12th Dynasty. Here, Amenemhat III built his pyramid in Hawara and the pyramid in Mazghruna is attributed to his successor Amenemhat IV. It is, therefore, likely that Kemeni was also buried in the Fayum region. Boxes, containing similar vessels, were discovered in the tombs of the royal princesses at Dahshur. This time, however, the inscriptions on the lids of the cosmetic jars showed that they contained the ‘seven sacred oils.’322 These oils appear to be connected to mummification and the ‘opening of the mouth’ rituals. It is possible that Kemeni’s chest was looted from his tomb and traded to the south of Egypt, where it was acquired by Renseneb and adapted for his needs. It cannot be excluded that the upper compartment of the chest was either altered or added to fit Renseneb’s mirror323 or that the mirror was specifically designed to fit into the scooped out area.

3.5 Elkab

Evidence that the Egyptians were not the only ones plundering the tombs of the Middle Kingdom in Upper Egypt comes from an inscription in the tomb of Sobeknakht II, a 17th Dynasty governor of Miniaci 2010, 116, 120, 130. For the dating of this tomb see: Kopetzky 2020, 51−52. 322 De Morgan 1885, fig. 258; 1903, figs. 108, 125 and 110. 323 Unfortunately, the wood of the upper compartment was not well preserved and only the part with the cut-out for the mirror was saved. 320 321

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

ancient Nekheb.324 His tomb in Elkab (no. 10) has an inscription, on the right wall of the central doorway, describing an attack by the Kingdom of Kush and its allies against the city of Nekheb. Sobeknakht defended the city and launched a successful counter attack. Skirmishes between Egypt and Kerma lasted until Thutmosis I destroyed the Kingdom of Kerma. In tumulus K III (which belonged to one of the last rulers of Kerma), imported statues were discovered of Djefaihapi (see also above 2.4.2), a nomarch of Asyut, and his wife Sennuwy, dating to the early Middle Kingdom (see below, 4.2). It appears that during their military attacks the people of Kerma may have also ransacked the tombs of Middle Kingdom dignitaries in the Elkab region.

4. Case Studies: Nubia

It is known from texts that during the Second Intermediate period the rulers of Kerma were in contact with the Hyksos in the north via the Oases route.325 The appearance of Kerma pottery in Hyksos contexts in Tell el-Dab‘a and of Tell el-Yahudiyeh wares in Kerma might also be an indicator of contact. So far, the oldest piece of identifiable Nubian pottery found at Tell el-Dab‘a is a Kerma beaker that comes from the burnt collapse of a large pre-Hyksos building in area F/II (Phase E/3−E/2).326 Another piece of evidence for Nubian material was found in a large courtyard of a palace, constructed over this destroyed building. In court B, in the south-west of this large Hyksos period complex, a system of pits was discovered (L81),327 containing Pan-grave material and fragments which might come from various groups living in Nubia. So far, no Kerma beakers have been found in this locus.328 Around the middle of the 13th Dynasty Tell elYahudiyeh juglets started to appear in Lower Nubia and Kerma. The oldest pieces belong to the group piriform 1b329 and come from block VIII room 26 in Davies 2003, 5−6. The second Kamose stela describes a messenger caught in one of the oases carrying a letter from Apophis to the ruler of Kush. For the text see: H abachi 1972. See also: Colin 2005. 326 Aston and Bietak 2017, 497, fig. 13A.9584B. 327 Aston and Bietak 2017, 500. This pit system (L81) covers an area of more than 100 sq.m. and has a depth of about 2 m. Several pits cut into each other, a fact that was impossible to see in the upper layers, and only became visible towards the bottom of this locus. Thus, it is no surprise that sherds from pits near the bottom of L81 fitted to sherds from the upper layers, from which they were moved during the digging of later pits, thus mixing older material with younger. 328 Aston and Bietak 2017, figs. 13B−15. 329 This grouping is based on K aplan 1980, 60−66; Bietak 1989; Aston and Bietak 2011, 51. Piriform 1b juglets have three horizontal zones of decoration, while piriform 1c juglets have only two zones. 324 325

293

Uronarti.330 Another juglet of this type was found in a burial in Buhen.331 At Tell el-Dab‘a all juglets of this type were imported to the site from the Levant. Chronologically following this type are juglets of the type piriform 1c. Examples with an inverted rim are typical for Phases E/3332 and E/2333 at Tell el-Dab‘a. They appear at Elephantine,334 Mirgissa,335 Askut,336 Uronarti,337 Ukma 338 and Kerma.339 The next generation of Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglets are group piriform 2a with three vertical incised lozenges and a strap handle. At Tell el-Dab‘a they appear in the transition from Phase E/2 to E/1340 to Phase D/2341 and thus cover the complete Hyksos period. In Nubia they are less common and appear only at Aniba,342 Buhen 343 and Kerma.344 Interestingly, one such juglet was discovered in the Bahariya Oasis,345 where according to Kamose’s second stela a message from Apophis to the Kushites was intercepted by the Egyptians. However, this juglet and some sherds, dating to the Second Intermediate Period and early 18th Dynasty, were found in a collective tomb of the Dunham 1967, 61, 101, fig. 1.28−11−352. The juglet to the right seems to have its decoration incised not with a comb, but a single pointed tool, a technique that appears in Tell el-Dab‘a only on juglets of Phases G/4 and G/1−3, see: Aston and Bietak 2012, pls. 1.3, 3.14, 4.15, 5.21, 8.33, 34. The combination of technique, vessel shape and decoration dates this juglet to the end of the first half of the 13th Dynasty, at the end of MB I (=MB IIA) period. The other juglet from this context appears to have its decoration impressed with a comb. Similar pieces found in Tell el-Dab‘a come from the Phases F and E/3, see: Aston and Bietak 2011, pls. 6.27, 7.28, 29. 331 R andall-M acIver and Woolley 1911, pl. 49.10765. 332 Kopetzky 1993, figs. 79.1, 2 – Phase E/3; Aston and Bietak 2011, pls. 10.41, 42. 333 Aston and Bietak 2011, pl. 9.38. The date of this piece needs to be corrected to Phase E/2, since this piece was found inside jar burial F/I-j/22, no. 2, which was sunk into the ground next to a wall of Phase E/2, for the correct dating see: Kopetzky 1993, 170−171, fig. 86.2 – Phase early E/2. Bietak 1991, fig. 80-3 – Ph. E/2. 334 Von Pilgrim 1996, fig. 162/e−t. It should be noted here that the Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglets found in Elephantine, although made of Nile clay, were not produced in Tell el-Dab‘a. The fabric is mixed and fired differently to anything the author has seen in Tell el-Dab‘a. 335 Vercoutter 1975, fig. 11.4; for the correct drawing see: K aplan 1980, fig. 32b. 336 Smith 1991, fig. 3, bottom right. 337 Dunham 1967, fig. 1.28−11−470. 338 Vila 1987, figs. 90.1; 120; They seemed to be the same as depicted in: K aplan 1980, fig. 31b, a. 339 R eisner 1923b, figs. 264.23, 25. 340 Bietak 1991, figs. 120.9−13, 121.1, 123.2. 341 Bietak 1991, fig. 269.2. 342 Steindorff 1937, pl. 86.45b, second from right; H elmbold and Seiler 2019, 389, VII.A.1.1. 343 R andall-M acIver and Woolley 1911, pl. 92.10876; K noblauch 2007, fig. 2.76C. 344 R eisner 1923b, fig. 264.24. 345 Colin 2005, fig. 1; Vilain 2019, 399. 330

294

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

Third Intermediate/Late Period.346 Additionally, the occurrence of Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglets in Upper Egypt during the Hyksos period is very scarce (see above 3.3).347 The second interesting group which might show contact, between the north-eastern Delta region and Nubia, are Hyksos and pre-Hyksos seals and seal impressions found at various sites in Nubia.348 Interestingly, only a few Hyksos kings – Sechanre in Aniba,349 Maaibre Seshi in Dakka,350 Sayala,351 Aniba,352 Masmas,353 Faras,354 Mirgissa,355 Uronati,356

Colin 2005, 44. The excavator thinks that this collective tomb was an older tomb re-used in the Third Intermediate or Late Period. 347 See: Aston and Bietak 2011, figs. 140, 141, 162, 186, 187, 199. Most of these juglets are either of disturbed or later contexts or from the antiquities market. Only one piece comes from a Pan-grave tomb in Mostagedda. Tomb no. 3146 seemed to have been intact, see: Brunton 1937, 117, pl. LXXII.60. 348 Mourad 2017. 349 Steindorff 1937, pl. 54.2. The piece comes from tomb SA 10 which dates to the 18th Dynasty. 350 Firth 1915, 158, pl. 41.1. It comes from cemetery 108 grave 41 or 44. The burial was disturbed. Aside from two vessels only two other scarabs remained of its contents: the one on pl. 41.88 dates according to Mlinar 2001, 140, predominantly into the 13th Dynasty and the first part of the Hyksos period, the other pl. 41.58 belongs, according to Ben-Tor 1997, 179, to the 15th Dynasty. 351 Firth 1927, 216, pl. 36.230. The scarab comes from cemetery 142, grave 11, burial A. It is the only object left in this grave. The tomb was plundered in modern times. 352 A bou Bakr 193, 118, pl. VIA/upper row, third from left. The piece comes from a cemetery that was part of the Egyptian salvage excavations during the early 1960s for the construction of the Aswan dam. 353 Emery and K irwan 1935, 321, pl. 32.76. This scarab comes from cemetery 201 tomb 40. The tomb contained three more scarabs. One being a hardstone scarab, one a Hyksos scarab with a tripartite division and one a faience scarab. Furthermore, it contained three pieces of Nubian pottery: a black-topped bowl and bag-shaped jar, another plain bag-shaped jar and a koḥl pot. 354 Griffith 1924, 171, pl. LXI.7. The scarab was found in tomb 937A, which is a much later burial. 355 Vercoutter 1975, 144, fig. 55.27. This scarab was found amongst the bones of disturbed burial i22 in tomb 114 from cemetery M.X. K noblauch 2018, fig. 10 dates this tomb, which contained 31 individuals, to the Second Intermediate Period. 356 D unham 1967, pl. 14.378. The piece was found in block V room 157 associated with a large number of sealimpressions dating to the 13th Dynasty. Unfortunately, the only pottery vessel associated with this context is a pot stand, see: D unham 1967, sheet L/II,1. In their article of 1999 Ben-Tor et al. argue that this sealing should date to the end of the 13th Dynasty based on the pottery found at the fortress. In her publication Ben-Tor 2010, 95, takes this dating back and sees this sealing as a NK intrusion based on 346

three scarabs, which she dates to the 18th Dynasty, and which were found more than 50 m away in block VIII rooms F 27 and F28 and more than 70 m away in room F50. Most of the pottery material published by Dunham belongs to the 12th and 13th dynasties corpus, with the hemispherical cups (D unham 1967, sheet A type IV/1) having indices between 176 and 134 (11 complete cups). The exception being D unham 1967, 57, no. 29−1−279, with an index of 122. This might be explained either by the vessel being wrongly classified by Dunham or being warped, something that happens quite often with this type of vessel. Based on this cup index, which was developed by A rnold 1982 and Bietak 1984 for the north of Egypt, Ben-Tor et al. 1999, 57, dated these vessels to the later part of the 13th Dynasty. Correctly applying this index would place these cups in the period from the late 12th to the middle of the 13th Dynasty. Based on this cup index, which was developed by A rnold 1982 and Bietak 1984 for the north of Egypt, Ben-Tor et al. 1999, 57, dated these vessels to the later part of the 13th Dynasty. Correctly applying this index would place these cups in the period from the late 12th to the middle of the 13th Dynasty. However, questions have arisen, in the past, as to whether this index should be applied to the south of the country. Bourriau 1997 and Seiler 2005 have shown that at some point during the 13th Dynasty the pottery in Upper Egypt, from where the vessels in Uronarti likely came, developed differently to the material in the north. It seems that the traditional shapes of the early 13th Dynasty were produced for a longer period in the south, see: Seiler 2005, 131. This applies also to beer bottles, of which most were found broken with only two complete examples. One from outside the fortress in the area of the SE corner (D unham 1967, 46/no. 28−12−176) and one found in room 86 block III (D unham 1967, 51/no. 28−12−424). With their maximal diameter around the middle with a turned-out rim, the beer bottles of Uronarti resemble type DAN 2 from Thebes (Seiler 2005, fig. 25) rather than the Tell el-Dab‘a examples quoted by Ben-Tor et al. 1999 and were dated by Seiler 2003, 66, into the second third of the 13th Dynasty. Furthermore, the ovoid jar with a profiled rim (D unham 1967, sheet F type XII/4) is put by Bourriau 2010, 29, fig. 12.7 into her group Qau 1b, which she dates to the end of the 13th Dynasty in the north. The only area in Uronarti, from where Dunham has published a vessel which might date to the SIP/NK, is block III where in room F 143 a drop pot (D unham 1967, 57/no. 29−1−287 sheet G type XV/2) was found, which Seiler 2005, 152, pl. 6 places into the 17th Dynasty, while according to Bourriau 1997, fig. 6.16.2 it already appears in the later 13th Dynasty. K noblauch and Bestock 2017, 57, who reexcavated block III, also noted that nearly everything is from the Late Middle Kingdom and it appears that block III does not continue for long into the Second Intermediate Period. Other parts of the site also seem devoid of SIP ceramics. Therefore, Ben-Tor et al. 1999 original date for this sealing, between the end of the 13th Dynasty/beginning of the Hyksos period, seems more likely, although, given the fact that Dunham has published unstratified material from the late 12th to the late 13th Dynasty, a date into the early 14th Dynasty for this sealing, as suggested by Ryholt 1997, tab. 19, cannot be excluded, at least for Uronarti.

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

Debeira,357 Ukma,358 Akasha,359 Sai360 and Kerma,361 ‘Ammu in Semna,362 Yaqbmu in Buhen363 and Yaqubhar in Kerma364 – are represented in this material. Although, the chronological position of these rulers is still a matter of debate,365 a date in the second half of the Hyksos period can be excluded as we have evidence for the succession of the last three rulers of the 15th Dynasty.366 With the exception of Ukma, Masmas and possibly Uronarti, all other sealings were found either in disturbed or much later contexts. As Bourriau has already suggested,367 these sealings could have reached their various destinations in Nubia, via the Nile valley, at a time when this trade route was still open to the Hyksos.

Säve-Söderberg 1989, 109, fig. 39/338/1:1, pl. 45/338/1:1. Unfortunately, the scarab and other Hyksos design scarabs are the only objects left of this disturbed burial. 358 A ndreu 1987, 234, no. 155.3. It comes from tomb 155, which was a single burial which contained, besides the scarab, a black polished globular jar and a Kerma bowl. 359 M aystre 1980, pl. 162−163, fig. 41. The scarab comes from tomb 206, which was disturbed. 360 Gratien 1973, 151−152, fig. 6.6. Tomb SAC 4 tombe 123 was a single burial on a bed, which was disturbed by looters. The burial goods left behind consisted of two classic Kerma beakers, a small handmade jar, one headrest, a pendant and a bead. The tomb dates to the Kerma Classique period. 361 R eisner 1923b, 76, figs. 168.57, 58, 60. With the exception of Yaqubhar, which comes from shaft (Z4), all of the seal impressions, naming Hyksos rulers, were found together with more than 565 seal-impressions in shaft (Z3). Both were constructed inside an annex to the eastern side of the Lower Deffufa (K II), see: R eisner 1923a, 28. This annex was built after a massive fire struck the main part of the Deffufa and shortly before the Defuffa was abandoned after a second fire broke out (Bonnet 2004, 70; 2018, 422). It appears that during this later event these seal impressions were burned (R eisner 1923a, 28). Bonnet connects these fires with hostile forays into the city at the end of the Kerma Classique period. 362 Dunham and Janssen 1960, 20, pl. 120.4. The scarab was found in room XIV and comes, according to Smith 1995, 132−133, from a layer which contained mixed material dating to the Second Intermediate Period and the New Kingdom. 363 R andall-M acIver and Woolley 1911, pl. 57.10083. It comes from chamber A in tomb H68 and was associated with 18th Dynasty material. The tomb was reused in Meroitic times. 364 R eisner 1923b, fig. 168.56. This impression comes from shaft Z4. 365 Ryholt 1997, tabs. 19, 20, dates these rulers to the beginning of the 14th Dynasty, whereas A llen 2010, 2, supports a date early in the 14th Dynasty for Maaibre Sheshi and another, late in this Dynasty for Yaqubher, whereas Ben-Tor et al. 1999, puts these rulers in the 15th Dynasty. 366 A llen 2010, 9. 367 Bourriau 1991b, 130. 357

295

There are indications at Tell el-Dab‘a that trade with Upper Egypt stopped during the later Hyksos period,368 which would explain why scarabs or seal impressions of the later rulers, of whom we have textual evidence for contact with Kerma, are not represented in Nubia. However, most of these sites also yielded typical deepcut Hyksos scarabs, many of which were found in 18th Dynasty contexts369 with only a handful coming from Second Intermediate Period contexts. Unfortunately, it is currently not possible to determine whether these reached Nubia in the earlier or the later part of the Hyksos period. The fact that sealings, predominantly from earlier Hyksos rulers, were found in Nubia could be seen as an attempt by these rulers to establish direct trade relations with local Nubian rulers. It seems this was achieved only after Egypt stopped supplying the fortresses along the Nile, and consequently lost control over the region by the end of the Middle Kingdom.370 As a result, the political constellations in the region shifted, with the Kingdom of Kerma increasing its power and influence in the region. Cut off from the resources they needed for their trade with the Levant, the Hyksos seized the opportunity for direct contact, which they probably thought guaranteed continued access to resources and particularly to the Nubian gold essential for trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Levantine trade had dropped by half in the years between the end of the Middle Kingdom and the beginning of the Second Intermediate Period. In the absence of adequate trading goods, it is possible that one or other of the looted objects from the tombs in the north found their way to Nubia, as might have been the case with the following artefact found in a tomb at Buhen.

4.1 Buhen

Spread along a low rock face, the rock-cut tombs of Cemetery K are located outside the wall of the fortress of Buhen, but on the interior of the outer fortifications. Tomb K45 is located in the southern part of the cemetery. A stepped dromos leads from the surface into the rock to a central rectangular room from which six burial chambers branch off.371 The tomb was plundered in antiquity before the ceiling of central chamber G collapsed. Chamber E, in the northern corner of tomb K45, contained at least two burials. One burial was a child, deposited in the south-western corner of the chamber, with its head to the west. However, only a few remains of the second burial were found in the second half of the chamber.

Kopetzky 2010, 148, tab. 48. This phenomenon is also known from Tell el-Dab‘a, see: Bietak 2004. 370 Mourad 2017. 371 R andall-M acIver and Woolley 1911, 215−216. 368 369

296

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

Fig. 21 Koḥl pot made of obsidian and gold from tomb K 45 in Buhen (photo courtesy of the Penn Museum, object E 10897) Associated with the child burial was an open bowl with a straight or slightly flaring rim and a round base. It has horizontal impressions of string on the outside and a painted white cross on the inside.372 Such bowls are well known in Egypt. Often made from Nile C fabric, they emerged in the Middle Kingdom and lasted until the Second Intermediate Period.373 However, according to Bourriau the white painted decoration appeared in Middle and Upper Egypt only from the 13th to the 18th Dynasties.374 Ch. Knoblauch dated the beginning of this custom as roughly contemporary with the 15th and 17th Dynasties in Buhen, based on its appearance in his Phase II.375 Beside the bowl, a globular black burnished juglet with a rolled rim, and what looks like a strap handle, was found next to the deceased, associated with two Nile clay bowls. Such juglets appear in Tell el-Dab‘a in Phases E/1376 and D/3.377 A pair of clappers was also found in the northwestern corner of the chamber, and another single clapper lay in the centre of the room. A small bowl and a small alabaster vase, with a flat base and everted rim, were found with the single clapper. In the north-east corner of the chamber a group of interesting small finds were also discovered, which might have been part of the second, probably older burial. It appears that these objects were deposited

R andall-M acIver and Woolley 1911, pl. 93/Type II; K noblauch 2007, 195. 373 Schiestl and Seiler 2012, 140−146. 374 Bourriau 2010, 32. 375 K noblauch 2007, 235, 265. 376 Bietak 1991, fig. 201.27. 377 Forstner-Müller 2008, fig. 245b.24. 372

in boxes in the corner, and were still in situ.378 This group consists of: the disk of a bronze mirror, a small marble vase in the shape of a trussed duck, a plain copper bowl, a broken silver torque in the shape of a coiled snake with two heads at each end, and four pots. Found beneath the copper bowl were the remains of a decayed wood and ivory casket, containing two kohl pots with their hematite applicator sticks. One kohl pot is made of calcite and the other of obsidian and gold (Fig. 21).379 The latter has a piriform body shape, a base that is almost as wide as its neck and an everted angular rim. Its lid and rim are edged with a sheet of gold, and highly polished like the pot itself. Obsidian kohl pots of this quality are rare.380 One squat example comes from the above-mentioned tomb of Sit-Hathor-Iunet in Illahun,381 where it was found in a wooden box together with cosmetic jars of the same material (see above). In between this group of objects, the excavators found beads of gold and semi-precious stones, small amulets and scarabs all part of various necklaces.382 Knoblauch observed that the necklaces are identical to ones from tombs K 8 and K 32, which he dated to Phase I, which ended sometime after king Neferhotep I, in the mid to late 13th Dynasty,383 thus providing a link between Phases I and II. Knoblauch dated tomb K 45 to Phase II.384 This younger Phase II falls in the second quarter of the 13th and 15th Dynasties, based on parallels with Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglets found in this and other tombs in the cemetery.385 This dating is supported by the oldest juglet found inside this tomb. It was discovered at the feet of the most western, and possibly first, of the three burials inside chamber A.386 This red burnished juglet has a piriform body shape, a flattened folded rim and a button base but is unfortunately missing its handle. In Tell el-Dab‘a this kind of juglet usually has a double handle and dates to Phase E/3,387 which is a generation before the start of the Hyksos period.

Knoblauch 2007, 287 observed that these adornments are found mostly near the head or the feet. If these objects were originally deposited somewhere else, they must have been moved shortly after the burial took place, since the little wooden casket and its contents were found together. 379 R andall-M acIver and Woolley 1911, pl. 92.10897. 380 It seems that stone vessels of this material and this quality come predominantly from royal burials of the 12th Dynasty. Although obsidian objects were found also in 13th Dynasty contexts, they did no longer achieve this quality of workmanship. See for example the obsidian vessel of Merneferre Aya in the Metropolitan Museum (MMA 66.99.17). 381 Brunton 1920, pl. IX. See also: Winlock 1934, pl. XVI. 382 R andall-M acIver and Woolley 1911, 237, 10898A−C. 383 K noblauch 2007, 191, 262. 384 K noblauch 2007, 213. 385 K noblauch 2007, 262. 386 R andall-M acIver and Woolley 1911, pl. 92.10871. 387 Kopetzky 1993, tomb F/I-i/23, no. 32, fig. 79.6. 378

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

4.2 Kerma

In the royal tumuli K X, K XVI, K IV and K III complete and fragmentary Egyptian statues of Middle Kingdom kings and dignitaries were discovered by A. Reisner’s excavation at Kerma.388 He interpreted these tombs as belonging to exiled Egyptians. Since then the picture has changed. The large round tumuli are now regarded as the burial mounds of the late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period rulers of Kerma. These rulers were buried in the socalled ‘Eastern cemetery’ of Kerma, in large round tumuli with their main burial chamber in the centre of the mound. Sacrificial human burials were also discovered in all four tombs. For her PhD, E. Minor investigated the Egyptian and Egyptianised objects in these tombs.389 In her analyses she followed a sequence for these tombs which P. Lacovara390 and D. Valbelle391 had established, with the oldest being tumulus K XVI followed by K X, K IV and K III. K XVI had two additional chambers next to the main burial chamber, where according to Reisner about one hundred bodies were buried.392 In tumulus K X, which according to Minor belonged to the next generation of kings and dignitaries,393 a massive L-shaped wall divided an E−W running corridor. Cutting into this structure at the southern end and attached to the southern corridor wall was the main burial chamber. Here the corridor was filled with about 400 sacrificial burials. In the two youngest tumuli, K IV and K III, the corridors ran unhindered from east to west thereby cutting the tumuli in half. In K IV the main burial chamber appeared as a recess in the middle of the southern corridor wall. While in K III the main chamber was developed into a tworoom complex with an antechamber leading into the actual burial chamber. Again, both corridors were filled with up to 120 bodies. In all four cases, fragmented Egyptian statues were found either in the main burial chamber or nearby in the corridors. Some of the fragments were discovered in the debris of the tumuli, but they might have been redeposited there after the tombs were disturbed. Most of these statues were broken and incomplete, and many exposed to fire. Valbelle394 and Minor395 suggested that the statues, found in each tomb, reflected the time period they might have been brought to Kerma. A large calcite basin was found in K XVI. Carved into it are the remains of a well preserved cartouche containing the signs s and possible m s at the end of a

R eisner 1923a and b. See: Minor 2012. 390 Lacovara 1987. 391 Valbelle 2004, 179. 392 R eisner 1923a, 81, Table A. 393 M inor 2012, 57. 394 Valbelle 2004, 180−181. 395 M inor 2012, 55−67. 388 389

297

king’s name.396 This seems to fit, according to Minor, to a little known king _d w -ms I as the original owner of the basin. Although Allen could not place him in the Turin King-list,397 he appears to belong to either Dynasty 13 or 16. Minor suggested that he should be identified with a ruler found in a damaged section of the Turin King-list who belonged to the second part of the 13th dynasty.398 On the other hand Wegner puts this king in the 16th Dynasty.399 A royal statue made of wood was also found inside this tomb,400 which Minor dated, based on stylistic features, to the period between Hor I and Sobekhotep IV (middle of the 13th Dynasty) and Sobekemsaf I (16th Dynasty). Chronologically, the next tumulus is K X, where a large number of Egyptian statues were discovered, amongst them several fragments of royal statues from the 12th and 13th Dynasties401 with king Sobekhotep VI Khahotepra being the last.402 In the Turin King-list he is mentioned a little before Merneferre Aya, and dates to the middle of the 13th Dynasty.403 Minor regarded the large number of statues in this tumulus as a hint pointing to an increase in the number of campaigns Kerma launched against Upper Egypt. Many of the statues, found in this tomb, appear to have come from the region of Aswan. For the two falcon statue fragments found in this tomb, Minor suggested an origin from the temple of Horus at Buhen or Nekhen, which she said might be connected to the raid described in the tomb of Sobeknakht II at Elkab.404 Minor also believed, based on stylistic reasons, that private statues from the late 12th and 13th Dynasties, found in tumulus K IV, might have come from the sanctuary of Hekaib in Elephantine.405 It is in the latest of these tumuli, K III, from which the largest number of statues and fragments of statues were retrieved. It is amongst this horde that the famous early 12th Dynasty statues of the governor of Asyut, Djefaihapi,406 and his wife Sennuwy,407 were found. Most of the other 12th and 13th Dynasties statues of Egyptian officials found in K III seem to have come from Elephantine due to their stylistic similarities with statues excavated at the sanctuary of Heqaib.408 Based on these similarities, Minor also suggested that the lifesize statues of Djefaihapi and his wife were originally R eisner 1923a, 391. A llen 2010, 10. 398 M inor 2012, 55. Bennett 2002, 128 dates this king after Sobekhotep VII Menkaure, in the second half of the 13th Dynasty. 399 Wegner 2018, 300. 400 R eisner 1923a, 391, pl. 33.1−3. 401 There is a possible head of Amenemhat I and a base of Sekhemra-khutawy Sobekhotep II. 402 R eisner 1923a, 277. 403 A llen 2010, tab.1. 404 M inor 2012, 59. 405 M inor 2012, 61. 406 R eisner 1923a, 34. 407 R eisner 1923b, 34, pl. 31. 408 M inor 2012, 63. 396

397

298

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

installed in the Heqaib sanctuary. Furthermore, she observed that other inscribed objects, from the region between Elkab and Asyut, were found in Kerma.409 She is, therefore, of the opinion that the raids never reached Thebes but went only as far north as Hierakonpolis. This theory is supported by the discovery of three stone vessel fragments belonging to officials from Elkab. They come from the debris of the tumulus and from two subsidiary burials which cut into this large tumulus. One of the vessels mentions governor Iymeru, the grandfather of Sobeknakht II (see above 3.5).410 Another vessel belonged to Sobeknakht, governor of Elkab. He could have been one of three Sobeknakhts who succeeded each other in office, in their service to the kings of the 16th Dynasty. The eldest would have been Sobeknakht I, who was appointed governor in the first regnal year of King Nebiraw I.411 He was followed by his son Sobeknakht II and then his grandson Sobeknakht III. Bourriau dated the pottery material from this tomb to just before the 18th Dynasty.412 With regard to the chronological sequence of these four tumuli, swapping K XVI with K X must be considered, based on some of the pottery and sealings found inside. The appearance of three Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglets of the type piriform 1c in three subsidiary burials, of more or less the same period, which cut into K X (K1042, K1045, K 1084)413 speaks against all three juglets being heirlooms. Due to its fragility, only in very rare cases can pottery be identified as an heirloom. As mentioned above, in Tell el-Dabʻa these juglets appear in Phases E/3 and E/2, with the latter heralding the Hyksos period. Furthermore, on the floor of the western part of the central corridor of tumulus K X between the burial chamber and the northern corridor wall, Reisner discovered a mud sealing, which once sealed the double doors to the main burial chamber. The reverse of the sealing still had the imprint of the locking mechanism as well as of the wood and the gap between the two leaves of the door. The front of this sealing was stamped ten times with a deepcut scarab depicting a standing falcon-headed figure

409

410

411 412 413

Minor 2012, 70−71, she underlines that the sanctuary of Hekaib was already in use from the early 12th Dynasty onwards. R eisner 1923b, 59, fig. 160.2. Davis 2010, 235, Iymeru followed Aya as governor of Elkab. The latter was installed in his office in the first regnal year of king Merhotepra Ini, who, according to Ryholt (2007, 408, tab. 94) and A llen (2010, 7, tab. 1), was the direct successor of Mernerferre Aya, the last ruler who reigned over Upper and Lower Egypt. Davies 2010, 225. Bourriau 2010, 35. R eisner 1923b, figs. 264.23, 25.

over a nb-sign opposite two cobras.414 Such scarabs with deep-cut sealings are only known from the Hyksos period.415 The only period in which these Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglets and the seal impressions from the corridor can appear at the same time is at the very beginning of the Hyksos period in Phase E/2 at Tell el-Dabʻa. Their contemporary occurrences imply that scarcely any time had passed between the burial in the main chamber of the tumulus and the subsidiary burials cutting into it. The chronologically younger Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglet type 2b, however, was found in K XVI, where two other examples were discovered during the excavation.416 One was found in the upper debris of K XVI and might have come, according to Reisner, from one of the three main chambers of the tumulus or from one of the subsidiary burials.417 The other one was found in the SW corner of chamber C as part of the burial goods found next to one of the sacrificial burials (body H).418 This smaller type with a more prominent shoulder, a small ring-base, a strap handle and three vertical incised lozenges419 appears in Tell el-Dabʻa from Phases E/1420 till D/2. By swapping the sequence of the tumuli of Kerma, with K X being older than K XVI, it becomes chronologically impossible for the ruler buried in K X to be connected to the raid in the Elkab area mentioned in the tomb of Sobeknakht II. The absence of names of later Hyksos kings in Nubia, and of Kerma ware in Tell el-Dab‘a combined with the rare appearance of late Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglets in Upper Egypt and Nubia, supports the observation that a trading blockade existed between Tell el-Dabʻa and the southern parts of Egypt during the second phase of the 15th Dynasty. The finds of one Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglet in Bahariya and of one flask from the oases421 in Tell el-Dabʻa can be seen as an attempt by the Hyksos to bypass the Thebans for continued access to the muchsought after, and for the people of Avaris probably much-needed products and raw materials of Nubia. For the time being, however, there is no evidence that the route over the oasis was used by the predecessors of the Hyksos during the late 13th Dynasty. This scarce archaeological evidence does not support a substantial trade between Kerma and the Hyksos in the latter part of the 15th Dynasty. R eisner 1923a, 274−275. A scarab with an identical motif was discovered in the subsidiary tomb K 311 belonging to K III. A nearly identical motif was also found in Tell el-Dab‘a tomb A/II-k/11, no. 1, see Bietak 1991, 246, fig. 211.1; Mlinar 2001, vol. 2, 413−419. 415 Ben-Tor 2007b, 174, pl. 103.27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36. 416 R eisner 1923b, fig. 264.24. 417 R eisner 1923a, 399, +xv; 14−1−1260. 418 R eisner 1923a, 396, no. 8, 14−2−1410. See for the drawing: K aplan 1980, fig. 55b. 419 For a photo see: M inor 2012, fig. 5.21b, upper right; for a drawing see: R eisner 1923b, 383, fig. 264.24.. 420 Bietak 1991, figs. 142.18; 173.2, 3. 421 Aston, Bader and Kunst 2009, fig. 10.87. 414

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

In terms of older Egyptian objects found in Nubian contexts, during the second part of the 13th and the following 16th and 17th Dynasties, it is important to look closely at the find situations surrounding each of these objects. There are at least two ways the objects might have reached Nubia, the first is through looting and the second as spoils-of-war. While the kohl pot, from Buhen, appears to have been robbed from a Middle Kingdom tomb and then traded to Nubia, the statues found in the tombs at Kerma should be regarded as spoils of war, and not as part of the organised and systematic looting, which took place in the Theban region and in Lower Egypt after the demise of the Middle Kingdom. Nonetheless, they are one more sign of the uncertainties which reigned in Egypt in that period.

5. Summary

The start of the 13th dynasty was witness to the slow and subtle process of political and economic decline of the Middle Kingdom. Archaeological evidence, found in the pyramid towns of Lisht and Dahshur, shows that the deteriorating administration forced citizens to reorganise their social structures by failing to provide them with enough supplies, and by shifting state responsibility for their livelihood on to them. The inhabitants of these towns, mainly priests and their families, were now obliged to look for new sources of income. One way to compensate for these failing was by robbing the very tombs for whose protection their forefathers had been responsible. What probably started as small cloakand-dagger activities appear to have grown, by the middle of the 13th dynasty, to systematic and wellorganised operations, which must have had the backing of local authorities. Even though a king still occupied the residence at Itj-tawj,422 he no longer had the political power to protect cemeteries. Clearly, the economic situation was desperate enough that people did not balk from breaking common social and religious taboos like desecrating the tombs of the once powerful and wealthy, some of whom might have been their own ancestors. A network of looters, dealers and customers was established; one in which the people of Avaris were heavily involved. It is impossible to say if the Asiatic looking foreigners depicted in graffiti on the walls of the pyramid of Senwosret III were directly connected to the plunder taking place in the Memphite/Fayyum area or whether they were only functioning as intermediaries trading in stolen goods along the Nile valley to the south and via the Nile delta to the Levantine coast in the north. It becomes clear, however, from stolen statues found at Tanis and looted objects found at Avaris, that the pyramids and tombs of the nobles and

422

H ayes 1947, 4.

299

the temples of the Memphite/Fayyum region all fell victim to the crave of the 14th and 15th dynasties for decorating their temples with these objects. Further evidence that the people of Avaris were involved in the trade of looted goods, comes from the city itself, where partially reworked objects from the 12th and early 13th dynasties were discovered in layers dating to the MB II (=MB IIB) period. Triggered by a lack of exchangeable goods, the collapse of the Middle Kingdom had a severe impact on Tell el-Dabʻa leading to a rapid decline in imports from the Eastern Mediterranean and the regions beyond. These goods might have been surplus grain, fish and meat but also Nubian gold, gemstones, ebony and ivory, luxury products as well as manufactured items which were desired commodities in the Levant. During the late Middle Kingdom when the administration, which managed trade in the country was still intact most of these products were brought down the Nile river to Avaris for export. At the beginning of the MB IIA (=MB IIB) period, this inner Egyptian trading system could no longer sustain its prior level of trade with the Near East. Trading in stolen and altered goods, with the Levant and Nubia, might have been one way for the people of Avaris to make up for their losses. Another way seems to have been the attempt by the Hyksos to reach out to the expanding Kerma empire in order to access Nubian gold and luxury goods without Theban interference. In any case, local Levantine rulers craved these looted objects as exemplified by the prestigious items found in the royal tombs of Byblos, Qatna and Ebla. Entry points for these goods might have been through the major ports on the northern Levantine coast such as Sidon and Byblos. It is very possible that in Byblos Egyptian objects were (like in Tell elDabʻa) refashioned according to Levantine taste and then transported to the northern Levantine kingdoms. It is notable that most objects, and to a large extent statues, were of small size thereby facilitating their handling and transport. Interestingly, Durand (1999) postulated that Egyptian objects were referred to as ‘gublayu’, i.e. using the nisba ‘Byblite’ (or ‘from Byblos’), in the cuneiform documents of the Old Babylonian Mari archives. Because Byblos (and perhaps also the city of Ullaza, located further north on the coast) was always the main trading hub and thus the focus of Egyptian contact with the northern Levant.423 Although objects and statues from the Memphis/Fayyum region are predominantly represented in the northern Levant, some examples from Middle and Southern Egypt (e.g. Djefaihapi) might have reached the region via the Red Sea, up the Jordan valley and into the Beqa‘a. Another possible

423

Durand 1999.

300

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

way might have been via the western oases and Tell elDabʻa.424 While it is a moot point to try to put the label ‘dispatched during the Second Intermediate Period’ on every Middle Kingdom statue found in the Levant, it is likely that many statues initially reached the Levant during this period, even though some of these statues were found in contexts dating to later periods. A seal impression, of a Ho3 n Rt n w, from Avaris, hints at a close connection between the town and the city-state of Byblos during this period. The seal impression, imprinted into Nile mud and belonging to a man named Ipy-shemw, was found in the same burnt storeroom which contained the lid of princess Sit-hathor-duat.425 Names similar to his are known from the Byblite royal family in the latter part of the 13th dynasty.426 A ruler named Abi-shemu was most probably buried in Tomb I and his son Ipy-shemu-Abi in Tomb II. Due to the similarity of the name combined with the title, it is possible that the owner of the Tell elDabʻa seal was closely connected to the royal family of Byblos, perhaps even a family member. It seems that after the fall of the Middle Kingdom it became fashionable for the local rulers of the Levant to acquire and collect Egyptian objects or ones with an Egyptian connotation, i.e ‘Egyptianised’ objects. For centuries, Egypt had dominated the political landscape of the Eastern Mediterranean, and its collapse must have left a void, which the rulers of the more powerful Levantine city-states were eager to fill. Therefore, it can be assumed that by surrounding themselves with Egyptian or Egyptianised objects they emphasised their position as Egypt’s legitimate successors in the region. Over long periods of contact and exchange, elements of Egyptian religious belief were integrated into the local traditions of the larger coastal cities (e.g. Byblos and Sidon) thus becoming essential to their own beliefs. In the south of Egypt and in Nubia the situation was slightly different to the one in the north. The appearance of small objects, which might have originated from the cemeteries of the Memphite/ Fayyum area (e.g. Theben CC 25, Buhen K8), seem to be much rarer in tombs of the latter part of the 13th dynasty than in the Levant. Some of the looting in the temples and tombs were not clandestine operations, but must have been organised on behalf of the rulers of the local Dynasty, which was probably the case in Abydos. The transport of large objects required complex logistics, technical equipment and large crews to move them. The rulers of Abydos were Evidence for this route might be ‘Pan-grave related’ pottery that was found at Tell el-Dab‘a, see: Aston and Bietak 2017, figs. 14.a−d, which has its best parallels in material from the Kharga oasis, where it was imported from the Nile valley and locally produced, see: Manassa 2012, fig. 5. See also: Sacco 2019, 378–385 and Polz 2006. 425 Kopetzky and Bietak 2016. 426 Kopetzky 2018. 424

probably driven to plunder the tombs of earlier kings because they had limited access to raw materials and lacked the logistics necessary to acquire them. The statues found in Kerma appear to be spoils of war and seem to originate from the temples and tombs of nobles in the region south of Thebes. To remove and transport them up river to Kerma, manpower and logistics were necessary, both of which were available within the structure of an army. For the rulers of Kerma these statues and artefacts appear to be the visual representations of their triumph over the enemy.427 It is necessary to note that both of these operations (in Abydos and Kerma) occurred one or two generations later than the principal looting phase in the Memphite/Fayyum regions, probably towards the end of the 13th and during the 17th Dynasties. As evidence from Tell el-Dab‘a, the oases, and the appearance of Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware in Upper Egypt and Nubia, shows, the carriers of Pan-Grave and Pan-grave-related cultures were probably the people who shuttled between the Delta, the Nile valley and Nubia, in the Second Intermediate Period,428 carrying manageable objects with them.429 Although only scarabs from pre- and early Hyksos rulers were found in Nubia, the second Kamose stela describes the political connections between Avaris and Kerma in the late 15th Dynasty. The greatest point of commonality between all the looted objects is that more often than not they were refashioned. This was done, perhaps, to disguise the identity of their former owners or to adapt them to the tastes and preferences of their new owners, or both. Not all Egyptian imports, found in the northern Levant, fall into the category of objects looted from tombs in the Second Intermediate Period. Those that do, however, may have reached the Levant via Avaris/ Tell el-Dab‘a. Egyptian pottery found in MB II (=MB IIB) contexts in Byblos and Sidon are evidence that the trade with the Levant continued after the collapse of the Middle Kingdom. Finally, it must be stressed that the occurrence of stolen objects in later contexts should be viewed with great caution. Such pieces are rarely found in archaeological contexts and only the most detailed analyses of the objects, and the circumstances of their discovery, allow for any detailed conclusions to be drawn. Most of these statues were burnt and many were fragmented. The question arises if the burning was not done deliberately to underline this triumph and to symbolically destroy not only the enemy but also the magical power that was believed to live in them and that they represented. 428 Note that amongst the Nubian and Kerma pottery, found in Tell el-Dab‘a, are only smaller open shapes and cooking pots which fit well with pottery carried in caravans. See: Hein 2001; Fuscaldo 2008; Forstner-Müller and Rose 2012; Aston and Bietak 2017. 429 Sacco 2019, 378−385; see also: Polz 2006. 427

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions

301

Bibliography A bd el-Gelil, M., Suleiman, R., Faris, G. and R aue, D. 2008 The Joint Egyptian-German Excavations in Heliopolis in Autumn 2005: Preliminary Report, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 64, 1–9. A bou Assaf, A. 1965 Rapport préliminaire sur les fouilles des tombes de Yabrud, Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes XV.2, 59–80 (Arabic). 1967 Der Friedhof von Yabrud, Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes XVII, 55–68, 163–167. A bou Bakr, A.M. 1963 Fouilles de l´Université du Caire à Aniba (1961), in: Fouilles en Nubie (1959−1961), Cairo, 115−125. A hrens, A. 2006 A Journey’s End – Two Egyptian Stone Vessels with Hieroglyphic Inscriptions from the Royal Tomb at Tell Mišrife/Qatna, Ägypten & Levante 16, 15−36. 2010 A Stone Vessel of Princess Itakayet of the 12th Dynasty from Tomb VII at Tell Mišrife/Qatna (Syria), Ägypten & Levante 20, 15–29. 2011a ‘A Hyksos Connection’? Thoughts on the Date of Dispatch of Some of the Middle Kingdom Statuary Found in the Northern Levant, in: J. Mynařová and P. Vlcková (eds.), Egypt and the Levant: The Crossroads. Proceedings of the International Workshop, 1–3 September, 2010, Charles University Prague, Prague, 21–40. 2011b Die Steingefäße aus der Königsgruft und dem Palast von Tall Mišrife/Qatna: Verteilung, Typenspektrum und Funktion, in: P. Pfälzner (ed.), Interdisziplinäre Studien zur Königsgruft von Qatna, Qatna Studien 1, Wiesbaden, 259–273. 2012 News from an Old Excavation: Two Hitherto Unnoticed Measure Capacity Signs on an Egyptian Stone Vessel of the Middle Kingdom from Royal Tomb II at Byblos, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 4.2, 1−4. 2015 The Egyptian Objects from Tell Hizzin in the Beqaʿa Valley (Lebanon): An Archaeological and Historical Reassessment, Ägypten & Levante 25, 201–222. 2016 Remarks on the Dispatch of Egyptian Middle Kingdom Objects to the Levant during the Second Intermediate Period: An Addendum to the Egyptian Statues from Tell Hizzin (Lebanon), Göttinger Miszellen 250, 21–24. A lbright, W.F. 1938 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim II. The Bronze Age (1936−1937), Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 17, Jerusalem. 1941 The Land of Damascus Between 1850 and 1750 B.C., Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 83, 30–36. 1945 An Indirect Synchronism Between Egypt and Mesopotamia, Cir. 1730 B.C., Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 99, 9–18. 1959 Dunand’s New Byblos Volume: A Lycian at the Byblian Court, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 155, 31–34.

1964

The Eighteenth-Century Princes of Byblos and the Chronology of Middle Bronze, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 176, 38–46. 1965 Further Light on the History of Middle-Bronze Byblos, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 179, 38–43. 1966 Remarks on the Chronology of Early Bronze IV -Middle Bronze IIA in Phoenicia and SyriaPalestine, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 184, 26–35. A llen, J.P. 2000 Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs, Revised Edition, Cambridge. 2008 The Historical Inscription of Khnumhotep at Dahshur: Preliminary Report, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 352, 29−39. 2009 L´inscription historique de Khnoumhotep à Dahchour, Bulletin de la Société Française d’Egyptologie 173, 13–31. 2010 The Second Intermediate Period in the Turin Kinglist, in: M. M arée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192, Leuven, 1−10. A llen, S.J. 1998 Queens´ Ware: Royal Funerary Pottery in the Middle Kingdom, in: C. Eyre (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, 3–9 September 1995, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 82, Leuven, 39–48. A ltenmüller, H. and Moussa, A.M. 1991 Die Inschrift Amenemhat II. aus dem PtahTempel von Memphis. Ein Vorbericht, Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 18, 1−48. Andreu, G. 1987 Les Scarabées, in: A. Vila (ed.), Le cimetière keramïque d´Ukma Ouest, Paris, 225−245. A rchi, A. and M atthiae, P. 1979 Una coppa d’argento con iscrizione cuneiforme dalla T ̀ omba del Signore dei capridi,’ Studi Eblaiti I, 191–193. A rnold, D. 1980 Dahschur. Dritter Grabungsbericht, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 36, 15−21. 1982 Die Pyramide Amenemhet III. von Dahschur. Vierter Grabungsbericht, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 38, 17−23. 1992 The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret I. South Cemeteries of Lisht, Vol. III, New York. 1987 Der Pyramidenbezirk des Königs Amenemhet III. in Dahschur. Band I, Die Pyramide, Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 53, Mainz. 1988 The Pyramid of Senwosret I (The South Cemeteries at Lisht I), New York.

302 1992 2002

2008

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret I (The South Cemeteries at Lisht III), New York. The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret III at Dahshur: Architectural Studies (with contributions and an Appendix by Adela Oppenheim and James P. Allen), New York. Middle Kingdom Tomb Architecture at Lisht, New York.

A rnold, Do. 1982 Keramikbearbeitung in Dahschur 1976−1981, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 38, 25−65. 2006 The Fragmented Head of a Queen Wearing the Vulture Headdress, in: E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman and A. Schwab (eds.), Timelines Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149, Leuven, 47−54. 2010 Image and Identity: Egypt´s Eastern Neighbours, East Delta People and the Hyksos, in: M. M arée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth– Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192, Leuven, 183−221. A rnold, Do., A rnold, F. and A llen, S. 1995 Canaanite Imports at Lisht, the Middle Kingdom Capital of Egypt, Ägypten & Levante 5, 13−32. A rnold, F. 1990 The Population of Kahun. URL: https:// www.academia.edu/31695464/Population_of_ Kahun_1990_ 1996 Settlement Remains at Lisht-North, in: M. Bietak (ed.), Haus und Palast im Alten Ägypten, Internationales Symposium 8. bis 11. April 1992 in Kairo, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 14, Vienna, 13−21. A rnold, D. and Stadelmann, R. 1977 Dahschur: Zweiter Grabungsbericht, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 33, 15−20. Aston, B. 1994 Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels. Materials and Forms, Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 5, Heidelberg. Aston, D., Bader, B. and Kunst, K.G. 2009 Fishes, Ringstands, Nudes and Hippos – A Preliminary Report on the Hyksos Palace Pit Complex L81, Ägypten & Levante 19, 19−77. Aston, D. and Bietak, M. 2011 Tell el-Dab‘a VIII: The Classification and Chronology of Tell el-Yahudiya Ware, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 12, Vienna. 2017 Nubians in the Nile Delta: À propos Avaris and Peru-Nefer, in: N. Spencer , A. Stevens and M. Binder (eds.), Nubia in the New Kingdom. Lived Experience, Pharaonic Control and Indigenous Traditions, British Museum Publications on

Egypt and the Sudan 3, Leuven, Paris, Walpole, 491−524. Bader, B. 2001 Tell el-Dab‘a XIII: Typologie und Chronologie der Mergel C-Ton Keramik. Materialien zum Binnenhandel des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 19, Vienna. Bagh, T. 2003 The Relationship between Levantine Painted Ware, Syro/Cilician Ware and Khabur Ware and the Chronological Implications, in: M. Bietak (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – EuroConference, Haindorf, 2nd of May – 7th of May 2001, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4, Vienna, 229–237. 2013 Tell el-Dab‘a XXIII: Levantine Painted Ware from Egypt and the Levant, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 37, Vienna. Becker, M. 2006 Djefaihapi – Ein Name mit langer Tradition, Göttinger Miszellen 210, 7–11. Beckerath, J. von 1964 Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Ägypten, Ägyptologische Forschungen 23, Glückstadt. Beinlich, H. 1975a Djefaihapi, in: W. Helck und W. Westendorf (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie I, Wiesbaden, 1105–1107. 1975b Assiut, in: W. Helck und W. Westendorf (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie I, Wiesbaden, 489–495. 1984 Ra-qereret, in: W. Helck und W. Westendorf (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie V, Wiesbaden, 149. Bennett, C. 2002 A Genealogical Chronology of the Seventeenth Dynasty, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 39, 123−155. Bennett, C.J.C. 1941 Growth of the Ḥtp-D´i-Nsw Formula in the Middle Kingdom, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 27, 77−82. Ben-Tor, D. 1997 The Relations between Egypt and Palestine in the Middle Kingdom as reflected by Contemporary Canaanite Scarabs, Israel Exploration Journal 47.3–4, 162−189. 1998 The Absolut Date of the Montet Jar, in: L.H. Lesko (ed.), Ancient Egyptian and Mediterranean Studies. In Memory of William A. Ward, Providence, 1−17. 2004 Two Royal-name Scarabs of King Amenemhat II from Dahshur, Metropolitan Museum Journal 39, 17−33. 2007a Scarabs of the Middle Bronze Age Rulers of Byblos, in: S. Bickel, S. Schroer, R. Schurte und Ch. Uehlinger (eds.), Bilder als Quellen – Images as Sources: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Artefacts

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions and the Bible Inspired by the Work of Othmar Keel, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Special Volume, Fribourg and Göttingen, 177–188. 2007b Scarabs, Chronology, and Interconnections: Egypt and Palestine in the Second Intermediate Period, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 27, Fribourg and Göttingen. 2010 Sequence and Chronology of Second Intermediate Period Royal-name Scarabs, Based on Excavated Series from Egypt and the Levant, in: M. M arée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth– Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192, 91−108.

303

(ed.), Handbook of Ancient Nubia, Vol. 1., Berlin and Boston, 413−432. Borchardt, L. 1899 Der zweite Papyrusfund von Kahun und die zeitliche Festlegung des mittleren Reiches der ägyptischen Geschichte, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 37, 89−103. Bosticco, S. 1959 Museo Archeologico di Firenze: Le stele egiziane dall’Antico al Nuovo Regno. Cataloghi dei Musei e Gallerie d’Italia, Rome.

Ben-Tor, D., A llen, J.S. and A llen, J.P. 1999 Seals and Kings, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 315, 47−74

Bottéro, J. 1949 Les inventaires de Qatna, Revue d´Assyriologie et d´Archéologie Orientale 43, 1–41 and 137–215.

Bietak, M. 1984 Problems of Middle Bronze Age Chronology: New Evidence from Egypt, American Journal of Archaeology 88, 471−485. 1989 Archäologischer Befund und historische Interpretation am Beispiel der Tell el-YahudiyaWare, in: S. Schoske (ed.), Akten des vierten internationalen Ägyptologen Kongresses München 1985, Vol. 2, Hamburg, 7−34. 1991 Tell el-Dab‘a V: Ein Friedhofsbezirk der Mittleren Bronzezeitkultur mit Totentempel und Siedlungsschichten, Teil 1, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 8, Vienna. 1998 Gedanken zur Ursache der ägyptisierenden Einflüsse in Nordsyrien in der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, in: H. Guksch and D. Polz (eds.), Stationen: Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens, Rainer Stadelmann gewidmet, Mainz, 165–176. 2004 Seal impressions from the Middle till the New Kingdom. A Problem for Chronological Research, in: M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds.), Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications. Papers of a Symposium, Vienna 10th−13th of January 2002, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 8, 43−55.

Bourriau, J. 1991a Patterns of Change in Burial Customs during the Middle Kingdom, in: S. Quirke (ed.), Middle Kingdom Studies, Whitstable, 3−20. 1991b Relations between Egypt and Kerma during the Middle and New Kingdoms, in: W.V. Davies (ed.), Egypt and Africa. Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, London, 129–144. 1997 Beyond Avaris: The Second Intermediate Period in Egypt Outside the Eastern Delta, in: E. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, Philadelphia, 158−182. 1999 Some Archaeological Notes on the Kamose Texts, in: A. Leahy and J. Tait (eds.), Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honour of H.S. Smith, London, 43−48. 2000 The Second Intermediate Period, in: I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford, 185–217. 2009 Mace´s Cemetery Y at Diospolis Parva, in: D. M agee, J. Bourriau and S. Quirke (eds.), Sitting beside Lepsius – Studies in Honour of Jaromir Malek at the Griffith Institute, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 185, Leuven, 39−98. 2010 The Relative Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period: Problems in Linking Regional Archaeological Sequences, in: M. M arée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth– Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192, Leiden, 11−37.

Bietak, M. and Forstner-Müller, I. 2009 (mit einem Beitrag von F. van Koppen & K. Radner) Der Hyksospalast bei Tell el-Dab‘a: Zweite und Dritte Grabungskampagne (Frühling 2008 und Frühling 2009), Ägypten & Levante 19, 91–119. Bietak, M., M ath, N., Müller, V. and Jurman, C. 2012 Report on the Excavation of a Hyksos Palace at Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris, Ägypten & Levante 22, 17−33. Bissing, W. von 1904 Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire Nos 18065–18793, Steingefässe, Vienna. Bonnet, C. 2004 Le temple principal de la ville de Kerma et son quartier religieux, Paris. 2018 The Religious Architecture of Kerma and Dokki Gel from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium BC, in: D. R aue

Brunton, G. 1920 Lahun I. The Treasure, London. 1937 Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture, London. Carter, H. and Carnarvon, Earl of 1912 Five Years´ Explorations at Thebes. A Record of Work done 1907−1911, London. Chéhab, M. 1937 Trésor d’orfèvrerie syro-ègyptien, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 1, 7−21. 1949/ Chroniques, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 9, 1950 107–117. 1968 Relations entre l’Égypte et la Phénicie des origines à Oun-Amoun, in: W.A. Ward (ed.), The Role of the Phoenicians in the Interaction of Mediterranean

304

1969 1975 1983

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky Civilizations. Papers Presented at the American University of Beirut, March 1967, Beyrouth, 1–8. Noms des personnalités égyptiennes découvertes au Liban, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 22, 1–47. 30 années de recherche archéologique au Liban, Les Dossiers de l´Archéologie 12, 8–23. Découvertes phéniciennes au Liban, in: Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, Roma 5–10 Novembre 1979, Roma, 165–172.

Clark, K.A., Ikram, S. and Evershed, R. P. 2016 The Significance of Petroleum Bitumen in Ancient Egyptian Mummies, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 374: 20160229. URL: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/ rsta.2016.0229 (last accessed 23-09-2020) Colin, F. 2005 Kamose et les Hyksos dans l’oasis de Djesdjes, Bulletin de L’institut français d’archéologie 105, 35−47. Czerny, E. 2015 Tell el-Dab‘a XXII: “Der Mund der beiden Wege“. Die Siedlung und der Tempelbezirk des Mittleren Reiches von Ezbet Ruschdi, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 38, Vienna. David, A. 2019 Uninscribed Amethyst Scarabs in the Southern Levant, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 381, 57−81. Davies, V. 2003 Sobeknakht of Elkab and the coming of Kush, Egyptian Archaeology 23, 3−6. 2010 Renseneb and Sobeknakht of el-Kab: The Genealogical Data, in: M. M arée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192, Leuven, 11−37. Dohmann-Pfälzner, H. and Pfälzner, P. 2008 Die Ausgrabungen 2007 und 2008 im Königspalast von Qatna: Vorbericht des syrisch-deutschen Kooperationsprojektes in Tall Mišrife/Qatna, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 140, 17−74. 2011 Die Gruft VII: Eine neu entdeckte Grabanlage unter dem Königspalast von Qatna, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 143, 63–139. Doumet-Serhal, C. 1996 Les fouilles de Tell el-Ghassil de 1972 à 1974. Étude du matériel, Beyrouth. 2010 Sidon during the Bronze Age: Burials, Rituals and Feasting Grounds at the “College Site”, Near Eastern Archaeology 73, no.2.3, 114−129. 2013 Tracing Sidon´s Mediterranean Networks in the Second Millennium B.C.: Receiving, and Transmitting. Twelve Years of British Museum Excavations, in: J. A ruz, S.B. Graff and Y. R adic (eds.), Cultures in Contact. From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., New York, 132−141.

Doumet-Serhal, C. and Kopetzky, K. 2012 Sidon and Tell el-Dab‘a: Two Cities – One Story. A Highlight on Metal Artefacts from the Middle Bronze Age Graves, Archaeology and History of the Lebanon 34−35, 9−52. Doxey, D.M. 1998 Egyptian Non-Royal Epithets in the Middle Kingdom: A Social and Historical Analysis, Leiden. 2009 The Nomarch as Ruler: Provincial Necropoleis of the Old and Middle Kingdoms, in: R. Gundlach and J.H. Taylor (eds.), Egyptian Royal Residences: 4th Symposium on Egyptian Royal Ideology, London, June 1st–5th 2004, Wiesbaden, 1–12. Dunand, M. 1939 Fouilles de Byblos I, Paris. Dunham, D. 1967 Uronarti, Shafalk, Mirgissa. Second Cataract Forts II, Boston. Dunham D. and Janssen, J.M.A. 1960 Semna, Kumma. Second Cataract Forts I, Boston. Durand, J.-M. 1999 La façade occidentale du Proche-Orient d’après les textes de Mari, in: A. Caubet (ed.), L’acrobate au taureau: Les découvertes de Tell el-Dab‘a (Égypte) et l’archéologie de la Méditerranée orientale (1800–1400 av. J.-C.), Paris, 149–164. Emery, W.B. and K irwan, L.P. 1935 The Excavations and Surveys between Wadi esSebua and Adindan 1929−1931, 2 Vols., Cairo. Engel, E.-M. and K ahl, J. 2009 Die Grabanlage Djefaihapis I. in Assiut: ein Rekonstruktionsversuch, in: J. PopielskaGrzybowska, O. Białostocka and J. Iwaszczuk (eds.), Proceedings of the Third Central European Conference of Young Egyptologists. Egypt 2004: Perspectives of Research, Warsaw 12−14 May 2004, Pultusk, 55–64. Epstein, C. 1963 That Wretched Enemy of Kadesh, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 22.4, 242–246. Erman, A. and Grapow, H. 1926 Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache, Berlin. Fay, B. 1996 The Louvre Sphinx and Royal Sculpture from the Reign of Amenemhat II, Mainz. Firth, C.M. 1915 The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. Report for 1908−1909, Cairo. 1927 The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. Report for 1910−1911, Cairo. Fisk, R. 1991 The Biggest Supermarket in Lebanon: A Journalist Investigates the Plundering of Lebanon´s Heritage, Berytus 39, 243–252.

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions Firth, C.M. and Gunn, B. 1926 Teti Pyramid Cemeteries, Cairo. Forstner-Müller, I. 2008 Tell el-Dab‘a XVI: Die Gräber des Areals A/II von Tell el-Dab‘a, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 44, Vienna. Forstner-Müller, I., Müller, W. and R adner, K. 2002 Ägyptische Statuen in Verbannung: Ägyptischer Statuenexport in den vorderen Orient unter Amenophis III. und IV, Ägypten & Levante 12, 155– 66. Forstner-Müller, I. and Rose, P. 2012 Nubian Pottery at Avaris in the Second Intermediate Period and the New Kingdom: Some Remarks, in: I. Forstner-Müller and P. Rose (eds.), Nubian Pottery from Egyptian Cultural Contexts of the Middle and Early New Kingdom. Proceedings of a Workshop held at the Austrian Archaeological Institute at Cairo, 1−12 December 2010, Ergänzungsheft zu Österreichischen Jahresheften 13, Vienna, 181−212. Francis-A llouche, M. and Grimal, N. 2016 The Maritime Approaches to Ancient Byblos (Lebanon), Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies 4.2−3, 242−277. Franke, D. 2003 The Middle Kingdom Offering Formulas – A Challenge, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 89, 39–57. Fuscaldo, P. 2008 The Nubian Pottery from the Palace District of Avaris at cEzbet Helmi, Areas H/III und H/VI. Part III: The ‘Classic’ Kerma Pottery from the Second Intermediate Period and the 18th Dynasty, Ägypten & Levante 18, 107−127. Galling, K. 1953 Berichte: Archäologisch-historische Ergebnisse einer Reise in Syrien und Libanon im Spätherbst 1952, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 69, 88–93. Gardiner, A. 1957 Egyptian Grammar. Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, Cambridge. Garstang, J. 1901 El Arabah. A Cemetery of the Middle Kingdom; Survey of the Old Kingdom Temenos; Graffiti from the Temple of Sety, Egyptian Research Account 6, London. 1907 Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, London. Genz, H. and Sader, H. 2008 Tell Hizzin: Digging Up New Material from an Old Excavation, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 12, 183–201. Gomaá, F. 1984 Der Krokodilgott Sobek und seine Kultorte im Mittleren Reich, in: F. Junge (ed.), Studien zu Sprache und Religion Ägyptens II: Religion

1986

305

(Festschrift zu Ehren W. Westendorf, überreicht von seinen Freunden und Schülern), Göttingen, 787–803. Die Besiedlung Ägyptens während des Mittleren Reiches, Band 1: Oberägypten und das Fayyum, Tübinger Altas zum Vorderen Orient B, Wiesbaden.

Grajetzki, W. 2009 Court Officials of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, London. 2014 Tomb Treasures of the Late Middle Kingdom. The Archaeology of Female Burials, Philadelphia. 2018 The Burial of the ‘King´s Daughter’ Nubhetepti-khered, in: J. Taylor and M. Vanderbeusch (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Coffins: Craft, Traditions and Functionality, British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 4, Leuven, Paris and Bristol, 231−245. Gratien, B. 1973 Les nécropoles Kerma de l´ile de Saï, Les Cahiers de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égyptologie de Lille 1, 143−184. Griffith, F.L. 1889 The Inscriptions of Siût and Dêr Rîfeh, London. 1924 Oxford Excavations in Nubia, Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 11, 141−180. Gubel, É. 1985 Aegyptica uit Fenicië, Akkadica 43, 57. H abachi, L. 1937 Une »vaste salle« d´Amenemhat III à Kiman-Farès (Fayoum), Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte 37, 85–95. 1952 Khatâ´na-Qantîr: Importance, Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte 52, 443–479. 1972 The Second Stela of Kamose and his Struggle against the Hyksos Ruler and his Capital, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo, Ägyptische Reihe 8, Glückstadt. H annig, R. 2006 Ägyptisches Wörterbuch II. Mittleres Reich und Zweite Zwischenzeit, vol. 2, Hannig-Lexica 5, Mainz. H arfouche, R. and Poupet, P. 2015 Du Mont Liban aux Sierras d‘Espagne. Sols, Eau et Sociétés en Montagne. Autour du projet francolibanais CEDRE ‘Nahr Ibrahim’, Oxford. H artung, U. 2001 Umm el-Qaab II. Importkeramik aus dem Friedhof U in Abydos (Umm el-Qaab) und die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 62, Mainz. H artung, U., Köhler, Ch., Müller, V. and Ownby, M. 2015 Imported pottery from Abydos: A new petrographic perspective, Ägypten & Levante 25, 295−333. H ayes, W.C. 1947 Horemkhacuef of Nekhen and his trip to It-Towe, Journal of Egyptan Archaeology 33, 3−11.

306

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky The Scepter of Egypt. A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Part I: From the Earliest Times to the End of the Middle Kingdom, New York.

2006

Hein, I. 2001 Kerma in Auaris, in: C.-B. A rnst, I. H afermann and A. Lohwasser (eds.), Begegnungen. Antike Kulturen im Niltal. Festgabe für Erika Endesfelder, KarlHeinz Priese, Walter Friedrich Reineke und Steffen Wenig, Leipzig, 199−212.

2008

1953

Helck, W. 1969 Eine Stele Sebekhoteps IV. aus Karnak, Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts Kairo 24, 194–200. 1971 Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., 2nd ed., Wiesbaden. 1976 Ägyptische Statuen im Ausland – ein chronologisches Problem, Ugarit Forschungen 8, 101–115. Helmbold -Doyé, J. and Seiler, A. 2019 Die Keramik aus dem Friedhof S/SA von Aniba (Unternubien), Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde Beiheft 8, Berlin/Boston. Hintze, F. 1964 Das Kerma-Problem, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 91, 79–86. Hirsch, E. 2004 Kultpolitik und Tempelbauprogramme der 12. Dynastie. Untersuchungen zu den Göttertempeln im Alten Ägypten, Berlin. Hornung, E. and Straehelin, E. 1976 Skarabäen und Siegelamulette aus Basler Sammlungen. Ägyptische Denkmäler in der Schweiz 1, Mainz. James, T.G.H. 1974 Corpus of Hieroglyphic Inscriptions in the Brooklyn Museum I: From the Dynasty I to the End of Dynasty XVIII, Wilbour Monographs 6, Brooklyn, New York. Jánosi, P. 1994 Keminub – eine Gemahlin Amenemhets II.?, in: M. Bietak (ed.), Zwischen den beiden Ewigkeiten, Festschrift für Gertrud Thausing, Vienna, 94−101. 1996 Die Pyramidenanlagen der Königinnen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grabtyp des Alten und Mittleren Reiches, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 13, Vienna. K ahl, J. 2007 Ancient Asyut: The First Synthesis after 300 Years of Research, The Asyut Project 1, Wiesbaden. 2012 Regionale Milieus und die Macht des Staates im Alten Ägypten: Die Vergöttlichung der Gaufürsten von Assiut, Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 41, 163–188. K ahl, J., el-K hadragy, M. and Verhoeven, U. 2005 The Asyut Project: Fieldwork Season 2004, Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 33, 159–167.

2007

The Asyut Project: Third Season of Fieldwork, Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 34, 241–249. The Asyut Project: Fourth Season of Fieldwork (2006), Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 36, 81–103. The Asyut Project: Fifth Season of Fieldwork (2007), Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 37, 199–218.

K ahl, J., el-K hadragy, M., Verhoeven, U., al-K hatib, M. and K itagawa, C. 2009 The Asyut Project: Sixth Season of Fieldwork (2008), Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 38, 113– 130. K ahl, J., el-K hadragy, M., Verhoeven, U., Prell, S., Eichner, I. and Beckh, T. 2010 The Asyut Project: Seventh Season of Fieldwork (2009), Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 39, 191– 210. K ahl, J., el-K hadragy, M., Verhoeven, U., A hmed, H.F., K itagawa, C., M alur, J., Prell, S. and R zeuska, T. 2011 The Asyut Project: Eighth Season of Fieldwork (2010), Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 40, 181– 209. K ahl, J., el-K hadragy, M., Verhoeven, U., A bdelrahiem, M., van Elsbergen, M., Fahid, H., K ilian, A., K itagawa, C., R zeuska, T. and Zöller-Engelhardt, M. 2012a The Asyut Project: Ninth Season of Fieldwork (2011), Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 41, 189– 235. K ahl, J., el-K hadragy, M., Verhoeven, U. and K ilian, A. (eds.) 2012b Seven Seasons at Asyut: First Results of the Egyptian-German Cooperation in Archaeological Fieldwork, Proceedings of an International Conference at the University of Sohag, 10th–11th of October 2009, The Asyut Project 2, Wiesbaden. K ahl, J., el-K hadragy, M., Verhoeven, U., A bdelrahiem, M. and Czyzewska, E. 2014 The Asyut Project: Tenth Season of Fieldwork (2012), Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 42, 234– 287. K ahl, J., el-K hadragy, M., A hmed, H.F., Verhoeven, U., A bdelrahiem, M., R egulski, I., Becker, M., CzyzewskaZalewska, E., K ilian, A., Stecher, M. and R zeuska, T. 2015 The Asyut Project: Eleventh Season of Fieldwork (2014), Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 44, 103– 156. K ahl, J., A lansary, A., Verhoeven, U., Beck, T., CzyzewskaZalewska, E. and K ilian, A. 2017 The Asyut Project: Twelfth Season of Fieldwork (2016), Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 46, 113– 151. K ahl, J., el-H amrawi, M. and Verhoeven, U. 2018 The Asyut Project: Thirteenth Season of Fieldwork (2017), Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 47, 103–148.

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions K ákosy, L. 1975 “Atum”, in: W. Helck and E. Otto (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie I, Wiesbaden, 550−552. K aplan, M. 1980 The Origin and Distribution of Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology LXII, Göteborg. K enyon, K.M. 1965 Excavations at Jericho II. The Tombs excavated in 1955−8, Jerusalem. el-K hadragy,

2007

M. The Shrine of the Rock-cut Chapel of Djefaihapi I at Asyut, Göttinger Miszellen 212, 41–57.

K itchen, K. 2000 Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt, in: M. Bietak (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., Proceedings of the Symposia held at Hainsdorf 1996 and Vienna 1998, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4, Vienna, 39–52. K lengel, H. 1992 Syria, 3000 to 300 B.C. – A Handbook of Political History, Berlin. 2000 Qatna – Ein historischer Überblick, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 132, 239–252. K noblauch, Ch. 2007 The Egyptian cemeteries in Lower Nubia during the first half of the Second Millennium B.C., PhD Thesis, Sydney. 2018 The Late Middle Kingdom in the Cemeteries at Mirgissa: Pottery and Relative Chronology, Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 11, 47−72. K noblauch, Ch. and Bestock, L. 2017 Evolving Communities: The Egyptian Fortress on Uronarti in the Late Middle Kingdom, Sudan & Nubia 21, 50−58. Kopetzky K. 1993 Die Datierung der Gräber der Grabungsfläche F/I von Tell el-Dab‘a anhand der Keramik, MA Thesis, University of Vienna. 2010 Tell el-Dab‘a XX: Die Chronologie der Siedlungskeramik der Zweiten Zwischenzeit aus Tell el-Dab‘a, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 32, Vienna. 2015a Egyptian Burial Customs in the Royal Tombs I‒III of Byblos, Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises Hors-Série X, 393‒412. 2015b Imports and Local Pottery Production in Egypt and the Levant During the Middle Bronze Age, Bulletin de Liaison de la Céramique Égyptienne 25, 309−321. 2016 Some Remarks on the Relation between Egypt and the Levant during the late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period, in: G. Miniaci and W. Grajetzki (eds.), The World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000-1550BC), Middle Kingdom Studies 2, London, 143−159.

307

2018 Tell el-Dab‘a and Byblos: New Chronological Evidence, Ägypten & Levante 28, 309-358. 2020 What Belongs Together Comes Together – the Story of a Royal Obsidian Box, Berytus 59−60, 41−60. forthc. Supply and Demand: Tell el-Dab‘a – a Fence for Stolen Goods?, in: M. Bietak, K. Kopetzky, E. Czerny and S. Prell (eds.), Tell el-Dab‘a XXX: Fifty Years at Tell el-Dab‘a. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the 10th ICAANE in Vienna 27th of April 2016, Vienna. Kopetzky, K., Genz, H., Schwall, Ch., Rom, J., H aas, F., Stark, M., Dremel, F. and Börner, M. 2019 Between Land and Sea: Tell Mirhan and the Chekka Regional Survey. Preliminary Report of the Survey and first excavation season (2016−2018), Ägypten & Levante 29, 105−124. Kopetzky, K. and Bietak, M. 2016 A Seal Impression of the Green Jasper Workshop from Tell el-Dab‘a, Ägypten & Levante 26, 357−375. Koura, B. 1999 Die „7-Heiligen Öle“ und andere Öl- und Fettnamen. Eine lexikographische Untersuchung zu den Bezeichnungen von Ölen, Fetten und Salben bei den alten Ägyptern von der Frühzeit bis zum Anfang der Ptolemäerzeit (von 3000 v. Chr. – ca. 305 v. Chr.), Aegyptiaca Monasteriensia 2, Aachen. Kubisch, S. 2008 Lebensbilder der 2. Zwischenzeit: Biographische Inschriften der 13.–17. Dynastie, Sonderschriften des deutschen archäologischen Instituts Kairo 34, Mainz. Kuschke, A. 1954 Beiträge Zeitschrift 104–129. 1958 Beiträge Zeitschrift 81–120.

zur Siedlungsgeschichte der Bikā’, des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 70, zur Siedlungsgeschichte der Bikā’, des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 74,

Lacovara, P. 1987 The Internal Chronology of Kerma, Beiträge zur Sudanforschung 2, 51−74. Lange, H.O. and Schäfer, H. 1908 Grab- und Denksteine des Mittleren Reichs, Theil II, Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire Nos 20001−20980, Berlin. Leclant, J. 1954 Objets égyptiens trouvés hors d´Égypte, Orientalia, Nova Series 23, 64–79. 1955 Découvertes d’objets égyptiens hors d’Égypte, Orientalia, Nova Series 24, 310–317. Leitz, Ch. 2002 Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Vol. IV, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 113, Leuven, Paris and Dudley. Lilyquist, C. 1993 Granulation and Glass: Chronological and Stylistic Investigations at Selected Sites, ca. 2500–1400

308

2020

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky B.C.E., Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 290–291, 29–82. Essay, 2: “Carnarvon Tomb 62 in Context”, in: C. Lilyquist, Excavations at Thebes: The Earl of Carnarvon and The Metropolitan Museum of Art at Carnarvon 62 and Surrounds. With contributions by Natasha Ayers, Marcel Marée, Daphna Ben-Tor, Deborah Schorsch, Fredrik Hagen, Rachael Sparks, Malte Römer, and Salima Ikram. Digital publication, 2020; https://oi.chicago.edu/research/individualscholarship-christine-lilyquist: 8−27.

Loffet, H. 2012 The Sidon scarabs, Archaeology and History of the Lebanon 34−35, 104−138. M ace, A. C. and Winlock, H.E. 1916 The Tomb of Senebtisi at Lisht, New York. M ahmud, N.A., Faris, G., Schiestl, R. and R aue, D. 2008 Pottery of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period from Heliopolis, Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts Kairo 64, 189–205. M anassa, C. 2012 Middle Nubian Ceramics from Umm Mawagir, Kharga Oasis, in: I. Forstner-Müller and P. Rose (eds.), Nubian Pottery from Egyptian cultural Contexts of the Middle and early New Kingdom. Proceedings of a Workshop held at the Austrian Archaeological Institute at Cairo, 1−12 December 2010, Ergänzungshefte zu den Österreichischen Jahresheften 13, Vienna, 129−148. al-M aqdissi,

2008

M. Ras Šamra au Bronze moyen: Travaux 1929–1974 (I re –XXXVe campagnes de fouilles), in: Y. Calvet and M. Yon (eds.), Ougarit au Bronze moyen et au Bronze récent. Actes du colloque international tenu à Lyon en novembre 2001 “Ougarit au IIe millénaire av. J.-C., État des recherches”, Travaux de la Maison de l´Orient et de la Méditerranée 47, Lyon, 51–71.

al-M aqdissi,

M., Dohmann-Pfälzner, H., Pfälzner, P. and Suleiman, A. 2003 Das königliche Hypogäum von Qatna. Bericht über die syrisch-deutsche Ausgrabung im November– Dezember 2002, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 135, 189–218. M arcus, E.S. 2007 Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription, Ägypten & Levante 17, 137−190. M arée, M. (ed.) 2010 The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth– Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192, Leuven. M arfoe, L. 1998 Kāmid el-Lōz 14: Settlement History of the Biqā´ up to the Iron Age, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 53, Bonn.

M artin, G.T. 1971 Egyptian Administrative and Private-Name Seals. Principally of the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period, Oxford. M atthiae, P. 2008 Egyptian Mace, in: J. A ruz, K. Benzel and J. Evans (eds.), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C., New Haven and London, 38–39. M atthiae, P., Pinnock, F. and Scandone M atthiae, G. 1995 Ebla: Alle origini della civiltà urbana. Trent´anni di scavi in Siria dell´Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Milano. M aystre, C. 1980 Akasha I, Geneva. Mesnil du Buisson, R. 1927a Les ruines d’el Mishrifé au nord-est de Homs (Émèse), Syria 8, 13–33. L’ancienne Qatna ou les ruines d’el Mishrifé, deuxième Campagne de Fouilles (2e et 3e article), Syria 9, 6−24 and 81−89. 1934 Le sphinx de Qatna, Bulletin de la Société nationale des Antiquaires de France 12, 126–131. Le site archéologique de Mishrifé – Qatna, Paris. 1948 Baghouz: l’ancienne Corsôte. Le tell archaïque et la nécropole de l’âge du bronze, Leiden. du

Miniaci, G. 2010 The Incomplete Hieroglyph System at the End of the Middle Kingdom, Revue d’Égyptologie 61, 113−134. 2011 Through Change and Tradition: The Rise of Thebes during the Second Intermediate Period, in: P. Buzi, D. Picchi and M. Zecchi (eds.), Aegyptiaca et Coptica. Studi in onore di Sergio Pernigotti, BAR International Series 2264, Oxford, 235−249. Minor, E.J. 2012 The Use of Egyptian and Egyptianizing Material Culture in Nubian Burials of the Classical Kerma Period, Ph.D. thesis, Berkley. Mlinar, Ch. 2001 Die Skarabäen von Tell el-Dab‘a. Eine chronologische und typologische Untersuchung der Skarabäen von Tell el-Dab‘a aus der 13.–15. Dynastie, PhD thesis, vol. 2, Vienna. 2004 Sidon. Scarabs from the 2001 excavation: Additional Notes, Archaeology and History of the Lebanon 20, 61−64. Montet, P. 1923 Les fouilles de Byblos en 1923, Syria 4, 334–344. 1928 Byblos et l’Égypte. Quatre Campagnes de Fouilles à Gebeil, 1921–1924, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 11, Paris. 1930– Les tombeaux de Siout et de Deir Rifeh, Kêmi 3, 1935 45–111. 1936 Les tombeaux de Siout et de Deir Rifeh, Kêmi 6, 131–163. 1954 Notes et documents pour servir à l’histoire des relations entre l’Égypte et la Syrie VI: D’Héliopolis d’Égypte à Héliopolis de Syrie, Kêmi 13, 76.

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions Moret, A. 1902 Le Rituel du Culte Divin Journalier en Égypte d’après les Papyrus de Berlin et les Textes du Temple de Séti 1er, à Abydos, Annales du Musée Guimet 14, Paris. De Morgan, J. 1895 Fouilles a Dahchour. Mars−Juin 1894, Vienna. 1903 Fouilles a Dahchour 1894−1895, Vienna. Moss, R. 1933 An Unpublished Tomb at Asyut, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 9.1−2, 33. Mourad, A.-L. 2017 Asiatics and Levantine (influenced) Products in Nubia: Evidence from the Middle Kingdom to the early Second Intermediate Period, Ägypten & Levante 27, 381−402. Müller, V. 2002 The Chronological Implications of Seal Impressions: Further Evidence for Cultic Activities in the Middle Kingdom in the Early Dynastic Royal Necropolis at Umm el-Qacab / Abydos, in: M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds.), Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications: Papers of a Symposium, Vienna 10th–13th of January 2002, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 8, Vienna, 141–160. Naville, E. 1888 The Shrine of Saft el Henneh and the Land of Goshen (1885), London. Newberry, P.E. 1893 Beni Hassan I, London. 1906 Scarabs: An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian Seals and Signet Rings, London. Nigro, L. 2002 The MB Pottery Horizon of Tell Mardikh/Ancient Ebla in a Chronological Perspective, 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, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna, 297–328. 2009 The Eighteenth Century BC Princes of Byblos and Ebla and the Chronology of the Middle Bronze Age, in: Direction Générale des Antiquités du Liban (eds.), Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean: Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium Beirut 2008, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises Hors-Série VI, Beirut, 159–176. Novák, M. 2002 A Shrine of Belet-Ekallim in the Palace of Qatna?, Occident & Orient 7, 20–22. Novák, M. and Pfälzner, P. 2001 Ausgrabungen in Tall Mišrife – Qatna 2000. Vorbericht der deutschen Komponente des internationalen Kooperationsprojektes, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 133, 157–198.

Otto, E. 1960 Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual, logische Abhandlungen 3, Wiesbaden.

309

Ägypto-

Perdu, O. 1977 Khenemet-nefer-hedjet: une princesse et deux reines de Moyen Empire, Revue d’Égyptologie 29, 68–85. Petrie, W.M.F. 1890 Kahun, Gurob and Hawara, London. 1891 Illahun, Kahun and Gurob, London. 1901 Disospolis Parva. The Cemeteries of Abasiyeh and Hu 1898–9, London. 1907 Gizeh and Rifeh, London. Petschel, S. 2011 Den Dolch betreffend. Typologie der Stichwaffen in Ägypten von der prädynastischen Zeit bis zur 3. Zwischenzeit, Phillipika. Marburger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen 36, Wiesbaden. Pfälzner, P. 2003 Die Politik und der Tod. Die Entdeckung eines Archivs und königlicher Grüfte in einem bronzezeitlichen Palast Syriens, Nürnberger Blätter zur Archäologie 19, 85–102. 2014 Royal Funerary Practices and Inter-regional Contacts in the Middle Bronze Age Levant: New Evidence from Qatna, in: P. P fälzner, H. Niehr, E. Pernicka, S. Lange and T. Köster (eds.), Contextualising Grave Inventories in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of a Workshop at the London 7th ICAANE in April 2010 and an International Symposium in Tübingen in November 2010, Both Organised by the Tübingen PostGraduate School ‘Symbols of the Dead’, Qatna Studien Supplementum 3, Wiesbaden, 141−156. Phillips, J. 1992 Tomb Robbers and Their Booty in Ancient Egypt, in: S.E. Orel (ed.), Death and Taxes in the Ancient Near East, Lampeter, 152–192. Pignattari, S. 2018 Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty, BAR International Series 2906, Oxford. Pilgrim, C. 1996 Elephantine XVIII. Untersuchungen in der Stadt des Mittleren reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 91, Mainz. von

Pinches, T.G. and Newberry, P.E. 1921 A Cylinder-Seal Inscribed in Hieroglyphic and Cuneiform in the Collection of the Earl of Carnarvon, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 7.3–4, 196–199. Polz, D. 2006 Die Hyksos-Blöcke aus Gebelên. Zur Präsenz der Hyksos in Oberägypten, in: E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman, and A. Schwab (eds.), Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, Vol. II, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149, Leuven, 239–247.

310

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

Pomerance, L. 1973 The Possible Role of Tomb Robbers and Viziers of the Eighteenth Dynasty in Confusing Minoan Chronology, American Journal of Archaeology 77, 224. Pommerening, T. 2005 Die altägyptischen Hohlmaße, Studien altägyptischen Kultur Beiheft 10, Hamburg.

zur

Posener, G. 1940 Princes et Pays d´Asie et de Nubie: Textes hiératiques sur des figurines d‘envoûtement du Moyen Empire, Bruxelles. Prag, K. 1986 Byblos and Egypt in the Fourth Millennium BC, Levant 18, 59−74. Quirke, S. 2004 Identifying the Officials of the Fifteenth Dynasty, in: M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds.), Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 8, Vienna, 171–193. 2010 (with a contribution by D. Pinchi and C. D´Amico) Ways to Measure Thirteenth Dynasty Royal Power from Inscribed Objects, in: M. M arée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth– Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192, Leuven, 55–68. R andall-M acIver, D. and M ace, A.C. 1902 El Amrah and Abydos 1899−1901, London. R andall-M acIver, D. and Woolley, C.L. 1911 Buhen, 2 Vols., Philadelphia. R anke, H. 1935 Die ägyptischen Personennamen, Vol. 1, Glückstadt. R aue, D. 2006 Matariya/Heliopolis, in: Deutsches A rchäologisches I nstitut (ed.), Jahresbericht 2006, Berlin, 108–110. 2007 Matariya/Heliopolis: Miteinander gegen die Zeit, in: G. Dreyer and D. Polz (eds.), Begegnung mit der Vergangenheit – 100 Jahre in Ägypten: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Kairo 1907–2007, Mainz, 93–99. R edford, D.B. 1992 Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton. R eisner, G.A. 1918 The Tomb of Hepzefa, Nomarch of Siut, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 5, 79–98. 1923a Excavations at Kerma, Parts I–III, Harvard African Studies 5, Cambridge, Mass. 1923b Excavations at Kerma, Parts IV–V, Harvard African Studies 5, Cambridge, Mass. 1925 Excavations in Egypt and Ethiopia 1922−1925, Museum of Fine Arts Boston Bulletin 23, 17−29.

R evez, J. 2002 Photos inédites de la statue du Moyen Empire d´Hapidjefa, découverte à Kerma (BMFA 14.724), Revue d’Égyptologie 53, 245–249. Roccati, A. 2002 A Stone Fragment Inscribed with Names of Sesostris I Discovered at Qatna, in: M. al-M aqdissi, M. Luciani and D. Morandi Bonacossi (eds.), Excavating Qatna I. Preliminary Report on the 1999 and 2000 Campaigns of the Joint Syrian-ItalianGerman Archaeological Research Project at Tell Mishrifeh, Damascus, 173–175. Roth, S. 2001 Die Königsmütter des Alten Ägypten von der Frühzeit bis zum Ende der 12. Dynastie, Ägypten und Altes Testament 46, Wiesbaden. Ryholt, K. 1997 The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period c. 1800–1550 B.C., Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publication 20, Copenhagen. 1998a A Statuette of Sobekhotep I from Kerma Tumulus X, Les Cahiers de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égyptologie de Lille 19, Lille, 31–33. 1998b Hotepibre, a Supposed Asiatic King in Egypt with Relations to Ebla, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 311, 1–6. Sabbahy, L.K. 1996 Comments on the Title Xn m . t - n f r-HD. t , Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 23, 348–352. 2003 The Female Family of Amenemhat II: A Review of the Evidence, in: N. Grimal, A. K amel and C. M ay-Sheikholeslami (eds.), Hommages à Fayza Haikal, Bibliothèque d’Étude 138, Cairo, 236–244. Sacco, A. 2019 Game of Dots: Using Network Analysis to Examine the Regionalization in the Second Intermediate Period, in: M. Bietak and S. Prell (eds.), The Enigma of the Hyksos Vol. I, ASOR Conference Boston 2017 − ICAANE Conference Munich 2018 – Collected Papers, Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant 9, Wiesbaden, 369–395. Sader, H. 2010 Tell Hizzin: Digging Up New Materials from an Old Excavation, in: P. M atthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro and N. M archetti (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, May, 5th–10th 2008, “Sapienza” – Università di Roma, Volume 2: Excavations, Surveys and Restorations: Reports on Recent Field Archaeology in the Near East, Wiesbaden, 635–649. Sartori, N. 2009 Die Siegel aus Areal F/II in Tell el-Dab‘a. Erster Vorbericht, Ägypten & Levante 19, 281‒292. Satzinger, H. 1968 Der Opferstein des Šm swj aus dem Mittleren Reich, Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts Kairo 23, 160–162.

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions 1997

Beobachtungen zur Opferformel: Theorie und Praxis, Lingua Aegyptiaca 5, 177–188.

Säve-Söderbergh, T. 1941 Ägypten und Nubien: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte altägyptischer Aussenpolitik, Lund. 1989 Middle Nubian Sites, The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia Publications 4, 2 Vols., Uddevalla. Scandone M atthiae, G. 1979 Un ogetto faraonico della XIII dinastia dalla ‘Tomba del Signore dei Capridi’, Studi Eblaiti I, 119–128. 1988 Les relations entre Ebla et l’Égypt au IIIème et au IIème millénaire avant J.-C., in: Waetzhold and H. H auptmann (eds.), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla, Heidelberg, 67–73. 1995 Egyptian Objects (Catalog Entries nos. 386–390), in: P. M atthiae (eds.), Ebla. Alle origini della civiltà urbana, Milano, 466–468. 1997 The Relations between the Ebla and Egypt, in: E.D. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, Philadelphia, 415– 427. Schaeffer, C.F.-A. 1929 Les fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et de Ras-Shamra (campagne printemps 1929), Rapport sommaire, Syria 10, 285−297. 1932 Les fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et de Ras-Shamra. Troisième campagne (printemps 1931), Rapport sommaire, Syria 13, 1−27. 1939 Ugaritica I: Études relatives aux découvertes de Ras Šamra, Première série, Mission de Ras Šamra 2, Paris. 1948 Stratigraphie comparée de l’Asie occidentale (IIIe et IIe millénaires), London and Oxford. 1962 Ugaritica IV, Mission de Ras Šamra XV, Paris. Schiestl, R. 2007 The Coffin from Tomb I at Byblos, Ägypten & Levante 17, 265−271. 2009 Tell el-Dab‘a XVIII: Die Palastnekropole von Tell el-Dab‘a. Die Gräber des Areals F/I der Straten d/2 und d/1, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 30, Vienna. Schiestl, R. and Seiler, A. 2012 Handbook of Pottery of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Vol. I, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 31, Vienna. Schmitz, B. 1976 Untersuchungen zum Titel sA- njswt “Königssohn”, Bonn. Schneider, T. 2002 Sinuhes Notiz über die Könige: Syrisch-anatolische Herrschertitel in ägyptischer Überlieferung, Ägypten & Levante 12, 257−272. 2006 The Relative Chronology of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period, in: E. Hornung, R. K rauss und D.A. Warburton (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section One: The Near and Middle East 83, Leiden, 154–211.

311

Seidlmayer, S. 1990 Gräberfelder aus dem Übergang vom Alten zum Mittleren Reich. Studien zur Archäologie der Ersten Zwischenzeit, Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 1, Heidelberg. Seiler, A. 2003 Bemerkungen zum Ende des Mittleren Reiches in Theben. Erste Ergebnisse der Bearbeitung der Keramik aus Areal H, in: D. Polz and A. Seiler, Die Pyramidenanlage des Königs Nub-Cheper-Re Intef in Dra´Abu el-Naga, Sonderschriften des deutschen archäologischen Instituts Kairo 24, Mainz, 49−72. 2005 Tradition und Wandel. Die Keramik als Spiegel der Kulturentwicklung Thebens in der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, Sonderschriften des deutschen archäologischen Instituts Kairo 32, Mainz. Sethe, K. 1926 Ächtung feindlicher Fürsten, Völker und Dinge auf altägyptischen Tonscherben des Mittleren Reiches, Abhandlungen der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse Nr. 5, Berlin. Shaw, I. and Jamerson, R. 1993 Amethyst Mining in the Eastern Desert: A Preliminary Survey at Wadi el-Hudi, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 79, 81−97. Sievertsen, U. 2006 Neue Forschungen zur Chronologie der Mittelbronzezeit in Westsyrien im kulturellen Kontext des levantinisch-ostmediterranen Raums: eine Zwischenbilanz, Damaszener Mitteilungen 15, 9–65. Smith, S.T. 1991 Askut and the Role of the Second Cataract Forts, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 28, 107−132. 1995 Askut in Nubia. The Economics and Ideology of Egyptian Imperialism in the Second Millennium B.C., London and New York. Smither, P.C. 1939 The Writing of htp-di-nsw in the Middle and New Kingdoms, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 25, 34–37. Sourouzian, H. 2006 Seth fils de Nout et Seth d´Avaris dans la statuaire royale ramesside, in: E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman and A. Schwab (eds.), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149, vol. I, Leuven, Paris, Dudley, 331–354. De Souza, A. 2016 Crossed Lines. An Analysis of the Pan-Grave Ceramic Tradition in Upper Egypt, Lower Nubia, and beyond, Ph.D. thesis, Sydney. Sowada, K.N. 2009 Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Old Kingdom: An Archaeological Perspective, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 237, Göttingen and Fribourg.

312

Alexander Ahrens and Karin Kopetzky

Spalinger, A.J. 1984 Sobekhotep IV, in: W. Helck und A. Otto, Lexikon der Ägyptologie V, Wiesbaden, 1041–1048. Sparks, R.T. 2007 Stone Vessels in the Levant, PEF Annual VIII, Leeds. Steindorff, G. 1937 Aniba II, Glückstadt, Hamburg and New York. Stünkel, I. 2006 The Relief Decoration of the Cult Chapels of Royal Women in the Pyramid Complex of Senusret III at Dahshur, in: M. Bárta, F. Coppens and J. K rejčí (eds.), Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2005: Proceedings of the Conference Held in Prague (June 27–July 5, 2005), Prague, 147−166. 2018 The Decoration of the North Chapel of Khenemetneferhedjet Weret I at Dahshur, PhD thesis, Bonn. URL: Teissier, B. 1990 The Seal Impression Alalakh 194: A New Aspect of Egypto-Levantine Relations in the Middle Kingdom, Levant 22, 65–73. Troy, L. 1986 Patterns of Queenship in Ancient Egyptian Myth and History, Acta Universitaris Upsalienis, Boreas 14, Uppsala. Tufnell, O. 1984 Studies on Scarab Seals, Vol. II. Scarab Seals and their Contribution to History in the Early Second Millennium B.C., Warminster. Valbelle, D. 2004 The Cultural Significance of Iconographic and Epigraphic Data found in the Kingdom of Kerma, in: T. K endall (ed.), Nubian Studies 1998. Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society of Nubian Studies, August 21−26, 1998, Boston Massachusetts, Boston, 176−183. Koppen, F. and R adner, K. 2009 Ein Tontafelfragment aus der diplomatischen Korrespondenz der Hyksosherrscher mit Babylonien, in: Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2009, 115–118. van

Verbovsek, A. 2004a Ägyptische Statuen im Ausland, in: S. Petschel and M. von Falck (eds.), Pharao siegt immer: Krieg und Frieden im Alten Ägypten, Bönen, 213. 2004b »Als Gunsterweis des Königs in den Tempel gegeben…«: Private Tempelstatuen des Alten und Mittleren Reiches, Ägypten und Altes Testament 63, Wiesbaden. 2006 Die sogenannten Hyksosmonumente: Eine archäologische Standortbestimmmung, Göttinger Orientforschungen IV, Reihe Ägypten 46, Wiesbaden. Vercoutter, J. 1975 Mirgissa II. Les nécropoles, Paris.

Verhoeven, U. (ed.) 2020 Dipinti von Besuchern des Grabes N13.1 in Assiut, Band 1, Teil 1: Besuchertexte, Lehren und Lieder des Neuen Reiches von Ursula Verhoeven unter Mitarbeit von Svenja A. Gülden. Band 1, Teil 2: Zeichnungen von Besuchern des Neuen Reiches von Eva Gervers. Band 1, Teil 3: Texte und Zeichnungen aus islamischer Zeit von Youssef Ahmed-Mohamed. Band 2: Tafeln, The Asyut Project 15, Wiesbaden. Vila, A. 1987 Le cimetière kermaïque d´Ukma Ouest, Paris. Vilain, S. 2019 The Foreign Trade of Tell el-Dab‘a during the Second Intermediate Period: Another Glance at Imported Ceramics under the Hyksos Rule, in: J. Mynářová, M. K ilani and S. A livernini (eds.), A Stranger in the House – the Crossroads III. Proceedings of an International Conference on Foreigners in Ancient Egyptian and the Near Eastern Societies of the Bronze Age held in Prague, September 10−13, 2018, Prague, 387−404. Villard, P. 1986 Un roi de Mari à Ugarit, Ugarit Forschungen 18, 387–412. Vincent, L.H. 1925 Les fouilles de Byblos, Revue Biblique 34, 161−193. Virolleaud, C. 1922 Découverte à Byblos d’un hypogée de la douzième dynastie égyptienne, Syria 3, 273−290. 1928 Les tablettes cunéiformes de Mishrifé – Katna, Syria 9, 90–96. 1930 Les tablettes de Mishrifé – Qatna, Syria 11, 311–342. Ward, W.A. 1979 Remarks on Some Middle Kingdom Statuary Found at Ugarit, Ugarit Forschungen 11 (Festschrift C.F.A. Schaeffer), 799–806. 1982 Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom, Beyrouth. Wegner, J. 2018 Woseribre Seneb-Kay. A Newly Identified Upper Egyptian King of the Second Intermediate Period, in: I. Forstner-Müller and N. Moeller (eds.), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan and the Early Second Intermediate Period in Egypt. Problems and Priorities of Current Research. Proceedings of the Workshop of the Austrian Archaeological Institute and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Vienna, July 4−5, 2014, Ergänzungsheft zu Österreichischen Jahresheften 17, Vienna, 287−305. 2020 Two Recently discovered Burial Chambers of the 13th Dynasty at Abydos: Evidence for Tombs of the Brother-Kings Sobekhotep IV and Sahathor, in: J. K amrin, M. Bárta, S. Ikram, M. Lehner and M. Megahed (eds.), Guardian of Ancient Egypt. Studies in Honor of Zahi Hawass, vol. III, Prague, 1667−1682. Wegner, J. and Cahail, K. 2015 Royal Funerary Equipment of a King Sobekhotep at South Abydos: Evidence for the Tombs of Sobekhotep IV and Neferhotep I?, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 51, 123−164.

Difficult Times and Drastic Solutions Weinstein, J. 1974 A Statuette of the Princess Sobeknefru at Tell Gezer, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 213, 49−57. 1975 Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the Middle Kingdom, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 217, 1–16. Willems, H. 1996 The Coffin of Heqata (Cairo JdE 36418), Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 70, Leuven.

313

Williams, B. 1976 The Date of Senebtisi at Lisht, Serapis 3, 41–55. Winlock, H.E. 1934 The Treasure of El-Lahun, New York. Zitman, M. 2010 The Necropolis of Assiut: A Case Study of Local Egyptian Funerary Culture from the Old Kingdom to the End of the Middle Kingdom, 2 Vols., Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 180, Leuven.

A Crisis? What Crisis? Challenging Times at Tell el-Dab‘a during the Second Intermediate Period

315

A Crisis? What Crisis? Challenging Times at Tell el-Dab‘a during the Second Intermediate Period by Sarah Vilain1

Abstract

During the Second Intermediate Period, Egypt faced new challenges with the loss of its central administration and the emergence of new regional powers within its territory. The complexity of the resultant sociopolitical transformations can be best investigated at Tell el-Dab‘a, where an uninterrupted archaeological sequence offers a baseline from which one can evaluate later changes. This paper approaches three complementary aspects of the site – the settlement, the funerary material and the imported ceramics – and investigates their various developments throughout its stratigraphy. The new expansion which occurred at Avaris, at the start of Hyksos rule, led to significant shifts in the function of spaces and to a densification of the occupation, which became increasingly compressed in the last phases of the site. Concomitant evolutions in the funerary record suggest the occurrence of deep social and technological changes, some of which connect to broader cultural phenomena also documented in the Levant. Further insights, triggered by the import of Levantine and Cypriot ceramics and the circulation of Egyptian Tell el-Yahudiya juglets in the Eastern Mediterranean, question the site’s foreign connections. Thus, a combination of political, social and economic factors might have weakened Hyksos power in the Eastern Nile Delta, ultimately contributing to the fall of the 15th Dynasty.

Introduction

Since the end of the 19 th century, Egyptological narratives on the Second Intermediate Period have embedded discourses on both crisis and decline.2 From the inscription of Kamose3 to the Manethonian tradition,4 the remnants of historical sources relating to the takeover, the rule and the fall of Hyksos kings feed the crisis perspective. From both an archaeological and anthropological point of view, a crisis may be defined as an event or a short-term process which creates a rupture in balance and, consequently, endangers the continued existence of the pre-existing condition. A crisis can take several forms (e.g.; political, economic, or ideological) and can be triggered by a mix of factors, either internal (such as violent conflict or elite mismanagement) or external (such as invasion, natural disaster, or depletion of resources).5 A crisis should be distinguished from a decline, which is a quantifiable weakening, or worsening, over a longer period. However, both crisis and decline may ultimately lead to collapse. To that extent, signs of crisis can be defined as the identification of elements of response to stress-induced phenomena. Taking this definition as a starting point, this paper offers an overview of the overall development of Tell el-Dab‘a, while assessing if signs of the ‘crisis narrative,’ traditionally associated with the Second Intermediate Period, and especially Hyksos rule, can be identified in the site’s archaeological record.

2 The

3 4

1 Austrian

Academy of Sciences, [email protected]

5

expression ‘Intermediate Period’, coined by British Egyptologists at the end of the 19th century, has been criticized for its negative connotations, as it carries the preconceived idea of a culturally inferior transition between two more flourishing historical times. For further discussion, see Ryholt 1997, 311–312; Ilin-Tomich 2016. The Second Intermediate Period should be distinguished from Hyksos rule, as the 15th Dynasty constitutes only one of the several political entities coexisting at that time R edford 1997 offers an overview of the historical sources of the Second Intermediate Period. Authored by the Greek priest Manetho, De Aegyptiaca cultivates the vision of a brutal takeover of the Hyksos, a view which has been challenged by recent research. See Mourad 2015, 9–11. Tainter 1988, 42, 89–90.

© by the author This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc by 4.0 license DOI: 10.13173/9783447117371.315

316

Sarah Vilain

Fig. 1 The stratigraphy of Tell el-Dab‘a (© Bietak 2011)

A View from the Settlement

Signs of crisis can be expressed through several features, such as brutal changes in a settlement’s size, shifts in the function of spaces, a lack of maintenance of public buildings, abandonments or destruction layers.6 Some of these characteristics can be observed across the stratigraphic sequence excavated at Tell el-Dab‘a (Fig. 1). The initial settlement tripled in size between the 12th Dynasty and the late Middle Kingdom, before shrinking at the end of Phase G/1–3.7 However, no signs of abandonment or decay in the occupation have yet been identified. In both Areas F/I and A/II, the excavator came across numerous pit burials. The absence of pattern in their orientation, their shallowness and the fact that some of the bodies were apparently thrown in without caution, characterises them as emergency burials. The anthropological remains did not show any signs of injury, suggesting that the city was most likely 6 For 7

further details, see Tainter 1988, 89; Driessen 1995; 2002, 251–252. Bietak 2010, 11. During this time lapse, the settlement expanded from c. 15–25 ha to c. 75 ha.

affected by an epidemic.8 And even if the nature of the illness has not been identified, the pathological studies suggest that the population of Tell el-Dab‘a was generally in poor health, suffering from anaemia and deficiency diseases due to malnutrition, parasites and infectious illnesses in all phases of the site.9 Despite the shrinkage of the occupation, this crisis did not seem to have a long-lasting impact on the site’s development, as suggested by the absence of interruption between Phase G/1–3 and the following Phase F, where a new house type, ‘the villa’, was introduced. In Area F/I, at some distance from these villas, less qualitative habitation units were built, marking a clear social differentiation in the settlement pattern. In Area A/II, a complete new building phase occurred, demonstrated by the construction of Temple III, its sacred precinct and the associated cemeteries.10 This stronger social stratification and the architectural renewal of Phase F may be perceived

8 Bietak

1991c, 34–38. and Wilfing 1991, 122–137, 140. 10 Bietak 1991b, 38–40; 2010, 18. 9 Winkler

A Crisis? What Crisis? Challenging Times at Tell el-Dab‘a during the Second Intermediate Period

317

Fig. 2 Conflagration layer, Area F/II, L1421, Stratum d (© M. Bietak, ÖAI archive) as manifestations of political and societal changes provoked by the rise of independent dynasties in the Delta.11 A pre-Hyksos palatial building was detected in Stratum d, correlating with the end of Phase E/3 or the beginning of Phase E/2 in the general stratigraphy of the site.12 Some of its structures, identified with the northernmost part of a complex of magazines, were completely burned (Fig. 2).13 One can only speculate if this major destruction, which was likely intentional, might be linked to the takeover of the 15th Dynasty or other kinds of internal or external troubles. It is uncertain how long the building remained unoccupied after the fire, but it was finally demolished to make way for an early Hyksos Palace (Stratum c/2) with no evidence of squatter activity in-between.14

11 The

growing independence of the site in Phase F is also supported by innovations in local pottery shapes. See Kopetzky 2010, 270–271. 12 Bietak et al. 2012/2013, 32. The mudbrick structures would have not been so strongly burned if the fire was accidental. 13 Bietak et al. 2012/2013, 32–35, fig. 16B. Despite the looting, the preciousness and variety of materials discovered in the storerooms suggest that they were royal magazines. Among the remaining artefacts were objects of stone, faience, ivory and diverse raw materials such as lumps of quartz, obsidian and ochre. 14 Ibidem, 36.

At the start of Hyksos rule,15 the settlement increased again, reaching c. 250 hectares in Phase E/1.16 This significant change is mostly due to Avaris’s new status as the Hyksos capital city.17 The early Hyksos palace complex does not display the symmetrical plan typical of Egyptian palaces, but was built in additive fashion with three rows of building sections.18 The structure exhibits several spaces for storage, including two rows of paved magazines (Unit A) in which numerous fragments of Canaanite Jars have been discovered, suggesting strong trade connections with the Levant.19 A further series of improvements was undertaken in the Eastern Quarter of the settlement during the early part of the 15th Dynasty (Phase E/1). In Area A/II, Temples III and V were renewed and Temple I was partly repaired.20 And another temple was built in Area F/I: though severely denuded, the building’s preserved foundations allow the reconstruction of a tripartite 15 The

identification of the beginning of Hyksos rule, at some point of Phase E/2, is also supported by changes in the material culture. See Bietak et al. 2001. 16 Bietak 2010, 11. According to geomagnetic mapping, the Hyksos palatial complex of Area F/II (Stratum c/2, correlated with Phase E/1) reached c. 10,600 sq.m. 17 Bietak et al. 2012/2013, fig. 2. 18 Ibidem, 19. 19 Ibidem, fig. 2. 20 Bietak 1991b, 41–42.

318

Sarah Vilain

Fig. 3a Compressed settlement of Phase D/3, Area A/II (Bietak 2010, fig. 17a)

Fig. 3b Compressed settlement of Phase D/2, Area A/II (Bietak 2010, fig. 17b)

sanctuary in a layout very similar to the Egyptian temples of Area A/II. A further reversal occurred during Phases D/3 and D/2. Temples III and V remained in use, but Temples I and II were no longer maintained and fell into ruin.21 In Area A/II, the settlement increased in size and density (Figs. 3a-b).22 As a result, the living quarters of the town expanded into the funerary area, implying a change in the function of space.23 This functional shift, as well as the decrease of energy put into the maintenance and construction of buildings, may be respectively perceived as responses to an overwhelming population increase and a decrease of available space. From a ‘crisis perspective’, the compression of the settlement observed in Area A/II is a factor of exacerbation of social tensions. Higher population density leads to a greater need for coordination, centralised decision-making, supply organisation and may also produce higher levels of social conflict. To protect the city and its growing population, vulnerable parts of Avaris were fortified during the late Hyksos Period. At ‘Ezbet Helmi, the whole northern part of the town seems to have been defended by a wall with bastions towards the Nile. Other fortification remains were also identified

during the geophysical survey undertaken within the southern limits of the town.24 Even if the distinction between a response to a threat or a gradual change for ideological purposes is archaeologically difficult to assess, it is likely that these walls had more than a symbolic dimension.25 Indeed, further discoveries from Area F/II suggest that the Hyksos period was a time of conflict, if not warfare. Four pits, containing sixteen severed right hands, were discovered in Stratum c/1, outside the palatial complex.26 Two more pits, containing one hand each, were found under the four-column building just at the front enclosure wall of the Palace. According to M. Bietak, severed hands could relate to the ‘gold of valour’, an Egyptian practice wherein soldiers were rewarded according to their performance in battle and, possibly, according to the number of slain enemies.27 Scholars studying Middle Bronze Age legal texts have also argued that the severing of hands might have been used as a punishment for insubordination or rebellion against the king, maybe

21 Müller

2002, 277. 1991b, 43, 45, 46; 2010, 18. The occupation seems to have been less compact in Area A/V. However, this phase was only reached in one square, which delivered domestic structures including semi-detached houses and round silos. 23 Forstner-Müller 2010, 129. 22 Bietak

24 Forstner-Müller

2013, 245. In Spring 2012, auger drillings were undertaken in order to investigate the nature of these structures. At least a part of them consisted of mudbricks, suggesting that they were intentionally built and might have had a defensive function. 25 Driessen 1995, 67. These defensive installations could be the expression of a ‘warchitecture’, a term used to design defensive structures or refuge settlements erected as a response to a threat. 26 Bietak et al. 2012/2013, 19. 27 Ibidem, 32.

A Crisis? What Crisis? Challenging Times at Tell el-Dab‘a during the Second Intermediate Period

319

even a ‘coup d’état’.28 Historical sources support a complex political situation between the Hyksos kings in the Delta and their Theban counterparts in the South.29 The building of a fortification system at Avaris in the later Second Intermediate Period may well be connected to this overall period of political instability.

An Insight into the Funerary Record

In the funerary record, signs of crisis may be perceived through different variables, such as an increase in mortality rate, a decline of quality in funerary architecture, the presence of emergency burials or shifts in funerary customs.30 The earliest graves at Tell el-Dab‘a are known exclusively from excavations in Area F/I. In Strata d/2 and d/1, built chamber graves constitute the vast majority of the discoveries.31 In Stratum d/1, in the cemetery south of the palace of Area F/I, some of the main tombs had a rectangular mud-brick superstructure that might have supported a chapel.32 Children were buried in small chambers of sandy mud-bricks, usually in Levantine amphorae, except for a child interred in a beer jar in Stratum d/2.33 Donkeys, in this phase, were also found buried in pits next to men’s graves as part of the so-called warrior burials tradition, a practice still attested in the early Hyksos period.34 In Phase G/1–3, in Area A/II, graves were dug either within houses or under their courtyards. Small cemeteries or small tomb groups within rectangular structures attached to habitation units were also found.35 As mentioned above, the discovery of emergency pit burials at the end of this phase suggests the city was stricken by a tragedy. Very little funerary material was associated with these pit burials, confirming that the deceased were hastily buried.36 In Phase F, the social differentiation, already observed in the settlement, is also expressed in funerary customs, as shown by the discovery of 28 Candelora

2019, 103. of the main testimonial about political issues of the Second Intermediate Period is the inscription of Kamose (see H abachi 1972; R edford 1997, 13–16), in which the Theban king relates how his kingdom is caught between the Hyksos in the Delta and the Kingdom of Kush in the South. See also Ryholt 1997, 307–308. 30 See Tainter 1988, 89; Driessen 1995; 2002, 251–252. 31 Schiestl 2009, 41. Chamber graves represent 73% of graves in Stratum d/2 and 93% in Stratum d/1. 32 Bietak 1991b, 34. 33 Schiestl 2009, 279. Tomb 18, F/I-o/19. 34 Prell 2019a, 107–110. Equid burials are still present in Phase E/1 of Tell el-Dab‘a. 35 Bietak 1991b, 38. 36 Bietak 1991c, 36–37. Grave goods are particularly scarce: a pit with a woman lying on her back yielded one steatite scarab (Graves l/12, no. 4 [114]), while a man was buried with an imported Levantine juglet (Grave k/12, no.1 [185]). 29 One

Fig. 4 Jar burial, A/II-k15-Grave 8, Area A/II, Phase D/3 (© M. Bietak, ÖAI archive) servant burials in front of the entrance to the burial chambers of several graves.37 From Phases E/3–E/2, the tradition of child interments in jars, buried either within houses or in courtyards, became a rule. In the eastern part of the settlement, cemeteries continued to develop around the sacred precinct of Temple III.38 There were also tombs of adults within courtyards, even if the cemeteries were still in use. Most of the earlier funerary tradition persisted even after the Hyksos took over. Interestingly, Area A/II, Phase D/3 produced the highest rate of child burials (Fig. 4).39 Seven graves from this phase were also excavated in Area A/V, six of which were child burials.40 A

37 Bietak

1989, 31–39; Forstner-Müller 2010, 132; 2002. The burial individuals are young females, placed in a pit outside the tomb chamber of the main tomb’s owner. See for example grave A/II-p/14 L468, also associated with an equid burial. The origin of the servant burials is still debated, but this practice is attested both in Mesopotamia and in Nubia already during the 3rd millennium BCE. 38 Bietak 1991b, 41. 39 Forstner-Müller 2008, fig. 62. 40 H ein and Jánosi 2004, 35–61.

320

Sarah Vilain

Fig. 5 Multiple burials, A/II-m/17-Grave 3, Area A/II, Phase D/2 (© M. Bietak, ÖAI archive) similar phenomenon was detected in Area A/I41 and in Area F/I, in Stratum a/2.42 The increase in population density might have been particularly favourable to the spread of diseases, increasing child mortality. Single burials for both adults and children were the general rule at Tell el-Dab‘a, even if graves containing the remains of two to five individuals were occasionally attested throughout its stratigraphy.43 Nevertheless, a higher concentration of collective burials seems to occur in the last phase of the site. Grave A/II-m/17, no. 3, discovered in Phase D/2, contained fourteen burials in what might have been a family tomb (Fig. 5).44 In some cases, the funerary chamber was planned and built at the same time as the house. This transition from individual burials to family graves is well documented in the Levant in the Middle Bronze IIB period. At Tell el-Dab‘a, the increased density of the settlement, at the end of the Second Intermediate Period, may also have favoured this phenomenon.45

and R ahmstorf 2019, 167–168. 1993, 26. 43 Forstner-Müller 2010, 131. 44 See Forstner-Müller 2008, 362–374 for the description of Grave A/II-m/17, no. 3. This grave is a vaulted tomb chamber, which rules out the hypothesis of an emergency multiple burial. 45 See H allote 1995, 101; Cohen 2012, 312.

Unfortunately, Tell el-Dab‘a’s graves experienced a high rate of plundering, with up to 80% in Phase D/2 of Area A/II.46 This uneven looting means that the artefact assemblages, from various periods, and perhaps those of different categories of persons, are not equally represented in the surviving evidence.47 This situation affects any assessment of the initial composition of the funerary material. Being aware of this caveat, observations can still be made by relying on the assemblages of intact graves whenever possible. Metallic artefacts, in particular, are meaningful components of funerary assemblages, as they can be perceived through multiple prisms. Weapons, for example, may have been prized for the degree of technicity put into their production, the social status they provided for their owners or for the value of the metals themselves. According to the occurrences of bronze weapons, throughout the stratigraphy of the site, the highest ratios, per adult burials, were reached in the earliest phases (Phases

41 Prell

42 Kopetzky

46 See

Bietak 1991c, 289–314; Forstner-Müller 2008, 343–383 for the detail of the graves in Phase D/2 of Area A/II. 47 Philip 2006, 229.

A Crisis? What Crisis? Challenging Times at Tell el-Dab‘a during the Second Intermediate Period

Figs. 6a–b Warrior burial and its weapons, A/II-n/15-grave 1, Phases E/1–D/3 (© M. Bietak, ÖAI archive)

321

322

Sarah Vilain

H and G/4),48 disregarding the attested looting in each phase. Other significant quantities of weapons were found in Phase F,49 during the 14th Dynasty, and in Phase E/1 to early Phase D/3 (Figs. 6a–b)50 during the early Hyksos Dynasty. This phenomenon can be interpreted in contradictory ways, as it may be argued that a high rate of weapons in funerary contexts is a direct reflection of their common use by warriors, while some scholars suggest that the deposition of weapons in graves is due to their lack of use in everyday life.51 Interestingly, Phases E/3–E/2, which directly precede Hyksos rule and may have experienced more political instability,52 yielded only

48

The earliest graves of Tell el-Dab‘a were published by

Schiestl 2009. In Stratum d/2 (= Phase H) weapons are attested in six adult burials (F/I-p/20, no. 7, F/I-o/19, no. 8, F/I-j/21, no. 13, F/I-o/21, no. 6, F/I-n/21, no. 10, F/I-o/20, no. 17). Among the assemblage of this Stratum are a dagger, a fenestrated axe, a belt, a knife and seven spearheads. In Stratum d/1, weapons were attested in nine of the thirty-six burials and offering pits published by Schiestl (F/I-m/18, no. 3, F/I-p/18, no. 14, F/I-o/21, no. 4, F/I-p/17, no. 14, F/I-p/20, no. 2, F/I-p/18, no. 1, F/I-p/21, no. 1, F/I-o/17, no. 1, F/I-m/17, nos. 1 and 2). Of particular interest is a pair of spearheads, likely in silver, discovered in grave F/I-m/18, no. 3. Spearheads are usually associated with daggers, suggesting that the assemblage is incomplete, certainly due to plundering. 49 In Area A/II, nine graves from Phase F were published by Bietak 1991c, 39–74 and sixteen graves by ForstnerMüller 2008, 140–185. Weapons are encountered in four graves (A/II-l/12, no. 5 [181], A/II-m/10, no. 8 [204], A/II-p/14, no. 18 L468, A/II-l/16, no. 4). The overall assemblage constitutes two narrow-bladed socketed axes, four daggers and two belts. For the detail of the belts from Tell el-Dab’a and their parallels, see Prell 2019b, 305–311, fig. 4. In Area F/I (= Stratum b/3) only one adult burial was equipped with a weapon (see Kopetzky 1993). 50 Graves of Phase E/1 are mostly documented by publications from Area A/II. Twenty-six burials are detailed in Bietak 1991c, 167–241 and eighteen in Forstner-Müller 2008, 245–291. The weapon assemblage is composed of sixteen pieces (four narrowbladed socketed axes, three daggers, and eight knife blades) discovered in five graves (A/II-l/12, no. 2 [367], A/II-l/14, no. 5, A/II-l/16, no. 1 and no. 2 and A/II-n/15, no. 1). Grave A/II-n/15, no. 1 (Phase E/1-beginning D/3), in particular, yielded the remains of three men, all of them equipped with weapons. 51 K letter and Levi 2016, 7. 52 According to Ryholt, the end of the 13th and the 14th dynasties are marked by ephemeral kings with shortterm rules, suggesting a general climate of insecurity. See Ryholt 1997, 300. The burned magazines of the palatial complex dated to the end of Phase E/3 or the beginning of Phase E/2 further supports the possibility of internal or external troubles in the pre-Hyksos period. On the contrary, early Hyksos rule might have brought a certain stability, confirmed by the improvements noticed in the occupation of Phase E/1.

a few weapons, and less plundering of graves than those of Phase E/1.53 Several typological changes can also be observed in the funerary material. Metal belts, socketed javelin heads, narrow-bladed axes of Philip’s type 154 and daggers with five mid-ribs are less attested after Phases F–E/3, a phenomenon which coincides with the transition from the Middle Bronze IIA to IIB periods.55 Middle Bronze IIB assemblages with weapon sets typically include narrow-bladed axes of Philip’s types 2–356 and daggers of Philip’s types 17, 18 and 34.57 These types occasionally appear in Phases F–E/3 but mostly surface in Phases E/1–D/3, at the start of Hyksos rule.58 A new shift is attested in Phase D/2. Weapon-related items are mostly limited to single edge knives.59 A similar decrease in weapons is perceptible in both Areas A/II and A/V.60 This phenomenon may relate to a general cultural development observed in the Levant,61 where the elite professional warrior was no longer associated with the socketed axe and the dagger. It has also been suggested that the ease of access to metals, with the development of long-distance trade and advances in metal technologies, led to a decline in the social prestige associated with metallic artefacts as grave goods.62 In both cases, new symbols of social status would have been expected to rise in proportion to the decline of weapons as tomb items.63 According In Area F/I, weapons are absent from both Stratum b/2 (= E/3) and Stratum b/1 (= E/2). See Kopetzky 1993. Eighteen graves were discovered in Phase E/3 of Area A/II (Bietak 1991c, 77–101; 107–154 (seven graves); Forstner-Müller 2008, 191–214, 221–239 (eleven graves)). Weapon-related items are only attested in grave A/II-l/14, no. 7, that yielded a pair of spearheads and a knife blade. Among the published graves unearthed in Phase E/2 (Bietak 1991c, 105–154 (seventeen graves); Forstner-Müller 2008, 221–239 (fourteen graves)), weapons were only discovered in grave A/II-p/13, no. 15 L304 (one narrow-bladed axe and one dagger blade, see Forstner-Müller 2008, 235). 54 Philip 2006, 139, table 2. 55 Bietak et al. 2001, fig. 2. 56 Philip 2006, 139–140, table 2. 57 Bietak et al. 2001, fig. 2; Philip 2006, 143, table 3. 58 Bietak et al. 2001, fig. 2; Philip 2006, tables 2–3. 59 Philip 2006, 219. 60 Phase D/2 was reached in both Areas A/II and A/V. Area A/II (Bietak 1991a, 289–316; Forstner-Müller 2008, 343–384) yielded thirty-three graves, only one knife was encountered in this Phase (TD 8907, Forstner-Müller 2008, 377). In Area A/V (Hein and Jánosi 2004, 65–182), nineteen graves were discovered, none of them yielded any weapon-related item. 61 H allote 1995, fig. 7. 62 Cohen 2012, 312. 63 H allote 1995, 114: “While in MB IIA the society had intended to be perceived as militarily oriented, in the MB IIB and MB IIC periods the elite image was civilian and power oriented, and was associated with items such as jewellery, other adornments and scarabs (…).” 53

A Crisis? What Crisis? Challenging Times at Tell el-Dab‘a during the Second Intermediate Period

to A. Burke, as warrior burials evolved during the latter part of the Middle Bronze Age, the composite bow and chariot became the new markers of status.64 Therefore, arrowheads should have been discovered in Phase D/2. However, the only example attested at Tell el-Dab‘a was found in Phase E/1–D/3.65 In the last phase of the site, in Area A/II, adornments are limited to small items, such as beads or toggle pins. The only exceptions are a necklace, in grave A/IIm/18, no. 1, and a silver earring, in grave A/II-m/17, no. 3.66 If scarabs are present, they are usually made of faience or steatite; amethyst scarabs are no longer encountered after Phase E/1.67 Further elements are highlighted in G. Philip’s study on Tell el-Dab‘a’s metalwork. Due to the poor preservation of many of the smaller metal objects, the range of analysed samples was not fully representative.68 Nevertheless, the results suggested a decrease of tin concentration in the composition of metallic artefacts, in particular axes and daggers, in Phases E/3 to D/2.69 A low ratio of tin impacts the resistance of metal objects, making them more fragile and less suitable to fulfil their function.70 No voluntary addition of arsenic was detected and, generally, the assemblage of metallic artefacts from all phases at Tell el-Dab‘a show little evidence for high arsenic copper alloys.71 Interestingly, a substantial proportion of the sampled weapons is of unalloyed

copper or low arsenic copper alloys.72 Philip suggested that this phenomenon might have resulted from the decline of the symbolic value attributed to weapons, in particular daggers and axes.73 Perhaps weapons deposited in funerary contexts at the end of the Middle Bronze Age were not meant to be used for daily activities and, therefore, were not submitted to solidity constraints, making the use of tin-bronze unnecessary. However, an examination of the composition of near-identical weapons from a contemporary cemetery at Jericho showed that tinbronze was still used for manufacturing these types in the Middle Bronze IIB–C period.74 Complementary analyses of bronze artefacts from Pella also pointed to a large use of tin-bronze during this period.75 Tinbronze was also known and used in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, as suggested by Cowell’s analysis of twenty flat-axes, of Egyptian type, from the British Museum.76 A similar lack of tin was noticed in the composition of a harpoon and a knife discovered in Phase D/3, suggesting that weapons were not the only metallic artefacts to be made of unalloyed copper or low arsenic copper alloys at the end of the Second Intermediate Period.77 Tin was a pricey metal and, if finished products were imported, it might be assumed that artefacts made in less qualitative alloys were more affordable. If these weapons and tools were

72 Philip

64 Burke

2008, 43. 2006, 69, no. 320. 66 Forstner-Müller 2008, 373–374. 67 The presence of amethyst is only attested by two beads in Phase D/2 (grave A/II-m/13, no. 2 [578], Bietak 1991c, 294). 68 Philip 2006, 205, 209. Philip’s results were obtained through three different analytical programmes investigating the composition of metallic artefacts. 1) Twelve copper-base artefacts were analysed at the Rasthgen-Forschungslabor of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin under the supervision of Prof. Riederer in 1982, prior to Philip’s involvement in the project. 2) A programme of Atomic Absorption analysis was undertaken in 1985 by Cowell at the British Museum. It examined six silver and twenty-nine copper-based artefacts. Two more ingots were analysed using the same technique in 1989. 3) A second batch of eleven samples was analysed by X-Ray Fluorescence in 1991, again by Cowell. Samples from 2) and 3) were collected in the field by G. Philip. 69 Philip 2006, table 21. See also Philip 2006, tables 17–18 and, especially, nos. 3060, 3059, 3105, 3106, 4148, 339, 349, 359, 403, 2187, 4139, 350, 433, 461, 1356, 264, 387, 343. 70 Nicholson and Shaw 2000, 153. The use of unalloyed copper to cast weapons is not adapted from a technological point of view 71 Philip 2006, 214. 65 Philip

323

2006, 214. A clear distinction should be made between 1) unalloyed copper/low arsenic copper alloys, 2) arsenic copper alloys, and 3) tin-bronze. 1) The properties of low arsenic copper alloys (containing 1–2% of arsenic) should not have been different from those of unalloyed copper. The presence of low levels of arsenic might be due to the fact that smiths had access to copper from different sources, as arsenic is naturally present in many ore types (Philip 2006, 205). 2) In the case of arsenic copper alloys, arsenic is voluntarily added to obtain a greater hardness and facilitates the casting. Arsenic copper alloys might already have been used in the Old Kingdom. 3) The use of tin-bronze further increases both the hardness and the sharpness of copper alloyed tools and weapons and is technologically superior to arsenic copper alloys. In Egypt, tin-bronze is known from the Middle Kingdom but arsenic alloys might still be occasionally used during the New Kingdom (Nicholson and Shaw 2000, 152–153). In the Levant, arsenic alloys and tin-bronze are both used during the Middle Bronze I. However, tin-bronze is predominantly – if not exclusively – used during the Middle Bronze II period (Cohen 2012, 312). 73 Philip 2006, 242. 74 Philip 1995, figs. 1–2. 75 Philip et al. 2003, 89. 76 Cowell 1987, 99; Philip 2006, 214. Unfortunately, the artefacts from Cornwell’s study cannot be precisely dated within the Second Intermediate Period. 77 Philip 2006, table 18. The harpoon (no. 264) and the knife (no. 387) show a tin concentration inferior to 0.2% (Philip 2006, table 18, nos. 339, 264).

324

Sarah Vilain

Figs. 7 Repartition of the different categories of ceramics in the funerary assemblages of Phases H to D/2, including Levantine Tableware (black) and Canaanite Jars (dark grey). (S. Vilain, published data from areas A/II, A/V, F/I) locally made at Tell el-Dab‘a, one may consider the possibility that tin was deliberately spared due to economic considerations or accessibility issues. Tin might have been available sporadically, in limited quantities, or it might have been too precious to be acquired in large quantities.78 Excavations at Tell elDab‘a yielded only few indications of metallurgical activity at the end of the Second Intermediate Period, which may or may not reflect the presence of metallurgy at the site. Especially if access to raw materials was difficult, even broken metal objects may have had relatively high economic value, as they could be re-cast to create new items.79 From a crisis perspective, the evolution of the composition to Muhly 1985, 276–277 the price of tin was much higher than the price of copper during the Roman period. It might also have been the case in earlier times. See also Garenne-M arot 1984, 106–107; Nicholson and Shaw 2000, 171. 79 A tuyere was discovered in Phase D/2 of Area A/II (Philip 2006, 199, no. 397).

of metallic artefacts is noteworthy, as the choice of alloys seems to have been driven more by economic considerations than technological suitability, at least in the last phases of Tell el-Dab‘a.80

A Glance at Imported Wares

In trading connections, signs of crisis can be identified by monitoring inter alia the presence and diversity of imports, the multiplication or reduction of trading partners or the access to specific categories of raw materials.81 The establishment of foreign connections 80

78 According

81

The analyses of two additional socketed axes of Philip’s

type 2, one from Khatana and one likely from Tell elYahudiya, showed that they also contained less than 0.1% of tin. The rate of arsenic, c. 1–2% is too low to change the properties of the metal, making it an unlikely voluntary addition. The use of unalloyed copper/low arsenic copper alloys might have been a regional phenomenon (see Cowell 1987, nos. 167–168). See Tainter 1988, 89; Driessen 1995; Driessen 2002, 251–252.

A Crisis? What Crisis? Challenging Times at Tell el-Dab‘a during the Second Intermediate Period

325

Figs. 8 The occurrence of Cypriot Wares by Phase at Tell el-Dab‘a (S. Vilain, updated data from Maguire 2009, table 2 – Areas A/I, A/II, A/III, A/IV, A/V, F/I) and the ability to maintain long distance trade are manifestations of both economic and political stability. The variety of traded commodities mentioned in historical sources suggests that many do not survive across time,82 giving us a truncated vision of the scale of exchanges. Being aware of this limitation, the best expression of trade at Tell el-Dab‘a is foreign pottery, especially Levantine imports attested at the site from the late 12th Dynasty onwards. Statistically, these reach a peak in Phase F, before declining until

the end of the Second Intermediate Period.83 Data from funerary contexts confirm this pattern (Fig. 7). Phase E/1, correlating with the beginning of Hyksos rule, delivered the lowest rate of Levantine imports in funerary assemblages. A shift in the repertoire of shapes accompanied the decline of Levantine ceramics. In Phases D/3 and D/2, imported tableware dramatically decreases in favour of transport jars, the contents of which could not be locally made.84 83 Kopetzky

82 R edford

1997, 14. According to the Second Stela of Kamose (lines 14–16), among the commodities shipped to Tell el-Dab‘a are moringa-oil, incense, fat, honey, willow, wood-box, fine woods… “All the fine products of Retenu”.

2010, fig. 52. In Phase F, Levantine imports constitute 28.7% of the ceramic of domestic assemblages. 84 Analyses on Canaanite Jars discovered in Egypt during the New Kingdom suggest that they were used to transport commodities such as wine, oil and resins (Serpico et al. 2003). Analyses by R. Röttlander on samples discovered at Tell el-Dab‘a highlighted the presence of animal and vegetal fat (Aston and Bietak 2012, 557–558).

326

Sarah Vilain

Figs. 9 Area F/II, Locus 1421, Local imitations of Cypriot White Painted Pendent Line Style juglets (© M. Bietak, ÖAI archive) The second most attested category of imports, present at Tell el-Dab‘a from the 13th Dynasty, is of Cypriot type (Fig. 8). Cypriot White Painted Pendent Line Style and Cross Line Style jugs and juglets were already discovered in Phases G/1–3 and F, but are barely attested in Phases E/3 and E/2, which directly precede Hyksos rule.85 It is during this period of scarcity of genuine imports that the earliest imitations of Cypriot ceramics are encountered, in one of the burned magazines of the abovementioned pre-Hyksos Palace in Area F/II (Fig. 9).86 The presence of imitations in a palatial complex, where genuine imports would have been expected, suggests that their creation might have been stimulated by an impossibility to fulfil the demand for Cypriot ceramics.87 However, from Phase E/1, the new capital city of Avaris experienced renewed connections, either direct or indirect, with the island of Cyprus. One key to understanding trade patterns is the distribution of Tell el-Yahudiya juglets (Fig. 10), the typological development of which is well documented throughout the stratigraphy of Tell el-Dab‘a. Tell el-Yahudiya juglets, classified into 85 M aguire

2009, tables 2–3. 2018. 87 Vilain 2019a, 312. 86 Vilain

the ‘Levanto-Egyptian group,’ are attested from Phases G/1–3 to E/2, their presence preceding Hyksos rule.88 These types are encountered in the Northern Levant, especially in the region of Byblos and in the Beqa‘a Valley.89 Additional results from petrographic analyses show that over 20% of Levantine imports discovered at Tell el-Dab‘a originate from the Byblos-Beirut area during the 13th Dynasty,90 confirming strong connections between the two regions in the pre-Hyksos period. Tell el-Yahudiya juglets belonging to the Late Egyptian category developed under Hyksos rule, from Phases E/2 to D/2.91 In the Northern Levant, they are only occasionally encountered in Ugarit 88 Aston

and Bietak 2012, 142–200, fig. 253. The early Levantine Tell el-Yahudiya juglets and their Egyptian copies were very similar in their first stage of development, which led to their classification by Aston to a ‘Levanto-Egyptian’ category containing Branch I (types I.1 to I.4 corresponding Bietak’s Piriform 1a–d within addition groups I.5 and I.6) and Branch J. 89 Genz and Sader 2010/2011, 136–137, fig. 7. Compare also the contributions by Heinz and Catanzariti as well as Charaf in this volume. 90 Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004, fig. 3, Group D. 91 Aston and Bietak 2012, fig. 253.

A Crisis? What Crisis? Challenging Times at Tell el-Dab‘a during the Second Intermediate Period

327

Figs. 10 Typological distribution of Tell el-Yahudiya juglets of Levanto-Egyptian and Late Egyptian groups (Map: S. Vilain and P. Aprent) and in the area of Sidon.92 Despite the limited distribution of these Tell el-Yahudiya types in this region, petrographic analyses on Canaanite Jars discovered at Tell el-Dab‘a, Memphis and Kom elKhilgan showed that imports from the Northern Levant reached the Delta in significant quantities until the end of the Second Intermediate Period.93 It is important to note, however, that reliable Middle Bronze IIB data from the Northern Levant is lacking, which could, therefore, limit our understanding of Tell el-Yahudiya’s distribution, especially in Syria.94 It might also be considered that populations in the Northern Levant did not

need to import Late Egyptian Tell el-Yahudiya juglets, as they developed their own juglet production, the still poorly documented ‘Late Syrian group’.95 Moreover, they also had access to other kinds of small commodity containers, especially from Cyprus, the contents of which could have been close to those stored in Tell el-Yahudiya juglets.96 By contrast, in the Southern Levant, Late Egyptian types are well attested, especially in the areas of Ashkelon and Tell el-Ajjul.97 An increase in imported Canaanite Jars from this region discovered in the last phase of Tell el-Dab‘a also points to escalating of exchanges with the Delta.98

92 R abate et al. 2011, 139–153; Aston and Bietak 2012, fig.

162.

93 Ownby 94

and Bourriau 2009; Ownby 2012.

The Tell el-Yahudiya pottery discovered in Syria was

recently reassessed as a part of the PhD. of S. Shammas (Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich) defended in January 2020. Levanto-Egyptian juglets are only present at Ras-Shamra, where Late Egyptian juglets are also encountered. Apart from Ras Shamra, a Late Egyptian Tell el-Yahudiya juglet is found within Dar‘a Museum collection, with no provenance. The rest of the Syrian material belongs mostly to the so-called ‘Syrian Tell el-Yahudiya Ware’ (S. Shammas, personal communication).

95 Aston 96

and Bietak 2012, 200.

At Tell Arqa, for example, the quantity of imported

Tell el-Yahudiya is modest compared to the quantity of Cypriot imports (see Charaf and Ownby 2012, 591). 97 Aston and Bietak 2012. See in particular fig. 147 (Group L.1) and fig. 189 (Group L.9). A production of Levantine Tell el-Yahudiya Ware also occurred in the Southern Levant, at ‘Afula (Zevulun 1990). 98 Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004, fig. 2. The part of imports from coastal sites of the Southern Levant is higher in Phases E/2–D/3–2 than in Phases F–E/3.

328

Sarah Vilain

In Cyprus, the earliest Tell el-Yahudiya types are encountered at two sites, Toumba tou Skourou and Arpera Mosphilos.99 A concentration of LevantoEgyptian type juglets is present in Eastern Cyprus, from where the White Painted Pendent Line Style and Cross Line Style, discovered at Tell el-Dab‘a, mostly originated.100 The category of Combed Ware juglets is chiefly encountered in Eastern Cyprus and in the Nile Delta.101 Another cluster of Late Egyptian Tell el-Yahudiya ware was identified in central Cyprus, at sites located close to the Troodos mining areas, and on the Southern coast of the island, at Klavdhia Tremithos. It has been argued newcomers from central Cyprus, familiar with copper mining, moved to the coast and founded Klavdhia Tremithos to benefit from the increasing demand for this metal in the Eastern Mediterranean.102 While exchanges between the Eastern Nile Delta, the Levant and Cyprus are documented through the circulation of Tell el-Yahudiya juglets, Canaanite Jars and White Painted jugs, connections with Middle and Upper Egypt are more difficult to assess. In Egypt, outside the Nile Delta, Canaanite Jars are predominantly concentrated in the Memphite area. According to Bader, their presence drastically decreases after Phase VId, correlating with the start of Hyksos rule (Phases E/2–1 of Tell el-Dab‘a).103 At Tell el-Dab‘a, Marl C vessels, which probably originated from the Memphis-Fayoum area, are scarce after Phase E/1, when they were presumably supplanted by Marl F ceramics, made in a local Marl clay.104 The decrease of Canaanite Jars at Memphis, after Phase VII, and the concomitant decline of Marl C at Tell el-Dab‘a, suggests limited contact occurred between the Delta and the Memphite area in the last part of Hyksos rule. This would explain why specific vessels, such as jars with a corrugated neck, are not attested at Tell el-Dab‘a after Phase E/1, while they occur at Memphis until the end of the Second Intermediate Period.105 The distribution of Cypriot imports, which are chiefly limited to Tell el-Dab‘a and the Eastern Nile Delta, supports the hypothesis that the Delta became progressively isolated from other Merrillees 1974, fig. 31, Tomb 1A; K aplan 1980, 161; Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 386–387; Aston and Bietak 2012, figs. 89, 99, 110, 135. 100 The White Painted Pendent Line Style and Cross Line Style mostly originate from the area of Kalopsidha. See Åström 1966, 82–87. NAA results by A rtzy and Asaro 1979 showed the Egyptian origin of the Tell el-Yahudiya juglets discovered in Cyprus (A rtzy and Asaro 1979). 101 See Aston and Bietak 2012, fig. 206 for the distribution of Combed Ware. An additional Combed Ware juglet from Enkomi, kept at the British Museum, was published by K aplan 1980, 161, fig. 117e. 102 M almgren 2003, 113. 103 Bader 2009, fig. 396. 104 Kopetzky 2010, fig. 44. 105 Bader 2002, 41. 99

parts of Egypt, which, in turn, only had limited access to Eastern Mediterranean imports.106 This restricted access to certain categories of goods, either in the Delta or in the rest of Egypt, is one of the economic consequences of the political crisis afflicting Egypt at the end of the Second Intermediate Period.

Concluding Remarks

Archaeological excavations suggest Tell el-Dab‘a was already facing a crisis before the takeover of the Hyksos Dynasty. The collapse of the central Egyptian administration, following the end of the Middle Kingdom, likely destabilised the general organisation of trade in Egypt. The increase of Eastern Mediterranean imports at Tell el-Dab‘a, in Phase F, reflects the growing independence of the Delta. In contrast, from Phase E/3, Levantine ceramics dramatically decrease in a decline that lasts until the end of the Second Intermediate Period. Their large-scale importation might not have been necessary anymore, as they were not redistributed throughout Egypt. The concomitant scarcity of Cypriot imports in Phases E/3 and E/2 and the discovery of imitations of Cypriot jugs in the burned palatial magazine of Area F/II also questions the stability of the site’s foreign connections at that time. The destruction of this complex by a substantial fire, likely intentional,107 raises the possibility of conflict, either external or internal, which would have had a further impact on trade. The general climate of political instability and economic weakness might have facilitated the takeover of the 15th Dynasty at some point in Phase E/2. During early Hyksos rule, in Phase E/1, the city of Avaris experienced new improvements favoured by its status as a capital city. The funerary material displays high rates of weapons and adornments, but low rates of Levantine imports among ceramics offerings. Locally produced wares progressively replaced Levantine tableware, as the funerary assemblages seem to favour the indigenous pottery tradition of the Delta.108 Further developments are observed in the succeeding Phase D/3: living quarters expanded into the funerary area and the settlement is observably denser, especially in Area A/II. This was accompanied by a high rate of child mortality, suggesting poor living conditions. Despite the increase in population, noticed in Phases D/3 and D/2, Levantine ceramics, especially tableware, still decline in number. Levantine imports are almost exclusively limited to Canaanite Jars, still sought after for their content, which could not have been For the distribution of Canaanite Jars and Cypriot imports in Egypt, see Vilain 2019b, figs. 1, 4, 5. 107 Bietak et al. 2012/2013, 35, fig. 16B. 108 Aston 2004, 185. This specific production develops on its own under Hyksos rule and borrows from both Egyptian and Levantine features. 106

A Crisis? What Crisis? Challenging Times at Tell el-Dab‘a during the Second Intermediate Period

locally produced. However, the number of Cypriot ceramics, imported as luxury items, increases even if they still constitute a very minor part of the overall ceramic assemblage.109 Further cultural developments occur at the end of the Second Intermediate Period. The symbolic value attributed to axes and daggers decline in the Levant, a phenomenon also noticeable at Tell elDab‘a, regarding the limited range of ‘weapon related items’ in the last phases of the site. The presence of weapons and tools made of unalloyed copper and low arsenic copper alloys may be a symptom of broader political and economic issues.110 During the Middle Kingdom, the Eastern Desert was exploited for gold,111 amethyst,112 turquoise mining and probably tin.113 After its fall, the limited available resources may not have allowed the organisation of large scale mining expeditions anymore.114 The Eastern Desert might have been a part of the territory controlled by the 17th Dynasty, making its resources not readily accessible to the Hyksos.115 Therefore, the hypothesis of an isolationist policy led by the Theban Kingdom against the 15th Dynasty is coherent, as seen through

329

the scarcity of Levantine and Cypriot imports outside the Delta and the decrease of Marl C pottery after Phase E/1 at Tell el-Dab‘a. Political circumstances, more than consumption choices, may have limited their circulation outside the Delta.116 For the Eastern Delta, which had access to a large range of trading routes, the easiest solution would have been to acquire raw materials from the Eastern Mediterranean. The need for copper, and maybe other raw materials such as tin, might have been a catalyst for the increase of connections with Cyprus, a shift that could be perceived as a manifestation of a political crisis.117 Thus, the end of Hyksos rule tackled a combination of internal and external triggers of crisis: 1) social stresses induced by the increase in population as suggested by settlement density, 2) social changes expressed through the decline of the so-called warrior burials, 3) external threats requiring the construction of fortifications,118 and 4) a depletion of resources due to the progressive isolation of the Delta from the rest of Egypt. In all likelihood, this combination of social, political and economic crises provoked the weakening of Hyksos power and ultimately contributed to its fall.

‘This project received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 668640)’

109

110 111 112 113

114

115

Vilain 2019b, 392–393, fig. 2. The corpus of Cypriot vessels discovered at Tell el-Dab‘a is mainly composed of jugs or juglets valued for their contents. Open shapes are uncommon but, when attested, consist of painted vessels of high quality. Philip 2006, table 18, no. 264. Nicholson and Shaw 2000, 161; K lemm et al. 2001, fig. 9. Nicholson and Shaw 2000, 51. Today, tin is commercially mined in the Eastern Desert (Nicholson and Shaw 2000, 171). See also H amimi et al. 2020, 550. However, we do not have evidence for tin exploitation in the Second Intermediate Period. This metal is not mentioned in the list of tribute imposed to Wawat nor to Kush (Garenne-M arot 1984, 107). Philip 2006, 238. According to Shaw 1998, 247 a typical expedition might include an average of three hundred men and four hundred donkeys. Polz 2018, 222.

116 117

118

Vilain 2019b, figs. 4–5. All connections may not have been severed, or not during the whole Hyksos period: the occasional presence of Tell el-Yahudiya juglets of Late Egyptian style in Upper Egypt, and even in Nubia, suggests that sporadic contacts might have been possible, maybe through the Desert Oases. See Vilain 2019b, 396–400, fig. 6. Historical sources support the hypothesis that the end of Hyksos rule experienced several conflicts. R edford 1997; Ryholt 1997, 306–309.

330

Sarah Vilain

Bibliography Aston, D. 2004 Tell el-Dab‘a XII: A Corpus of Late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period Pottery, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 23, Vienna. Aston, D. and Bietak, M. (eds.) 2012 Tell el-Dab‘a VIII: The Classification and Chronology of Tell el-Yahudiya Ware, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 12, Vienna. A rtzy, M. and Asaro F., 1979 Origin of Tell el Yahudiyah Ware Found in Cyprus, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 135-150. Åström, P. 1966 Excavations at Kalopsidha and Ayios Iakovos in Cyprus, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 2, Lund. Bader, B. 2002 A Concise Guide to Marl C Pottery, Ägypten & Levante 12, 29–54. 2009 Auaris und Memphis im Mittleren Reich und in der Hyksoszeit Vergleichsanalyse der materiellen Kultur, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 31, Vienna. Bietak, M. 1989 Servant Burials in the Middle Bronze Age Culture of the Eastern Nile Delta, Yigael Yadin Memorial Volume, Eretz Israel 20, 30–43. 1991a Der Friedhof in einem Palastgarten aus der Zeit des späten Mittleren Reiches und andere Forschungsergebnisse aus dem östlichen Nildelta (Tell el-Dab‘a 1984–1987), Ägypten & Levante 2, 47–75. 1991b Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age, Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 281, 27–72. 1991c Tell el-Dab‘a V: Ein Friedhofsbezirk der mittleren Bronzezeitkultur mit Totentempel und Siedlungsschichten, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 5, Vienna. 2010 Houses, Palaces and Development of Social Structure in Avaris, in: M. Bietak, E. Czerny and I. Forstner-Müller (eds.), Cities and Urbanism in Ancient Egypt: Papers from a Workshop in November 2006 at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, ÖAW, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 35, Vienna, 11–68. Bietak, M., Forstner-Müller, I. and Mlinar, C. 2001 The Beginning of the Hyksos Period at Tell elDab‘a : A Subtle Change in Material Culture, in: P.M. Fischer (ed.), Contributions to the Archaeology and History of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Eastern Mediterranean: Studies in Honour of Paul Åström, Vienna, 171–181. Bietak, M., M ath, N. and Müller, V. 2012/ Report on the Excavation of a Hyksos Palace at 2013 Tell el-Dab‘a /Avaris, Ägypten & Levante 22–23, 17–53.

Burke, A. 2008 Walled up to Heaven: The Evolution of Middle Bronze Age Fortification Strategies in the Levant, Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 4, Winona Lake. Candelora, D. 2019 Trophy or Punishment: Reinterpreting the Tell elDab‘a Hand Cache within Middle Bronze Age Legal Traditions, in: M. Bietak and S. Prell (eds.), The Enigma of the Hyksos. Vol.1, ASOR Conference Boston 2017 – ICAANE Conference Munich 2018 – Collected Papers, Wiesbaden, 95–106. Charaf, H. and Ownby, M. 2012 The Tell el-Yahudiya from Tell Arqa, in: D. Aston and M. Bietak, Tell el-Dab‘a VIII: The Classification and Chronology of Tell el-Yahudiya Ware, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 12, Vienna, 591–624. Cohen, S. 2012 Weaponry and Warrior Burials: Patterns of Disposal and Social Change in the Southern Levant, in: R. J. M atthews and J. Curtis (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 12 April–16 April 2010, The British Museum and UCL, London, Wiesbaden, 307–319. Cohen-Weinberger, A. and Goren, Y. 2004 Levantine-Egyptian Interactions during the 12th to the 15th Dynasties based on the Petrography of the Canaanite Pottery from Tell el-Dab‘a, Ägypten & Levante 14, 69–100. Cowell, M. R. 1987 Scientific Appendix I. Chemical Analysis, in: W.V. Davies (ed.), Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum. 7, Tools and Weapons 1, Axes, London, 96–118. Driessen, J. 1995 “Crisis Architecture”? Some Observations on Architectural Adaptations and Immediate Responses to Changing Socio-Cultural Conditions, Topoi 5, 63–68. 2002 Towards an Archaeology of Crisis: Defining the Long-Term Impact of the Bronze Age Santorini Eruption, in: R. Torrence and J. Grattan (eds.), Natural Disasters and Cultural Change, London, 250–263. Forstner-Müller, I. 2002 Tombs and Burial Customs at Tell el-Dab‘a in Area A/II at the End of the MB IIA Period (Stratum F), 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, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna, 163–184. 2008 Tell el-Dab‘a XVI: Die Gräber des Areals A/II von Tell el-Dab‘a, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 28, Vienna.

A Crisis? What Crisis? Challenging Times at Tell el-Dab‘a during the Second Intermediate Period 2010

331

Tombs and Burial Customs at Tell el-Dab‘a during the Late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period, in: M. M arée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192, Leuven, 127–138. 2013 City Wall(s) in Avaris, in: F. Jesse and C. Vogel (ed.), The Power of Walls – Fortifications in Ancient Northeastern Africa: Proceedings of the International Workshop held at the University of Cologne, 4th –7th August 2011, Cologne, 241–250.

Kopetzky, K. 1993 Datierung der Gräber der Grabungsfläche F/I von Tell el-Dab‘a anhand der Keramik, unpublished Master Thesis, University of Vienna. 2010 Tell el-Dab‘a XX: Die Chronologie der Siedlungskeramik der Zweiten Zwischenzeit aus Tell el-Dab‘a, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 32, Vienna.

Garenne-M arot, L. 1984 Le cuivre en Egypte pharaonique: sources et métallurgie, Paléorient 10, 97–126.

M almgren, K. 2003 Klavdhia-Tremithos: A Middle and Late Cypriote Bronze Age Site, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature, Jonsered.

Genz, H. and Sader H. 2010/2011 Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Tell Hizzin, Lebanon, Berytus 53–54, 133–146.

Merrillees, R. S. 1974 Trade and Transcendence in the Bronze Age Levant, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 39, Göteborg.

H abachi, L. 1972 The Second Stela of Kamose and his Struggle against the Hyksos Ruler and his Capital, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo, Ägyptologische Reihe 8, Glückstadt. H allote, R.S. 1995 Mortuary Archaeology and the Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8.1, 93–122. H amimi, Z., El-Barkooky, A., M artínez Frías, J., Fritz, H. and A bd El-R ahman, Y. 2020 The Geology of Egypt (Regional Geology Reviews), Cham. Hein, I. and Jánosi, P. 2004 Tell el-Dab‘a XI: Areal A/V: Siedlungsrelikte der späten 2. Zwischenzeit, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 25, Vienna. Ilin-Tomich, A. 2016 Second Intermediate Period, in: W. Grajetzki and W. Wendrich (eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles. http://digital2.library. ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002k7jm9 (last accessed January 2021). K aplan, M. F. 1980 The Origin and Distribution of Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 62, Göteborg. K lemm, D., K lemm, R. and Murr, A. 2001 Gold of the Pharaohs – 6000 Years of Gold Mining in Egypt and Nubia, African Earth Sciences 33, 643–659. K letter, R. and Levi, Y. 2016 Middle Bronze Age Burials in the Southern Levant: Spartan Warriors or Ordinary People?, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 35, 5–27.

M aguire, L. C. 2009 Tell el-Dab‘a XXI: The Cypriot Pottery and its Circulation in the Levant, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 29, Vienna.

Mourad, A.-L. 2015 Rise of the Hyksos: Egypt and the Levant from the Middle Kingdom to the Early Second Intermediate Period, Archaeopress Egyptology 11, Oxford. Muhly, J. D. 1985 Sources of Tin and the Beginnings of Bronze Metallurgy, America Journal of Archaeology 89, 275–291. Müller, V. 2002 Offering Practices in the Temple Court of Tell elDab‘a and Syria-Palestine, 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, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna, 269–295. Nicholson, P. T. and Shaw, I. (eds.) 2000 Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge. Ownby, M. 2016 Provenance Study of Middle Bronze Age Canaanite Jars, in: J. Bourriau and C. Gallorini, The Survey of Memphis VIII. Kom Rabia: The Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period Pottery. With contributions by Bettina Bader, Kathryn Eriksson, Serena Giuliani and Mary Ownby, London, 257–270. Ownby, M. and Bourriau, J. 2009 The Movement of Middle-Bronze Age Transport Jars: A Provenance Study Based on Petrographic and Chemical Analysis of Canaanite Jars from Memphis, Egypt, in: P. S. Quinn (ed.), Interpreting Silent Artefacts: Petrographic Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics, Oxford, 173–188. Philip, G. 1995 The Same but Different: A Comparison of Middle Bronze Age Metalwork from Jericho and Tell el-

332

2006

Sarah Vilain Dab‘a , Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 5, 523–530. Tell el-Dab‘a XV: Metalwork and Metalworking Evidence of the Late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 26, Vienna.

Philip, G., Clogg, P. W., Dunworth, D. and Stos, S. 2003 Copper Metallurgy in the Jordan Valley from the 3rd to the 1st Millennia BC: Chemical, Metallographic and Lead Isotope Analyses Artefacts from Pella, Levant 35, 71–100. Polz, D. 2018 The Territorial Claim and the Political Rule of the Theban State, in: I. Forstner-Müller and N. Mo eller (eds.), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan and the Early Second Intermediate Period in Egypt. Problems and Priorities of Current Research: Proceedings of the Workshop of the Austrian Archaeological Institute and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Vienna, July 4–5, 2014, Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahresheften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 17, Vienna, 217–233. Prell, S. 2019a A Ride to the Netherworld: Bronze Age Equid Burials in the Fertile Crescent, in: M.  Bietak and S. Prell (eds.), The Enigma of the Hyksos. Vol. 1, ASOR Conference Boston 2017 – ICAANE Conference Munich 2018 – Collected Papers, Wiesbaden, 107–123. 2019b ‘Buckle Up and Fasten That Belt!’ Metal Belts in the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Ägypten & Levante 29, 303–329. Prell, S. and R ahmstorf, L. 2019 Im Jenseits Handel betreiben. Areal A/I in Tell elDab‘a /Avaris – die hyksoszeitlichen Schichten und ein reich ausgestattetes Grab mit Feingewichten, in: M. Bietak and S.  Prell (eds.), The Enigma of the Hyksos. Vol. 1, ASOR Conference Boston 2017 – ICAANE Conference Munich 2018 – Collected Papers, Wiesbaden, 165–198. R abate, A., Doumet-Serhal, C., R esek, A. and Curtis, J. (eds.) 2011 And Canaan begat Sidon his Firstborn… Gen. 10, 15; I Chr. 1, 13: A Tribute to Dr. John Curtis on his 65th Birthday – 12 Years of Excavations in Sidon by the British Museum in Conjunction with the Department of Antiquities of Lebanon, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 34–35, Beirut. R edford, D. B. 1997 Textual Sources from the Hyksos Period, in: E. D. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos. New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, Philadelphia, 1–45. Ryholt, K. 1997 The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period c. 1800–1550 B.C., Copenhagen.

Schiestl, R. 2009 Tell el-Dab‘a XX: Die Palastnekropole von Tell elDab‘a . Die Gräber des Areals F/I der Straten d/2 und d/1, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 30, Vienna. Serpico, M., Bourriau, J., Smith, L., Goren, Y. and Heron, C. 2003 Commodities and Containers: A Project to Study Canaanite Amphorae Imported into Egypt during the New Kingdom, in: M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds.), Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – EuroConference, Haindorf 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4, Vienna, 365–375. Shaw, I. 1998 Exploiting the Desert Frontier: The Logistics and Politics of Ancient Egyptian Mining Expeditions, in: A.  B. K napp, V.  C. Pigott and E.  W. Herbert (eds.), Social Approaches to an Industrial Past. The Archaeology and Anthropology of Mining, London, 242–258. Tainter, J. A. 1988 The Collapse of Complex Societies, New Studies in Archaeology, Cambridge, New York and Port Chester. Vermeule, E. and Wolsky, F. Z. 1990 Toumba tou Skourou: A Bronze Age Potters’ Quarter on Morphou Bay in Cyprus, Boston. Vilain, S. 2018 Imitations et productions locales influencées par la céramique chypriote White Painted Pendent Line Style à Tell el-Dab‘a , Ägypten & Levante 28, 487–505. 2019a Is Imitation the Sincerest Form of Flattery? New Light on Local Pottery Inspired by Cypriot Wares at Tell el-Dab‘a , in: M. Bietak and S. Prell (eds.), The Enigma of the Hyksos. Vol. 1, ASOR Conference Boston 2017 – ICAANE Conference Munich 2018 – Collected Papers, Wiesbaden, 305–313. 2019b The Foreign Trade of Tell el-Dab‘a during the Second Intermediate Period: Another Glance at Imported Ceramics under Hyksos Rule, in: J. Mynářová, M. K ilani and S. A livernini (eds.), A Stranger in the House – The Crossroads III. Proceedings of an International Conference on Foreigners in Ancient Egyptian and Near Eastern Societies of the Bronze Age held in Prague, September 10–13, 2018, Prague, 387–404. Winkler, E.-M. and Wilfing, H. 1991 Tell el-Dab‘a VI: Anthropologische Untersuchungen an den Skelettresten der Kampagnen 1966–69, 1975–80, 1985, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 9, Vienna. Zevulun, U. 1990 Tell el-Yahudiyah Juglets from a Potter’s Refuse Pit at Afula, Eretz Israel 21, 174-190.

The Functional and Social Role of the Levantine Painted Ware at Middle Bronze Age Tel Ifshar

333

The Functional and Social Role of the Levantine Painted Ware at Middle Bronze Age Tel Ifshar by Ezra S. Marcus1

Abstract1

The Levantine Painted ware is one of the most distinctive pottery families of the early Middle Bronze IIA Levant. Although numerous studies have considered its typology, decoration and chronology, no real study of its functional and social roles has been attempted previously. Relying on a unique wellpreserved assemblage from an elite building in Tel Ifshar Phase B, the role of this pottery as an elite drinking ware is analyzed and these roles are explored. The results of this analysis have implications for both the Levantine elites as well as their counterparts who settled in the Egyptian Delta at Tell el-Dab‘a (Avaris) and formed the nucleus of the later Hyksos capital.

Introduction

One of the many distinctive ceramic families that characterize the eastern Mediterranean littoral cultural zone in the early Middle Bronze Age (MB; MB IIA (=MB I), c. 1950–1750/1700 and MB IIB (=MB II), c. 1750/1700–1550/1500) is the monochrome and bichrome painted pottery known as the Levantine Painted Ware (LPW). Like most decorated ancient pottery, the variety of forms and the patterns that adorn it have naturally attracted much attention and been widely discussed in the scholarly literature.2 However, this attention has focused largely on its distinctive decorative and morphological characteristics, geographical distribution, chronological implications, and origin. In contrast, hardly any attention has been paid to the functional and social roles of this ware, largely because, apart from burials, wherein complete or restored Levantine Painted Ware have been found, few such examples are known from non-funerary contexts. Indeed, nearly all examples from settlement levels are fragmentary and typically in secondary or tertiary contexts and, thus, such find spots usually bear little or an equivocal relationship to their original use. For that and other reasons, the large number of complete and restored Levantine Painted Ware and other vessels found in the fiery destruction horizon of Building 955 in Tel Ifshar (Israel) Phase B offers a unique opportunity to explore their use and possible social and even symbolic functions. These insights may be applied to both funerary contexts and other large, but less well-preserved assemblages, such as the 1 Recanati 2

Institute for Maritime Studies, University of Haifa, Israel; [email protected]. See Bagh 2013 for the most recent comprehensive discussion of this topic and references.

those found in the Levant and, particularly, in Stratum H (=d/2) at Tell el-Dab‘a and the foreign culture and the population there that utilized them.

A brief overview of Levantine Painted Ware and the Current State of Research

The term Levantine Painted Ware was first coined by Tubb,3 in order to distinguish a particular MB decorated pottery, which is largely distributed from the southern Levant through the Syrian Coast, from its roughly contemporary decorated counterparts: the Ḫabur and Amuq/Syro-Cilician Wares.4 In her comprehensive study, Bagh confirmed this distinction and systematically demonstrated a correlation between Levantine Painted Ware’s forms (typically small- to medium-size closed vessels, but also in medium-tolarge closed and occasional open forms) and particular surface treatments, motifs and syntax, albeit with occasional overlap and hybrid variants associated with its aforementioned decorated contemporaries.5 While the geographical core area of this pottery remains the same, with a substantial representation in the eastern Delta,6 additional confirmed and possible outliers are documented as far south as Elephantine in Upper Egypt,7 as far east as Tuttul/Tell el-Bi‘a in the Syrian Euphrates Valley,8 as far north as Kinet Höyük,9 and as far west as Galiporni on Cyprus.10 In terms of relative chronology, ever since fragmentary examples were discovered in stratified layers at Aphek-Antipatris in the 1970s,11 the 3 Tubb

1983.

4 These distinctions and their similarities have been further

explored in Bagh 2003; 2013, 58, 164–165. Despite a lack of any extensive or detailed material analysis of any of these ceramic groups, they continue to be called ‘wares’, although it might be more prudent to refer to them as ceramic families in the interim. 5 While he only deals tangentially with the Levantine Painted Ware, note the analysis of the stylistic and syntactic relationships between the Habur and SyroCilician pottery in Bieniada 2009. Compare on the subject also the contributions by Heinz and Catanzariti as well as Charaf in this volume. 6 Bagh 2013, passim. 7 Bagh 2013, 65. 8 Einwag 2002, 149, fig. 13.4 [the single jug base with paint on a burnished surface is cited sic. as fig. 14.4 in the text]. 9 Gates 2000, fig. 7.7; Bagh 2013, fig. 87o. 10 Crewe 2009, 95–96, figs. 7.41, 11.41. This example has a very characteristic LPW bichrome band decoration. 11 Beck 1975, 45.

© by the author This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc by 4.0 license DOI: 10.13173/9783447117371.333

334

Ezra S. Marcus

appearance of Levantine Painted Ware has served as a fossile directeur for the early phases of the southern Levantine Middle Bronze Age and one component in its synchronization with Tell el-Dab‘a.12 However, subsequent excavations at ‘Ezbet Rushdi, a precursor of the latter site, revealed an earlier LPW phase characterized by solely monochrome red jugs or juglets (N=17), which preceded the appearance of the bichrome painted examples (N=25) in Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum H (=d/2). This relative sequence of exclusively monochrome to mixed monochrome and bichrome pottery finds limited support, but no contradiction in the only two corresponding well-stratified LPW sequences excavated thus far: Tel Aphek and Tel Ifshar. Although only revealed in a very small exposure (c. 18 sq.m.), Tel Aphek’s earliest MB horizon (Stratum X19) produced a single monochrome jug or juglet sherd, while the succeeding constructive fill (Stratum X18) for the first elite building (Palace I) produced the first two bichrome jar sherds.13 At Tel Ifshar, Phase A ‘early’, the earliest settlement horizon, produced two monochrome red jars and a well-preserved rim of a small handless jar or goblet. These are followed by the first appearance of 12 bichrome jar and juglet sherds in Phase A ‘late’, which represented the preparatory fill for this site’s first elite building.14 In absolute chronological terms, the ‘Ezbet Rushdi monochrome phase begins no earlier than the late 20th century BCE (Amenemhet II) and could continue into the reign of Senusret III (mid-19th century),15 while the bichrome examples from Tell el-Dab‘a first appear in the late 19th century BCE (Amenemhet III).16 In contrast, the absolute dates from the southern Levant could be slightly earlier: a single radiocarbon determination from the earliest horizon at Tel Ifshar Phase A ‘early’ provides a terminus post quem in the last third of the 20 th century (2σ stratigraphic model: c. 1930),17 while the bichrome pottery coincides with the earliest Middle Kingdom (MK) Egyptian imports, the latest of which were first produced no earlier than Senusret II.18 Thus, a transition sometime by the mid19th century for these two LPW decorative phases seems likely.19 12 Bietak

1991, 53–54; Weinstein 1992, 28–30; Bagh 2013, 17–18, passim; Ilan and M arcus 2019, 20–21. 13 Yadin 2009a, 10–11, fig. 2.2; 2009b, figs. 7.1.28, 7.4.1–6. 14 Note that the distinction between Phase A ‘early’ and Phase A ‘late’ is the result of further stratigraphic and ceramic analyses since the publication of M arcus, Porath and Paley 2008. See, e.g., M arcus 2013, 185. 15 Bagh 2013, 39–45. 16 Bagh 2013, 45–54. 17 M arcus 2013, 185–199, table 15.3. 18 M arcus et al. 2008, fig. 2.1; Schiestl and Seiler 2012, 602–603. 19 Further aspects of related MB painted groups are not considered here (e.g., Ilan 1996; M aeir 2002; Stager and Voss 2018, 284–298).

Regarding the origin of the Levantine Painted Ware, only limited samples have been analyzed petrographically. All three monochrome red jugs sampled from ‘Ezbet Rushdi and the 11 monochrome and bichrome jars (?), jugs and juglets sampled from Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum H (=d/2), originated somewhere between the Galilee coast to the Akkar Plain, apart from one example that may have come from as far north as Ugarit.20 Similarly, analyses of three monochrome red/brown juglets from Kabri Tomb 1045 indicated either a local Galilee or a northern Levantine coastal origin.21 Lastly, petrographic analysis of four LPW samples from Ashkelon demonstrates both a local and northern Levantine origin.22 Finally, regarding the function of this family, the only published remark was made by Bagh, 23 who limited her consideration to the dipper juglets typically found in funerary contexts, where they may have served as grave gifts or a sort of ‘drink for the dead’ and, when used in daily life, could have served as fine tableware. She further notes cases where similar decorative designs occur on paired open and closed vessels.24 In contrast, Bieniada presents a cogent argument for a morphological dichotomy between a beer-drinking inland Syro-Mespotamian ceramic culture inherent in the Ḫabur Ware and a coastal Mediterranean wine-drinking culture associated with the Syro-Cilician Ware.25 Given the latter’s general taxonomic similarity to the seeming preponderance of LPW forms (e.g., jugs and juglets), as will be demonstrated below, wine-drinking culture may largely define its function as well, although either beverage could have been drunk in some of these LPW vessels (e.g., handleless jars).

20 Cohen-Weinberger

and Goren 2004, 71–75, 80–81, fig. 1, tables 1a, 1–3, 1b, 2–4, 7–11, 14–16. Note the complete lack of correlation between the petrographic results and McGovern’s previously published Neutron Activation Analysis of identical painted examples (Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004, 84, 85, tables 1a, 2–4, 7, 10, 3, 2, 14, 15, 45, 57). No comparison between petrographic analysis and the nine LPW vessels sampled from Tel Ifshar and his study has yet been carried out, but seven of these were identified by him as Southern Levantine (McGovern 2000, 172–173). 21 Goren 1990, XLIV–XLV, XLIX, table 1, 4539, 4549, 4550; Goren and Cohen-Weinberger 2002, 440–441, table 15.1, 24, 25, 27; Scheftelowitz 2002, 114–115, figs. 5.14, 5.22.5–7. 22 M aster 2018, 307–309, table 9.1. 23 Bagh 2013, 32–33. 24 Bagh 2013, 33. 25 Bieniada 2009, 170–171, 177, 180–181.

The Functional and Social Role of the Levantine Painted Ware at Middle Bronze Age Tel Ifshar

The Levantine Painted Ware at Tel Ifshar

Excavations at Tel Ifshar, Israel, an apparently unfortified 4.4 ha site in the Central Coastal Plain of modern Israel, has long been known as having produced a significant and well-preserved quantity of Levantine Painted Ware, of which only a small portion has been published thus far.26 These finds were discovered in two opposing areas on the western and eastern sides of the site (A and C), which comprise a total gross area of c. 525 sq.m. and c. 1250 sq.m., respectively. These areas, which represent less than 4% of the total area of the site, produced nearly 400 complete, restored, and fragmentary examples of Levantine Painted Ware. Approximately 277 of these finds were found in wellstratified contexts, wherein they represent primary, secondary and tertiary artifacts.27 As noted above, monochrome LPW pottery (N=3) occurs from the founding of the site in Phase A ‘early’ and increases with the addition of bichrome LPW pottery in Phase A ‘late’ (N=26). During Phase B, following the construction of the elite Building 955, the frequency of Levantine Painted Ware reaches its peak (N=90) and, owing to the building’s fiery destruction, 12 complete or nearly restorable vessels were among the finds. Following the structure’s restoration in Phase C as Building 951, LPW quantities decline to 60, including two partially restorable vessels found south of the building after its destruction. In the short-lived, seemingly ‘squatter’ episodes of Phases D1 and D2, LPW fragments decline to 20 and 9, respectively. The revival of proper settlement in Phase E, which included both elite buildings and food storage and preparation areas,28 produced 26 fragments including a single complete red-slipped krater with a monochrome LPW decoration. This trend ends with limited fragmentary evidence in Phases F (N=5) and G (N=7), although the last phase did produce a monochrome LPW handleless

26 Paley

and Porath 1997, figs. 13.5, 13.6.4, 5; M arcus, Porath and Paley 2008, figs. 9.6–9, 11.1–5; Bagh 2013, 79–83, figs. 39–40; Ilan and M arcus 2019, figs. 1.2.26.8, 1.27.5.7. Note that other than in the last reference, many of the earlier published drawings of the LPW and other vessels form this site were inaccurate and required redrawing. 27 The Tel Ifshar publication project follows a tripartite division of artifact context that is both fluid (i.e., some artifacts straddle two categories) and incorporates interpretation based on, e.g., location, position, degree of preservation, prior appearance, etc. This paper focuses nearly exclusively on the primary artifacts, which are in complete or restored form (partly to full profile) and were found either in the location they occupied at the time of destruction (in situ) or floating in the rubble, but were clearly still in use in that phase. Some limited reference is made to secondary artifacts, which refer to incomplete objects that were used in the phase in which they were found, but are not always distinguishable from tertiary, i.e., residual, artifacts that derive from a previous phase. 28 Chernoff and Paley 1998, 400, figs. 3B, 4.

335

jar in an intramural tomb.29 Clearly, Phase B represents the zenith in LPW frequency and it is serendipitous that this phase also produced the best in situ preservation of this particular pottery. Building 955 Building 955 is the only significant structure found at Tel Ifshar that can be assigned to Phase B with any certainty (Fig. 1).30 Apart from one lone wall immediately to its south, whose continuation was not explored, some stone-paved and earthen work surfaces, pits (simple and partially stone-lined), and a single tabun, no other remains could be stratigraphically associated with this phase. Thus, Building 955 appears to have been the only structure on the eastern side of the tell with possible small dwellings elsewhere. The structure was oriented according to the cardinal points and possessed a floor plan that was characterized by a central courtyard (interior: c. 155 sq.m.) flanked by two wings: the western with a minimum estimated interior area of 138 sq.m. and the eastern with an interior of 161 sq.m. The incomplete excavation of the western wing leaves the building’s estimated footprint at 500–600 sq.m.; however, that range assumes a largely symmetrical plan, and it is quite possible that the building continued even further upslope to the west.31 The load-bearing walls of the eastern wing were made of a stone foundation and mudbrick superstructure that ranged in width from 1.00 to 1.20 m, and were further strengthened and its interior thermally insulated by large 0.60 × 0.40 × 0.11 m bricks. Thus, the walls of at least the eastern wing were capable of supporting one or more storeys, the existence of which is further demonstrated by a stairwell in the south-eastern corner of the building, where a rectangular mudbrick newel was preserved. The only extant entrance to the building was a narrow modest gap in the northern wall. Unfortunately, the damage caused by Byzantine or later quarrying to the eastern wall and the north-eastern corner of the building destroyed any evidence for an entrance if one existed on that side.

29 The

subsequent Phases H through J, which were only discerned in 2–3 well-stratified squares southwest of the building, produced only a single LPW sherd. Area A produced 25 fragments, but these are not relevant to the present discussion. 30 In Area A, some modest segments of stone foundations and an associated floor might also belong to this phase. Salvage excavation on the south side of the tell, carried out by the Israel Antiquities Authority, produced sparse and poorly preserved remains from later MB IIA phases at the site, which were found on the natural bedrock (Glik 2014). 31 Note that the building’s floor elevations increase at least 10 cm in a stepped fashion from the eastern wing to the courtyard to the western wing.

336

Ezra S. Marcus

Fig. 1 Tel Ifshar Phase B. Plan of Building 955. Note, exposed stone features are shaded in yellow; extant mudbrick appears in light brown and later intrusions are marked in gray; the sunken krater in L719 is marked in dark brown. All elevations are above sea level. Two elevations indicate the top and bottom of a feature; three elevations represent the preserved mudbrick and the top and bottom of a stone foundation. #=floor elevation, LL=the lowest elevation reached; NH=natural hill; and BR=bedrock

The Functional and Social Role of the Levantine Painted Ware at Middle Bronze Age Tel Ifshar

Apart from the stairwell to the second floor from an apparently subterranean cellar (L719),32 no other interior access to the upper storey was preserved. Indeed, owing to the aforementioned later quarrying, no definitive evidence has survived at floor level for any other egress from the cellar, although a passageway to the north-eastern room of the wing cannot be ruled out and, indeed, should have existed (see below). In lieu of another stairwell in the northeast or in the western wing, it is possible that an exterior staircase existed on one of the major walls, or access to the eastern wing was possible via a bridge or catwalk along the strong southern wall at the second storey or higher level. A cedar beam found in the passageway between the eastern wing and the courtyard and other cedar and oak fragments found in this phase hint at some of the hardy longwoods available for such superstructures. Relying solely on its architectural characteristics, such as footprint, wall thickness, the size of internal spaces, the open courtyard’s well-paved crushed kurkar (aeolianite) floor and, presumably, the structure’s height, Building 955 is clearly representative of a class of elite or public buildings. Its layout is consistent with the architectural type termed the Middle Courtyard House or Middle Room House (Mittelsaalhaus), which is a venerable form in the Near East, and one of the cultural transmissions brought by the Asiatics who settled at Tell el-Dab‘a in the Delta.33 In terms of size, the only contemporary local parallel is the so-called ‘Palace I’ in Aphek Stratum X17, which Kempinski characterized as a patrician building.34 This building also has somewhat similar characteristics in plan and construction to Building 955, i.e., internal rooms flanking an open courtyard (L7169) and mudbrick walls on a 1.20 m wide stone foundation.35 While the unexcavated remainder of the building is inestimable, the suggested reconstruction of its plan,36 which also incorporates non-contiguous remains along the fortification wall to its north in Area B, would have a footprint of c. 469 sq.m., although the latter area’s inclusion presents a number of difficulties, not the least of which are the differing orientation and width of the walls.37 Thus, the question as to what constitutes a palace and what should be viewed as an elite/patrician building seems moot when no basis exists for contemporaneous intra-settlement comparison, and

337

inter-site comparanda is so limited. In contrast, the scale of construction of the so-called ‘Palace II’ in Aphek Stratum AXIV better justifies a label commensurate with its relative monumentality over its predecessor. A similar distinction has been made between the c. 250 sq.m. Middle Room/Courtyard House in Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum H (=d/2) and the larger, but later, palatial architecture.38 In the absence of further data, it seems much more prudent to term structures such as Palace I and Tel Ifshar Building 955 as elite or patrician buildings.

The Levantine Painted Ware of Tel Ifshar in Context

The fiery destruction of Building 955, sometime in the second half of the 19th century BCE,39 sealed numerous well-preserved ceramic, archaeobotanical, and other finds on floors or suspended in the debris. This destruction horizon was subsequently levelled off and sealed by the floors and walls of Phase C, preserving it largely intact, apart from the aforementioned disturbances and by building activities during Phase E on the western margin of the Area C. These sealed contexts offer a unique opportunity to explore function and activity areas in Phase B. As the focus of this presentation is the Levantine Painted Ware, which was found in complete forms solely in the eastern wing, the well-sealed contexts in the opposing wing and the intervening courtyard are characterized only briefly in order to highlight their functional differences.

The Western Wing The only interior space excavated in the western wing – albeit only partially – was Room 1111. Given the thickness of the charred remains (c. 20–30 cm), this room was clearly roofed and its collapse sealed at least 15 vessels that, based on their state of preservation, are considered primary in situ artifacts (Fig. 2). Among these were 14 jars, including four amphorae, three large jars, two cylindrical jars,40 two mediumsize handle-less jars, and three jar bottoms that could not be identified any further, but probably represent amphorae; in addition, a single relatively small thinwalled straight-walled cooking pot was found. Thus, this room appears to have functioned as a storage room or pantry for either dry or liquid goods. Only two fragmentary LPW sherds were found, one of which 32 At the time of Phase B’s destruction, the ground surface immediately south of the building adjacent to the cellar could be residual. was more than a meter higher than the floor inside. The surviving portion of the eastern wall’s stone foundation opposite Cellar 719 bore the remains of a plaster installation (trough, basin?) that was preserved to an elevation of 15.17, suggesting that this ground surface, too, was at least 50 cm higher than the floor inside. No vestige of ground level was preserved further north along this wall. 33 Bietak 2010, 153. 34 K empinski 1992, 170. 35 Yadin 2009a, 11, figs. 2.2, 2.5. 36 Yadin 2009a, 17, figs. 2.16, 2.17. 37 E.g., cf. Gal and Kochavi 2000, 82.

38 Bietak

1996, 10–12, passim. the initial studies of the MK Egyptian pottery and radiocarbon analyses were carried out (M arcus et al. 2008, 209–210, figs. 3.2, 3; M arcus 2013), it was discovered that at least one (the globular jar) and possibly two Marl C fragments from Phase B date to no earlier than the reign of Amenemhet III (Schiestl and Seiler 2012, 384, 386, II.A.3.b.2.5), providing a terminus post quem for the destruction. 40 M arcus 2019, 156, fig. 4. 39 Since

338

Ezra S. Marcus

No.

Type

Item no.

Description

1

Storage Jar

5969/3

Complete; plastic rope; R=21; 55.6%; N=15.1; N-Th=0.9; Bo=36; Bo-Th=0.8–1.0; Bs=12.4; 100%; Bs-Th=1.5–1.6; H=68.5

2

Jar (Am)

5977/1

Profile; R=13.2; 100%; N=7.3; N-Th=0.4; Bo=26.5; BoTh=0.6–1.0; Bs=7.6; 100%; Bs-Th=0.6; H=26.5

3

Jar (Cyl)

5927/1

Complete; incised decoration; R=14.9; 62.5%; N=10.6; N-Th=0.5; Bo=23.8; Bo-Th=0.5?; Bs=11.4; 100%; Bs-Th=?; H=51.3

4

Jar (HJ-med)

5956/9

Complete; combed; washed; white paint; R=11.90; 83%; N=9.7; Bo=21.7; Bo-Th=?; Bs=8.7; 94.4%; Bs-Th=0.7; H=22.7

Fig. 2 Room 1111. A representative selection of primary in-situ pottery types: (1) Storage jar (2) Amphora; (3) Cylindrical Jar; (4) Handleless Jar Table abbreviations: Am=Amphora; Bo=body; Bo=maximum body diameter; Bs=Base diameter; D=diameter; H=height; percentage is the degree of preservation; HJ=Handleless Jar; LPW=Levantine Painted Ware; N=minimum neck aperture; OS=Onion-shaped; R=rim diameter; Th=thickness; V=volume in liters (calculated using Pot_Utility 1.05 © J.P. Thalmann & ARCANE, 2006); M=mass in kilograms

The Functional and Social Role of the Levantine Painted Ware at Middle Bronze Age Tel Ifshar

339

Fig. 3 Courtyard 955: L1155. The amphora and handleless jar in situ

The Central Courtyard

Courtyard 955 (including Locus 1155) produced only two complete vessels that were not likely in close proximity to their original location at the time of the building’s destruction. When this open space was renewed in Phase C as Courtyard 951, the later floor was generally 50 cm higher than its predecessor, providing ample volume for debris to have sealed any complete objects in primary deposits, if any had been there. Thus, this paucity of primary finds is probably a reflection of the functional character of the courtyard rather than a site formation process. No complete vessels were found in the southern side of the courtyard, but a 33 cm high base and a body section of a cylindrical jar was restored. The only primary, but not necessarily in situ vessels include the upper part of an amphora and two restored

handleless jars which were found in the rubble on the L1155 floor, two of which were basically in the middle of the north-western quadrant of the courtyard (Figs. 3–4); fragments of a large straightwalled cooking pot were also found in their vicinity, but only a small part of it could be restored. Despite the latter’s presence and some 16 additional and very fragmentary (avg. preserved rim fractions less than 8%) cooking pot sherds of various types, no cooking or baking installations were found anywhere in the courtyard. Presumably these activities took place outside of the excavated portion of the building, perhaps in the excavated open area to its south or an unexcavated area elsewhere. Only seven very fragmentary LPW sherds were found in the courtyard.

340

Ezra S. Marcus

No.

Type

Item no.

Description

1

Jar (Am)

7128/4

Rim-shoulder; combed; R=13; 100%; N=8; Bo=21; Th=0.6–0.9

2

Jar (HJ)

7127/1

Complete; combed; washed; R=10.9; N=8.3; Bo=18; Bs= 7.7; H=20.7; Bo-Th= 0.6–0.7; Bs-Th=0.8–0.9; V=2.1

3

Jar (HJ)

7169/1

Complete; combed; stitching; fired to a metallic sound; R=11.5; N=8; Bo=17.6; Bo-Th=0.7–0.8; Bs=6.8; BsTh=0.4–0.6; H=17.5; V=1.9

Fig. 4 Courtyard 955: L1155. The primary pottery types: (1) Amphora; (2) Handleless Jar; (3) Handleless Jar

The Functional and Social Role of the Levantine Painted Ware at Middle Bronze Age Tel Ifshar

The Eastern Wing Complete and restored vessels were found on the floors of both Room 927 in the north and Cellar 719 in the south. Additional primary vessels or parts thereof were found in the debris above the floors, hinting at their having originated on a second floor, although these may have been disturbed by levelling activities in preparation for the Phase C use of this wing and by the aforementioned later quarrying.41 These disturbances could partially explain the incomplete restoration of some primary vessels. Room 927 At least 18 fully or partially restored vessels found in this room were deemed primary (Figs. 5–6). Much like in the western wing and courtyard, all are closed forms, but belong to radically different shapes, some unique to the Levantine ceramic repertoire. The majority are represented by 12 handleless jars belonging to a variety of types and presenting different surface decorations and treatment: four bichrome LPW handleless jars (Fig. 5.1–4), three of which were identical in shape, but vary slightly in design syntax; three large squat ‘onion-shaped’ jars, all slipped and burnished (two in red and a third in an uneven red and cream-colored slip), represent a new contribution to the MB pottery corpus (Fig. 5.5–7); one red-slipped and burnished jar with a tubular rim that evokes a metallic form (Fig. 5.8); a digitally-restored bichrome LPW looplegged jar with a mixture of LPW and Syro-Cilician characteristics (e.g., butterfly/hourglass motifs and a caprid; Fig. 5.9);42 and two partially restored medium size jars (one plain and one combed; Fig. 5.10–11). In addition, the remains of four large pithoi, with applied rope decoration were found, three apparently in situ, but none could be restored beyond their shoulder despite the large quantity of body sherds encountered during excavation (Figs. 5.12; see below, Fig. 7). A combed jar-like jug with one double handle is another previously unknown type (Fig. 5.13).43 A few jar bases, which may have functioned as lids were found on or near the floor, but one better preserved and restored lower part of a jar, whose sherds rested on the top step of the passageway to the central court, might hint at a lone amphora in this room, if it did not originate in the MB ceramics were found together with material as late as Byzantine in date that accumulated in the quarried eastern margin of the site. Many of these were joined to pottery in well-stratified contexts in Room 927 and Cellar 719; others are identical to some of the objects discussed here and suggest greater numbers of complete vessels than the present examples would indicate. 42 Bagh 2013, 164–165, table 5. 43 Indeed, any fragment of such a rim would have been identified as a standard jar or amphora.

341

courtyard. In general, even the fragmentary remains of amphorae and cylindrical jars were negligible and poorly preserved here. In contrast, 24 LPW fragments were found in this room. The spatial distribution of these vessels is quite instructive (Fig. 6). The pithoi were localized in the north-eastern quadrant: one rim was found alongside the northern wall of the room at least 8 cm above the floor, near a large quantity of charred faba beans (vicia faba); and the others in a large pile on the floor to the former’s south (Fig. 7). It seems likely that these vessels stood along the walls in this corner of the room. The jar-jug was found on the floor opposite the passageway; its original disposition is indeterminate. The remaining primary vessels were found smashed and spread pell-mell albeit in a limited area on the western side of the room, just south of an eastward sloping depression in the floor, and arrayed seemingly in a narrow east-west strip. Given the position of this deposit directly on the floor, it would seem, a priori, that these objects had been resting there at the time of destruction. Indeed, the available floorspace in the northern half of Room 927 (c. 50 sq.m.) could have easily accommodated the cumulative maximum diameter of c. 3 sq.m. of measurable primary jars, as well as a presumed 2.4 sq.m. represented by the four known pithoi. However, in this otherwise chaotic context, the squat onion-shaped jars, which are easily recognizable in the field photographs (Fig. 8), were clearly found both right-side up and upside down, indicating that they had fallen from some height. Moreover, their state of preservation – all were vessels easily and nearly completely restored from their own parts – does not argue for much postdestruction disturbance, e.g., digging and levelling activities. Two hypothetical reconstructions may be suggested to explain the concentration, distribution and position of these finds: (1) that many or all were placed on ground floor shelving that collapsed; or (2) that they slid down from an upper storey when the ceiling/second storey floor cracked and collapsed during the conflagration.44 The presence of charred wood between the ceramics and the floor is equivocal and could indicate the remains of either shelving or rafters. The presence and orientation of this assemblage in the centre of the northern half of Room 927 might argue for the second option, as

41 Numerous

44

No evidence was found for a fallen second-story surface (e.g., loose chunks of plastered beaten earth material) either under or above the in situ finds (Y. Porath, pers. comm.). This absence precludes a destruction scenario other than a so-called partial “V-collapse” (see Australian Emergency Manual, Disaster Rescue, fig. 11.5), in which a floor’s main support fails in its center (here, perhaps indicated by the flat stone), leading to the deposition of objects there, prior to the total collapse of the remaining structure.

342

Ezra S. Marcus

No.

Type

Item no.

Description

1

Jar (HJ-LPW)

5353/1

Complete; combed; red & black paint; R=14.6; 100%; N=10.5; Bo=33; Bs=9.8; 100%; Bs-Th=0.8–1.2; H=34; V=11.7

2

Jar (HJ-LPW)

5383/1

Complete; combed; red & black paint; R=13.1; 100%; N=9.7; BoD=32; Bs=10.2; 100%; Bs-Th=1.2–1.7; H=36; V=14.0

3

Jar (HJ-LPW)

5461/2

Profile; combed; red & black paint; R=12.8; 100%; N=8.7; Bo=29; Bo-Th=0.5–0.9; Bs=9.8; 100%; Bs-Th=1.2–1.4; H=33.9; V=11.0

4

Jar (HJ-LPW)

5403/1

Neck-to-lower third; white wash; some burnishing; red & black paint; N-Th=0.6; Bo=27.6; Bo-Th=0.8–1.0; H>25.2; V=8.8

5

Jar (HJ-OS)

5462/1

Complete; red slip; burnish; drilled hole in shoulder; R-D=11; 100%; N=9.7; Bo=42; Bo-Th≈0.8; Bs=10; 100%; H=30; V=21; M=6.4

6

Jar (HJ-OS)

5471/1

Complete; irregular red and cream slip; burnish; R=10.5; 100%; N=10.5; N-Th=0.6–0.7; Bo=34; Bo-Th=0.9–1.1; Bs=10; 100%; H=28; V=17; M=6.6

7

Jar (HJ-OS)

5461/1

Rim-to-near bottom (base restored based on photo); red slip; burnish; R=10; 100%; N=9; N-Th=0.7–0.8; Bo=40; Bo-Th=0.8–0.9; Bs≈10; 100%; H=30; V=17.1; M=5.7

8

Jar (HJ)

4512/2

Nearly complete; red slip; burnish; D=10.4; 87.5%; N=6.6; N-Th=0.5; Bo=24.7; Bo-Th=0.5–0.8; Bs=8.2; H=29.5; V=6.7

9

Jar (HJ-LPW)

4506/2

Neck-to-loop legs (digital reconstruction); white wash; red & black paint; N=9.5; N-Th=0.5; Bo=22; Bo-Th=0.6–0.9; Bs=5.7; BsTh=0.8–1.2; H>30.8; V=5.6

10

Jar (HJ-med)

5092/6

Rim-to-mid-body; lightly combed; R=12.2; 87.5%; N=8.1; Bo=22.3; Bo-Th=0.6–0.7; H>14

11

Jar (HJ-med)

5331/1

Rim-to-mid-body; combed; R=11.4; 59.7%; N=8.4; N-Th=0.6; Bo=17.4; Bo-Th=0.6–0.9; H>14.5

12

Pithos

4508/1

Rim; combing; plastic; D=19.3; 88.9%; N=13.7; N-Th=0.7–0.8; Bo>40.3; Bo-Th=0.9–1.2; H>20.5

13

Jar (onehandled)

4777/1

Complete; combed; R=12; 91.7%; N=10; N-Th=0.6–0.7; Bo=18; Bo-Th=0.6–0.8; Bs=6.5; 100%; H=34; V=8.5; M=2.4

Fig. 5 Room 927. A selection of primary vessels: (1) LPW handleless jar; (2) LPW handleless jar; (3) LPW handleless jar; (4) LPW handleless jar; (5) Onion-shaped handleless jar; (6) Onion-shaped handleless jar; (7) Onion-shaped handleless jar; (8) Handleless jar; (9) Loop-legged handleless jar; (10) Handleless jar; (12) Handleless jar; (11) Pithos; (13) Jar-jug

The Functional and Social Role of the Levantine Painted Ware at Middle Bronze Age Tel Ifshar

343

344

Ezra S. Marcus

Fig. 6 The location of the primary vessels in Room 927 shelves with such large and heavy containers would have been better secured had they been anchored to a wall. Other finds, such as heavy fragments from two incense burners/stands (e.g., Fig. 8),45 possibly repurposed as a low stand and a door hinge, respectively, and the articulated leg of a quadruped (see Fig. 8b),46 which was probably hanging from the ceiling, do not contribute to the resolution of this question. In functional terms, the vessel types in this room could have contained either dry or liquid goods. Regarding dry goods, only one species was found in a large quantity and it is unknown whether the

faba beans originated in a ceramic or an organic container (e.g., basket or sack).47 While the pithoi could have been used for storing a high value liquid, such as wine,48 the remaining vessels, particularly the medium and large handleless jars, are much more suitable candidates, based on size, shape and rim type. The effort made in fashioning and decorating them, suggest that they could have been employed for, variously, storing, pouring, and consuming high value liquids, presumably wine or beer. For example, the LPW handleless jars with their hammerhead shaped rims were clearly stopper-able and sealable

45 I lan

47 Thalmann

and M arcus 2019, pl. 1.2.25.5. These fragments were erroneously published as part of a single object. 46 Ktalav 2020, 169, fig. 139.

2007, 227–228, fig. 9.

48 As the Kabri MB wine complex has recently demonstrated

(Yasur-Landau et al. 2018).

The Functional and Social Role of the Levantine Painted Ware at Middle Bronze Age Tel Ifshar

345

Fig. 7 The pile of smashed pithoi in Room 927. Note the flat stone in the foreground (pillar base or working surface?) for transport (Fig. 5.1–3).49 While not necessarily the most well-adapted shapes for easy pouring; their 49

Numerous techniques are known from antiquity, including

clay, wood and mud stoppers, abetted by fabric, straw and some form resin or pitch, and often covered with a mud cone as a sort crown cap to keep the stopper in place (McGovern, Flemming and Katz 1996, passim). Three stoppers made of various clay mixtures have been found at Tel Ifshar, one in the debris of L719, and will be part of a separate study. One reason for the low frequency of stoppers and sealings in the archaeological record is that they are rarely subjected to sufficient heat to be even partially fired and their form preserved and identified. For a recently applied technique for discerning non-fired sealings (and potentially stoppers) at Tell el-Dab‘a, see Kopetzky and Bietak 2016, 357.

minimum aperture (8.7, 9.7 and 10.8 cm, respectively) would have been accessible to very small bowls and juglets, such as the combed dipper juglet in Cellar 719 (see below, Fig. 9.14). However, their fancy appearance was surely intended to draw attention to their contents or could have been made originally, or subsequently repurposed, for communal drinking, e.g., with straws.50 Similarly, the investment in creating an attractive surface decoration suggests the squat onion-shaped handleless jars were meant for more than mere storage. However, despite the existence of a smaller morphological parallel at Byblos to two of 50 M aeir

and Garfinkel 1992. No metal or bone strainers were found at Tel Ifshar.

346

Ezra S. Marcus

Fig. 8 A view of the smashed vessels concentrated in the ‘strip’ in Room 927. Note the topsy-turvy nature of the deposit with parts of onion-shaped jars in disarray: (a) complete upright rim of onion-shaped jar [=Fig. 5.6?]; (b) articulated leg of a quadruped; (c) body of onion shaped jar laying on a rim [=Fig. 5.7?]; (d) missing base of onion-shaped jar [=Fig. 5.7] and (e) upside-down onion-shaped jar with shoulder hole plug in situ [=Fig.5.5]. A portion of a thick (incense) stand can be seen between c–e these vessels,51 the combined overall attributes of this group are unique to the MB ceramic repertoire and present, a priori, a functional conundrum. Their lack of handles and their weight when filled (c. 24–27 kgs) would have made them cumbersome to transport; indeed, the squattest of the three possesses a rim and neck barely suitable for secure stoppering and sealing.52 Its use as a communal consumption vessel is certainly feasible, but an additional function should be considered. While this handleless jar form is rare, vessels with a squat body are not uncommon, such as a range of squat or angular-bodied jugs, some equally well-slipped and burnished, which were clearly meant for pouring or, following Saidah’s more nuanced observation, decanting.53 Among the functions of 51 Dunand

1937, pl. CLX.3639a, 3539b; 1939, 248; Saghieh 1983, 95, pl. XLI.3639; M arcus 2019, 156. 52 Cf., however, the similarly shallow rims of some Iron Age I commercial jars (Gilboa, Sharon and Boaretto 2008, 139, fig. 9.6–10). 53 Saidah 1993/1994, pls. 15.7, 8, 16.1, 2. See also Olenik 1990, 37 and Ilan and M arcus 2019, 16–17.

decanting, typically, but not solely, wine, is the removal of fine sediments by allowing them to settle in one vessel, thus enabling a clearer, less sedimentladen liquid to be transferred to another. Modern decanters come in a variety of forms, depending on the type of alcoholic beverage to be consumed. However, all have a distinctive shape that creates a space that functions as a sediment trap and, if handled carefully, the resulting deposits remain undisturbed when the beverage is poured out. Various squat jugs, as well as the onion-shaped jars in question, possess forms that can be tilted and cradled, if necessary, before their contents is served.54 This squat form also creates a low centre of gravity, which would improve stability if the vessel was laid on its side, e.g., on a floor, or in a purposely made depression therein – as was discerned in the northern half of this room – or

54 See

additional MB examples from Aphek (Ory 1938, 108, fn. 8; Beck 2000a, figs. 10.14.8, 10.29.2–4, 10.30.2– 4; 2000b, figs. 8.14.1–3, 8.15.1–3).

The Functional and Social Role of the Levantine Painted Ware at Middle Bronze Age Tel Ifshar

even on a table, if properly supported, all perhaps in a manner in which the vessel could be left unattended as the sediments settled.55 Although it is difficult to imagine how pouring would have been accomplished with such an unwieldy vessel, the presence of a drilled hole in the shoulder of one of the Ifshar jars (Fig. 5.5),56 would have aided in regulating the flow of air into the vessel as the liquid passed through the neck and prevented, or at least reduced any glugging, which would have disturbed the sediments. While this particular jar has a very short neck, which is not amenable to pouring, it does possess an aperture (9.7 cm) that could have accommodated a small bowl or a dipper juglet. In contrast to these large jars, the smaller red-slipped, plain and combed handleless jars have rim shapes more suitable for pouring and, hence, had smaller apertures (e.g., 6.6 cm in the first example). Presumably, these were primarily for consumption, as would have been the case with the LPW loop-legged jar. Last, the one-handled jar-jug, which is also unique to Tel Ifshar, clearly could be hung, cradled or laid on one side for decanting, and/ or used for pouring. In contrast to the previously discussed portions of the building, this room also produced 24 LPW fragments: 19 jars (probably of the handleless type); four jugs and/or juglets, including the upper part of a jug with a body diameter of at least 18 cm; and a rare bichrome decorated hemispheric bowl with a maximum diameter of 11.3 cm. Additional fragments include: undecorated rims of handleless jars; pithoi; and some well-preserved jar bases that could have served as lids. However, only three jar rims were found that could be associated with amphorae, along with one poorly preserved rim of a cylindrical jar. It should be noted that of the six bowl fragments that were recovered, only two could have been inserted through the largest aperture of the squat onion-shaped jars, but none of the jugs (juglets?) would have been small enough for this purpose.

55 Possible

physical evidence for decanting was found on an unpublished MB IIA amphoriskos at Tel Nami, which possessed an oblique purple stain in the form of a ring around the inside of the vessel. The color and orientation suggest that the vessel rested on its side for sufficient time for the stain to adhere to the surface. I thank Prof. Michal Artzy for permission to mention this find from Area D whose excavation was supervised by the author. 56 Field photographs (e.g., Fig. 8e to the left side) show that a ceramic plug was in this hole at the time of the destruction, which was probably held in place by a plaster patch. The phenomenon of drilling small and large holes, some for the purpose described above and elsewhere as a repair, is documented elsewhere (M arcus 1991, 151–153, figs. 44, 45; A rtzy and Beeri 2006).

347

Cellar 719 and Stairwell 841 The cellar and eastern limits of the stairwell produced eight primary finds found, in situ, on or in the floor including: a combed S-profiled bowl, a pristine krater with a combed jug inside near the rim, the lower 14 cm of a jar base, two long-necked jugs (one a pristine LPW example and the other a nearly complete vessel in a hybrid LPW/Syro-Cilician style), and two LPW juglets (Figs. 9–10). An additional six vessels, ranging from large fragments to restorable profiles were recovered from the burnt debris above the cellar and stairwell: portions of three identical LPW handleless jars, a restored profile of an imported jar from Tell Arqa/ Akkar Plain,57 the restored middle portion of a small combed handleless jar and a restored combed dipper juglet. LPW sherds from nine jars and three jugs were also found in the rubble. Rim sherds of 9 amphoras(?) were also found, but all are of type that could be tertiary. Room 914 was devoid of any well-preserved vessels, but produced fragments including two LPW jars, one LPW juglet and 17 jars. Room 919 was too poorly preserved to produce any material from a secure context. The primary in situ vessels in this corner of the building were located in an area defined in the west by an imaginary line that is nearly perpendicular to the northern and southern walls of Stairwell 841 and c. 30 cm west of the eastern edge of Newel 800 and, in the east, by a large sunken krater the top of whose rim appears to have been c. 15 cm below the cellar floor, that sloped radially into the vessel, perhaps allowing it to be covered with a board (Figs. 10–11). West of this area, the absence of any complete or restorable objects on the floor, suggests that it was fully occupied by a solid mudbrick and/or wooden staircase that led around the newel in a counter-clockwise direction and continued upwards east of the aforementioned imaginary line as wooden steps, which were apparently supported by the loadbearing walls in the west, south and east (Fig. 12).58 Conceivably, the staircase’s infrastructure, the newel or the cellar’s ceiling could have been utilized for shelving and hanging vessels. Such a storage arrangement might explain the spatial distribution of some of the small finds. East of the sunken krater, Cellar 719 was completely disturbed by later quarrying, although the subsequent mixed fill contained some pottery that is consistent with forms found in this room. Given a location that afforded 360° of access and the distribution of the finds inside and in its vicinity, the focus of activity in the cellar appears to have been the sunken krater, which was firmly packed into the subsurface ḥamra (sandy loam) of the natural hill. The 57 M arcus,

Porath and Paley 2008, 236, fig. 10.5; M arcus 2019, 156, fig. 2. The latter is a more accurate redrawing than in the former publication and also presents a digital reconstruction of the profile with its base. 58 Cf. K allas 2019; Nurpetlian 2019.

348

Ezra S. Marcus

No.

Type

Locus

Item no.

Description

1

Bowl (SPB)

841

4 1 763/

Complete (Restored); wheeled-combed on body and spiral combed on base; R=14.5–15.0; 80.6%; N=12.2; Bo=15.4; Bo-Th=0.5-0.6; Bs=4.8; Bs-Th=0.4–0.5; H=11; V=1.2

2

Krater

L719

4370/1

Complete; wash; incised; plastic; D=43; N=39.8; Bo=45.3; Bo-Th=1.1–1.2; Bs=14.5; Bs-Th =1.1–1.2; H=43.2; V=43

3

Jar

841

4760/2

Base; combed; incised; Bo>15; BoTh=0.7–0.9; Bs=6.5; 100%; Bs-Th=0.8–1.3

4

Jar (HJ-LPW)

719

4298/1

Rim-to-lower body; burnished; brown paint (vestiges of red on neck and shoulder); R=11.3; 26.4%; N=7.7; N-Th=0.6; Bo=24.4; Bo-Th=0.5–0.8; H>17.7

5

Jar (HJ-LPW)

719

4298/2

Neck-body; burnished; brown paint; N=8; N-Th=0.6; Bo=24.3; Bo-Th=0.5–0.9; H>14

6

Jar (HJ-LPW)

841

4753/1

Neck-body; burnished; brown paint; N=7.5; N-Th=0.6; Bo=23.3; Bo-Th=0.5–0.9; H>10.8

7

Jar (HJ)

719

4348/1

Neck-to-lower body; combed; N19.5; V≈2.1

8

Jar (Arqa)

719

4296/1

Profile (lower part digitally restored); fired to metallic sound; R=15; 49.4%; N=7.9; N-Th=0.4–0.6; Bo=23; Bo-Th=0.6–0.9; (0.3–0.4 on one side of shoulder); Bs=9.1; 20.8%; Bs-Th=0.8–1.0; H=38.5; V=8

9

Jug (LPW)

719

4346/1

Complete; burnishing; grooves on rim; triple lug handle; red & black paint; Rim=5.7 × 3.7; N=1.4; N-Th=0.9; Bo=18.5; Bs=6; H=27.7; V=2.6; M=1.2

10

Jug (LPW)

719

4347/1

Neck-to-base restored; base of handle; cream slip; burnish; brown paint; N=2.4; N-Th=0.3–0.6; Bo=19.5; Bo-Th=0.6; H>23.9; V=3; M=1.4

11

Jug

719

4370/2

Complete apart from rim and base (cut off and smoothed when leather hard); R=10.3; 23.6%; N=6.4; N-Th=0.5; Bs≤4.5; BsTh=0.9–1.3; Hole=2.4–2.7; H=21; V=1.4

12

Juglet (LPW)

841

4761/1

Complete (restored); burnished; red & black paint; R=3.4; N=0.3; N-Th=0.5; Bo=12.3; Bo-Th=0.5; Bs=3.1; Bs-Th=0.8; H=18.1; V=0.7 (N.B. missing; measurements based on drawing)

13

Juglet (LPW)

841

4762/1

Neck-to-base, base of handle; combed; brown paint; N=1.1; N-Th=0.5; Bo=12.8; Bo-Th=0.4; Bs=2.2; Bs-Th=0.8–0.9; H>=14; V=0.8

14

Juglet

719

4348/2

Complete (restored); combed; R=4.7 × 5.6; N=3.7; NTh=0.3; Bo=7.7; Bo-Th=0.4–0.9; Bs=2; Bs-Th=0.7; H=12.3; V=0.2

The Functional and Social Role of the Levantine Painted Ware at Middle Bronze Age Tel Ifshar

Fig. 9 Cellar 719 and Stairwell 841. The primary vessels (1) S-profiled bowl; (2) Krater; (3) Storage Jar; (4) LPW Handleless Jar; (5) LPW Handleless Jar; (6) LPW Handleless Jar; (7) Handleless Jar; (8) Imported Jar from Akkar Plain; (9) LPW Jug; (10) LPW Jug; (11) Jug; (12) LPW Juglet; (13) LPW Juglet; (14) Juglet

349

350

Ezra S. Marcus

Fig. 10 The location of the primary pottery and other find in Cellar 719 and Stairwell 841. Shapes or circles mark the location of in situ findspots; the remainder were found ‘floating’ in the rubble bottomless combed jug, which was found suspended inside the largely charred debris-filled krater (Fig. 11), was probably held in place by a stick or rod, as is often the case with dipper juglets in large jars.59 Just to its south, a group of tools was found including: three pestle-like stones; three flat triangular stone tools (choppers or scrapers?), and a bone handle for an unknown implement (Fig. 13). The two long-necked painted jugs were found on the floor, respectively, just to the northwest and south of the krater (Fig. 11, 13); they, too, could have been stored somewhere above the floor, although the LPW jug survived complete.60 The two LPW juglets, which were separated by the base of a jar, were found on the floor, further to the northwest, in between Newel 800 and W840 (Fig. 12), perhaps below where they had been hung; the larger of the two survived the fall, cracked, but in a fully articulated condition. Finally, at the southern edge of this room, along the face of W646, a combed S-profiled bowl was found crushed right side up, near or on the floor.

59 Olenik

1990, 30*–31*, figs. 7*, 30. 60 The jug bearing hybrid decorations was broken into numerous pieces that were concentrated on the floor and some missing sections are partly restored.

As the sole unequivocally, deliberately-placed vessel in this context, elucidating the function of the sunken krater is, perhaps, the key to understanding the nature of the activities that took place in this cellar and, potentially, the entire ground floor of the eastern wing. Apart from a slight crack, which might have been caused during its removal at the time of excavation when it was still filled with debris, the vessel is pristine. While examples of large vessels being embedded or variously sunk into the ground are known, most are usually large storage vessels (pithoi and jars), such as the examples at MB IIB Kabri.61 The only contemporary parallels for large kraters being purposely embedded in floors comes from Hama Stratum H in Syria, where examples were found in association with what appear to be multi-storey buildings.62 Interestingly, many of these examples are similar in form and decorative syntax (incised wavy lies and rope appliqué) to

61 E.g.,

Oren 2002, 55, 58–59, figs. 4.54, 4.55, 4.58, 4.64, 4.65; Samet 2014, 381–382, figs. 9.13, 10; Yasur-Landau et al. 2018, 311–315, figs. 2, 6, 7, 8. 62 Fugmann 1958, 93, 96, 98–99, 101, 105, figs. 108, 110, 116, 117, 119, 120, 123, 124, 126–128, 131, 132.

The Functional and Social Role of the Levantine Painted Ware at Middle Bronze Age Tel Ifshar

351

Fig. 11 Cellar 719 with the sunken krater in situ, prior to full excavation. The partly exposed combed jug inside the krater is marked by an arrow. The excavated ‘holes’ in the section to the west of the krater mark the location where the two complete and restored LPW jugs (Fig. 9.9, 10, respectively) were found (see also Fig. 13) the Ifshar krater.63 At Hama, the excavators offered no interpretation for these sunken kraters except for a bottomless example in Stratum H1, which was interpreted as a garbage pit.64 In the case of the Kabri jars from the Kempinski excavations, a ceremonial function involving a presumed liquid was purported for three empty examples and a cultic association for a jar containing fish bones, but these suggestions are

moot.65 In contrast, the recent excavations revealed a sunken ‘cooking jar’ made of a cooking pot fabric, whose rim and upper shoulder were clearly protruding above a floor, that has been interpreted as a form of ‘cold storage’.66 This suggestion for using subterranean vessels to lower the temperature of the contents might also be borne out by the evidence from the Kabri wine storage complex, where complete sunken jars were 65 E.g.,

63 See,

especially, the examples in Hama H4 and H2 (Fugmann 1958, figs. 117.3D583, 124.2D13). According to Nigro (2002, table 7), based on comparison with the Tell Mardikh/Ebla sequence, these phases span the 19th to early 18th century BCE. 64 Fugmann 1958, 105. This unsanitary explanation makes little sense. If the bottomless jars were placed in open courtyards, it is equally likely that they served as planters. At Hama, the published bottomless examples outnumber the complete forms by a ratio of more than 5:1, however, it is unclear if this modification was intentional or not.

Oren 2002, 68. Unfortunately, the contexts of these jars and their presentation leave many unresolved questions regarding their phasing relationship to the courtyard floor and, thus, their function. The fourth was clearly an embedded jar that was covered by a fill and truncated by a later floor. 66 Samet 2014, 382, figs. 9.13, 10; 2020, 156, fig. 7B12.13; Goshen and R atzlaff 2020, fig. 3.38. This suggestion is certainly plausible, although a number of issues remain unclear: the role of a specialized ceramic paste in such a context, and the vessel’s particular location and circumstance within the broader palatial complex (e.g., indoors, outdoors, exposure to light and the elements, etc.).

352

Ezra S. Marcus

Fig. 12 Stairwell 841 with Newel 800 in the centre. Note the following primary objects found in situ: (a) S-profiled bowl [=Fig. 9.1]; (b) LPW juglet [=Fig. 9.13]; (c) Jar base [=Fig. 9.3]; (d) LPW juglet [=Fig. 9.12]

placed in the centre of at least two storerooms, and whose rims were flush with the radially-sloped floor; however, the excavators prefer viewing them as a sort of wine trap for the collection and, presumably, recovery of spilled wine.67 Nevertheless, the partial and complete burial of ceramic containers in order to produce, protect, and preserve consumables, especially high-status beverages, in a cool environment has a venerable history that continues to this very day.68 Documented evidence for the drinking of ice or snow-

67

Yasur-Landau et al. 2018, 311–315, figs. 2, 6, 7, 8. The

68

E.g., Georgian qvevri wine production in which large

two functions are not mutually exclusive.

sunken pithoi hold fermenting wine (Barisashvili 2011). I thank Dalit Weinblatt for bringing this tradition and the cited source to my attention.

chilled wine is known from Old Babylonian Mari, Karana and other cities, which broadly belong to the timeframe under discussion. 69 There, local royalty and their elites maintained actual subterranean ice houses, which were filled with frozen blocks that were brought during the winter from the snow-packed mountains in northern Mesopotamia and, in at least one recorded occasion, collected in the fields and pastures near Mari itself.70 This ice was used to chill wine consumed in banquets, included in ritual offerings and was also

69 Dalley

1984, 91–93; Joannès 1994; Sasson 2015, 157, nos. 96, 267, 305, 309. The Akkadian term šurīpu(m) can refer to snow, ice and frost (Black, George and Postgate 2000, 167), although ice or hardpack snow was more likely intended. 70 Joannès 1994, 141–150. The amount collected was 3600 liters!

The Functional and Social Role of the Levantine Painted Ware at Middle Bronze Age Tel Ifshar

353

Fig. 13 Cellar 719. An assemblage of stone tools and a bone handle (jutting out from behind the square stone tool) on the floor adjacent to the complete LPW jug [=Fig. 9.9] as discovered. The as-yet unexposed sunken krater is located in immediately to the north of the tools (cf. Fig. 11) gifted and traded.71 The use and trade in snow continued well into the Mamluk period. The chroniclers Yūninī and Ibn Shāhīn referred, respectively, to it being sold in the Damascus market for cooling mildly alcoholic drinks, and being transported from there to the seat of government in the Mamluk capital of Cairo by land and by sea, in the latter case out of the ports of Beirut and Sidon and transshipped via the Deltaic port of Damietta.72 In Egypt, it was distributed to taverns and 71 Joannès

1994, 148; Sasson 2015, 88, 308. Textual evidence also indicates ice could be reconstituted in partially depleted storage facilities by adding water during suitable seasons and atmospheric conditions (Joannès 1994, 144–145). Evidence also suggests that non-alcoholic flavored ice was also consumed (Joannès 1994, 148). Hence, perhaps, šurīpu(m) -> Arabic sharabat -> modern sorbet. 72 Frenkel 2014, 868; Guo 1998, 104; I bn Shāhīn al-Ẓ āhirī 1894, 117–118. I thank Y. Frenkel for providing me with a translation of the last source. For further illustration and the Arabic homonym, which parallels the Akkadian usage, see https://www.dohainstitute.org/en/News/ Pages/Cooling _the_Desert_ACR PS_Seminar_on_ Mameluke_Ice_Trade.aspx.

stored in pits. These sources demonstrate the role and importance of premodern subterranean ‘refrigeration’ for elites and even commoners alike, and may offer an additional ancient ‘invisible’ commodity that may have been circulated among Levantine elites and exported to Egypt. Thus, given Cellar 719’s location in one of the lowest points in the building, where it was at least one meter underground relative to the exterior surface south of the building and a minimum of 50 cm lower than the surface to the east, coupled with the insulating properties of the 1.20 m wide mudbrick walls, as well the characteristics of the underlying ḥamra soil, whose water retaining characteristics would increase thermal transmission from the krater and its contents, a function requiring the lowering of temperature is clearly the explanation for this intentionally sunken krater. The three most plausible functions would be the production, mixing, or cooling of an alcoholic beverage. Production of an alcoholic beverage seems unlikely as such an open vessel would preclude any regulation of the content’s contact with air. Thus, the cooling or mixing of wine or other beverage is more likely, but the absence of any obvious visible or

354

Ezra S. Marcus

Fig. 14 A close-up view of the combed jug found in the sunken krater detectible residues renders that unsubstantiated for now. Hypothetically, the krater could also have served as a reservoir for chilled water or even snow/ice. While incontrovertible proof of what was held in the sunken krater may never be known, a number of associated objects support the notion that mixing and/or flavouring wine was carried out. The small hand tools found on the floor near the krater suggest the preparation of something slight in size or limited in volume; unfortunately, no mortar or stone work surface was found in the cellar, although a suitable flat stone was found in situ in Room 927 (Fig. 7). The flat triangular stone tools and whatever implement (blade?) belonged to the bone handle, could have been used for scoring or scraping bark or removing leaves and chopping herbs; the stone pestles could have been used to pulverise these and other materials, such as resins, fruits, seeds or bark. The two nearby LPW juglets, with their very narrow necks and, at least in the preserved instance, a specialized rim for controlled pouring, were clearly designed for the sparing use of a high-value, low-volume contents that could have consisted of imported or locally-produced flavours or essences for spicing wine. Ample evidence for the range of products used in flavouring wine, such as honey, juniper berries, mint, myrtle, cedar, storax and, possibly, cinnamon, has been demonstrated recently by organic residue analysis performed on the pithoi from the much later MB wine storage complex at Tel Kabri.73 This analytical data is complimented by textual 73 Koh,

Yasur-Landau and Cline 2014; Yasur-Landau et al. 2018, 322–327.

evidence from the Mari archives for the consumption of flavoured and mixed wines.74 Although no such contemporary texts exist in the Levant, Egyptian sources, such as the Mit Rahina inscription from the reign of Amenemhet II (c. 1908 BCE) demonstrate various organic aromatic and flavoured products, including terebinth resin and, possibly, cinnamon, which were imported from the northern Levant and could have been used for this purpose.75 Depending on the quantity to be served, mixing and flavouring could have been performed in any number of vessels: the sunken krater; the S-profiled bowl; and even in ostensibly drinking, decanting or serving vessels, such as handleless jars or jugs found floating in the debris or the two LPW jugs found on the floor. How a beverage was poured into the last two obvious serving vessels is unclear, but options include the combed dipper juglet found in the debris, possibly with the S-profiled bowl, or the combed jug that was apparently suspended within the krater. The function of this last vessel is also enigmatic owing to the removal of its base (Fig. 14).76 Given the resulting 2.4–2.7 cm hole in the vessel, possible functions include: a funnel; with the insertion of some form of fabric or basket fragment as a strainer; an ice or packed snow scoop through which a beverage could also be cooled as it entered a serving vessel; or, if the 10.3 cm diameter rim was not symmetrical, but pinched, it could have been small enough to be covered by the palm of a hand in order to create a sufficient vacuum to function as a sort of improvised ‘wine thief’ (klepsydra),77 albeit solely for lifting the liquid, but not sieving it. The hole in the bottom is small enough to have been suitable for filling either of the two LPW jugs.78 Thus filled, these fancy ware vessels clearly were intended for serving, although prior to that they could have functioned as decanters.

74 Sasson

2004, 191, 206; 2015, 157–158, 307–308, n. 34; Koh, Yasur-Landau and Cline 2014; Yasur-Landau et al. 2018, 330. 75 M arcus 2007, 140–141 (M20–M21), 144, 150–151. 76 It is not clear at what stage this removal was carried out; the resulting surface and hole were smoothed over, suggesting it was carefully done at the least when the vessel was leather hard. A post-firing repurposing seems unlikely, but cannot be ruled out. It is also possible that this vessel was intended to be a strainer whose perforated bottom was removed or lost. Cf. Beck 2000b, fig. 8.12.13. 77 Obviously, in the absence of a strainer and a simpler one-handed method of creating a vacuum, this vessel is not technically a klepsydra. See Tubb 1982. I thank B. Brandl for introducing me to this term and E. Arie for this reference and his counsel. 78 The minimum width of the complete LPW jug’s pinched rim is 3.7 cm and the rimless neck of the other jug has 2.4 cm minimum aperture, which would have made the wider, presumably, pinched rim sufficient for this purpose.

The Functional and Social Role of the Levantine Painted Ware at Middle Bronze Age Tel Ifshar

The Function of the Eastern Wing

Unfortunately, an analytically-based ‘chaîne opératoire’ for the mixing and flavoring of wines, as has been suggested based on the spatially-distributed organic residue evidence in the Kabri wine complex,79 is lacking for the eastern wing of Building 955. However, the range and frequency of specific vessel types all related to liquid contents suggest that function was spatially specific,80 but whether these activities were carried out by a specialist, like the šāqûm or zamardabbum (wine-steward) at Mari is unknown.81 The primary in situ ceramic assemblage in Room 927 is dominated by storage vessels: pithoi and jars. The most frequent form is the large handleless jar, which occurs in a variety of sizes, shapes and surface decorations that are clearly intended for the storing or communal consumption of prestige liquids, most likely wine. The second most common form are the pithoi, which could also have held a liquid, but dry contents cannot be ruled out. Decanting may also have been carried out in this room and these jars could have been originally intended or repurposed for individual or communal drinking. Presumably, Rooms 914 and 919 were also used for storage, although the latter may not have even existed as a fully enclosed space, but rather partly taken up as a passageway between the northern and southern rooms of this wing. Despite the preservation of the former room’s walls to a height of c. 30–60 cm above the floor, only fragmentary sherds were found. However, its potential capacity (9.4 sq.m.) was sufficient to have held, for example, all of the vessels found in Room 927. If the adjacent Room 919 did extend to the building’s eastern wall, it would have possessed a similar capacity.82 In contrast to Room 927, Cellar 719 possessed a ceramic assemblage characterized primarily by small-to-medium size closed vessels: jugs and juglets. Presumably, various wine jars or their contents would have been transferred to this space although only one apparent jar bottom was found in situ (Figs. 9:3, 10, 12), between the two juglets. Here, decanting, cooling, mixing and flavoring wine could have taken place, probably shortly before it was carried upstairs and served, as was the practice in Mari.83

79 Yasur-Landau

et al. 2018, 327–330.

80 At Mari, ad hoc rooms for different contents are recorded,

but these formal divisions were rigorously maintained (Sasson 2015, 153, n. 87). 81 Sasson 2015, 157. 82 Presumably, a passageway connecting Room 927 and the cellar existed along the eastern wall similar in width to the entranceway of Room 914. Otherwise, only indirect access between the two via the second floor would have been necessary. 83 Yasur-Landau et al. 2018, 330.

355

The Social Function of the Eastern Wing

Regardless of which aforementioned destruction scenario best explains the deposition of the finds in Room 927, it seems that this 50 sq.m. room would have provided a relatively poor venue for gatherings and banqueting, although the use of this room for such purposes at some point should not be completely ruled out. However, Courtyard 955, or the eastern wing’s upper floor(s) would have been much more amenable as areas for social gathering and have offered greater space: a maximum of 155 sq.m. and 161 sq.m., respectively. Indeed, during the summer months, the latter’s relative elevation would have provided much better ventilation and a superior view of the surrounding landscape. Moreover, the function and location of Cellar 719 immediately adjacent to Stairwell 841 is consistent with the use of an upper story venue. Conservative estimates for human congregation suggest that participant numbers in enclosed social activities generally range from one to three persons/ sq.m.84 Thus, depending on which spaces in Building 955 were used for such activities, the potential capacity could have ranged from as few as 16 in Room 927 to as many as 161 people in the courtyard. Attempting to correlate this range with the size of Tel Ifshar’s inhabitants is not without its difficulties. Population density estimates for ancient societies vary and, as noted above, substantial contemporary architectural remains at the site are limited to Building 955, which is hardly representative, given the limited extent of excavation. Thus, correlating the modest quantities of wine or other alcoholic beverages that could have been stored in the eastern wing (c. 360 l),85 – a trifle compared to the estimates for the palatial wine complex at Kabri86 – with a presumed local population is hardly reliable. Instead, a volumetric analysis of the varieties of storage, serving and consumption might be a more reliable indicator of the significance of this storeroom’s capacity and the scale of the cellar’s potential patrons. Apparently, the ceramics in this assemblage originally comprised at least three sets of triplets, similar in appearance and size, of which two were well preserved: three squat onion-shaped jars and the three large LPW handless jars. In addition, it appears that the medium-size LPW handleless jars may also represent a triplet, but were not well preserved. Thus, only the first two have measurable volumes. If 84 For up-to-date discussion of this topic and references, see

Susnow 2021, 144. very crude estimate is based on the volumes of all the sufficiently preserved handleless jars of all types (c. 121 l) and a modest estimate of c. 60 l each for the four pithoi, based on the best-preserved example. Clearly, additional pithoi and jars may have been lost when the site was quarried. 86 Yasur-Landau et al. 2018, 321–322, table 3. 85 This

356

Ezra S. Marcus

these vessels represent sealed wine containers, they could have reflected particular consignments of wine types distinguishable by external appearance, but also, volumetrically, they provide varied quantities of a beverage. Thus, the choice of jar would have reflected both its contents and, ostensibly, the number of drinking guests. The volume of individual jars, therefore, can serve as a proxy for the potential portions that could have been served and, by extrapolation, the number of participants. However, in the absence of direct evidence for the size of an ancient ‘pour’, consumption may only be inferred based on comparison with modern correlates or by considering the volumetrics of ancient open vessels that might have been used for individual use, although such measurements only offer a maximum capacity. Modern wine consumption varies considerably, both individually and culturally. However, a typical retail ‘pour’ ranges from 150 to 180 ml, i.e., 4–5 glasses per standard 750 ml bottle. Regarding the capacity of ancient vessels, which might have been used for individual consumption, the most likely contemporary candidates are the hemispheric, the S-profiled/globular and the carinated bowls.87 If either of these MB vessels represent the antecedent of the Ugaritic or Biblical ‘kos’ (cup),88 i.e., they were used for individual drinking, their capacity would indicate a consumption range between 0.4 to 0.9 liters,89 or more than two to four times the size of a modern pour. Thus, although modern figures might lead to a gross underestimation, they at least provide a notional sense of minimum relative quantities of undiluted wine that might have been served and, hence, a rough estimate for participant numbers. The calculated volumes for the primary in situ vessels from the eastern wing and courtyard reveal discrete non-overlapping ranges of high, middle and low values (Table 1). While, a priori, these groupings are merely a function of size and shape, they also reflect a storage selection method that allowed filled jars to be matched to the size of a social gathering. The squat onion-shaped jars, each of which could have supplied more than 100 minimum presumed portions, would probably not have been opened for other than for the largest events held here. The large LPW handleless jars, which could have supplied between 50 and nearly 100 minimum portions, would have supplemented large gatherings or supplied drinks for more modest events. Medium-size LPW or

other handleless jars could supply between roughly 30 and 50 such portions; some of these, depending on the rim type, could function either for pouring individual drinks or being used themselves in communal drinking with straws. More likely vessels for communal or individual drinking are the two c. 2-liter combed handleless jars that were found in the courtyard, which might have fallen from an upper story.90 An additional functional advantage of maintaining a range of vessel sizes is that, once opened, a jar’s contents would have had to either have been consumed in its entirety or resealed in a vessel whose volume was close to that of the remaining wine. Although complex re-stoppering and re-sealing could be performed on a less-than-full jar, the increased surface area of the liquid would enable the ambient air to gradually spoil the wine. Textual and analytical evidence suggests that additives, principally resins, were employed to impede the transformation of wine into vinegar,91 but there was no way to remove air from a vessel other than to displace it by adding more liquid. Thus, the varied sizes and volumes of vessels in Room 927 could aid in the preserving of leftover wine by maximizing the vessel’s capacity. Moreover, resting vessels on their sides would have kept the stopper moist and air tight,92 which may explain the depression in Room 927’s floor or support the notion that shelving was used for storing jars. In terms of pouring vessels, the unusual one-handed jar-jug possessed a fairly large capacity and could have been used to supply a considerable number of portions. In contrast, despite their obvious function for decanting and serving, the LPW and LPW/SyroCilician jugs would have been insufficient for a large event, as their respective 2.6- and 3.0-liter capacity would have required numerous trips to the cellar to be refilled. Given their beauty and ease of pouring, they would have been more suited as wine serving vessels for smaller, exceptional gatherings, and particular individuals. Their contents could have been prepared in the 1.2 l combed S-profiled bowl and filled with the aid of the combed jug (see above).93 At the lowest end of the volumetric range are the LPW juglets, 0.7 and 0.8 liters, respectively, and the combed dipper juglet that possessed the smallest measurable unit of the entire assemblage: 0.2 l. Finally, the largest capacity belongs to the krater, which could hold more than twice the capacity of the largest closed

87 I lan

90 The

and M arcus 2019, 12, pls. 1.2.5–1.2.6. 1990, 33*–34*. See also Yasur-Landau, Cline and Samet 2011, 383. 89 This subject obviously demands a more detailed study. This range is based on measured examples of unpublished complete carinated bowls from Tel Ifshar (0.4–0.9 l) and published examples of hemispheric bowls from Tel Aphek (0.7 and 0.5 liters, respectively: Beck 2000b, fig. 8.13.11, 12). 88 Olenik

plain and combed handleless jars in Room 927, which are too poorly preserved for their volume to be measured, probably also served for communal or individual drinking. 91 McGovern 2003, 70–72, 309. 92 Badler 1996, 49. 93 It is tempting to view this group of similarly combed vessels (bowl, handleless jar, jug and juglet) as some kind of set.

The Functional and Social Role of the Levantine Painted Ware at Middle Bronze Age Tel Ifshar

Vessel

Reg. No. Volume (liters)

Portions 150 (ml)

180 (ml)

Squat onion-shaped jar

5462/2

21.0

140

116

Squat onion-shaped jar

5461/1

17.1

113

95

Squat onion-shaped jar

5471/1

17.0

113

94

5383/1

14.0

93

77

5353/1

11.7

78

65

Lg. LPW HJ

5461/2

11.0

73

61

Lg. LPW HJ

5403/1

8.8

59

48

Med. LPW HJ

4298/1

5-6

33-40

28-33

106.6

709

589

Lg. LPW HJ Lg. LPW HJ

Location

Room 927

Total of all “storage” jars One-handled jar/jug

4777/1

8.5

57

47

Red-slipped HJ

4512/2

6.7

45

37

LPW/Syro-Cil. loop-legged jar

4506/1

5.6

37

31

7127/1

2.1

14

12

7169/1

1.9

13

11

Krater

4370/1

43

287

238

Arqa jar

4296/1

8

53

44

4348/1

2.1

14

12

4347/1

3.0

20

17

LPW jug

4346/1

2.6

17

14

Combed jug

4370/2

1.4

9

8

Combed S-profiled bowl

4763/1

1.2

8

6.7

LPW juglet

4762/1

08.

5

4

LPW juglet

4761/1

0.7

5

4

Combed dipper juglet

4348/2

0.2

1

1

Combed HJ Combed HJ

Combed HJ LPW/Syro-Cil. jug

Courtyard 955

Cellar 719 and Stairwell 842

357

Tab. 1 The calculated volumes and extrapolated alcohol consumption capacity of the primary vessels from Courtyard and the Eastern Wing of Building 955 at Tel Ifshar

358

Ezra S. Marcus

vessel, other than probably the pithoi. Clearly, if it was intended to be used for preparing consumable beverages in any fashion (mixing, flavoring, cooling or diluting), it would have greatly increased the number of portions that could have been available for serving at any one time. Returning to the question of the size of social events involving drinking, the maximum number of 150 ml portions from the extant storage vessels would be over 700 (Table 1). In the absence of information regarding drinking capacity per person per hour and the length of such events, a range of scenarios could be proposed. For the sake of example, a relatively sober six-hour event, in which individuals consumed two portions per hour, would be sufficient for nearly 60 people. That would be just slightly above the capacity of the combed one-handled jar-jug for serving a round of drinks to all present. It should be noted that, apart from the single restored S-profiled bowl found in the cellar, only nine bowl fragments were found in this wing, one of which is a platter.94 Similarly, only six cooking pots were found, solely of the hand-made straight walled type. Thus, evidence for food preparation, its serving and consumption along with the presumed beverages is lacking in this area, although the use of metal or wooden vessels should not be ruled out.

The Functional and Symbolic Social Roles of Levantine Painted Ware

The LPW vessels found in the eastern wing of Building 955 are clearly a significant component of the assemblage, both numerically, functionally and qualitatively. The 11 LPW vessels preserved represent 37% of the primary objects and the largest number of LPW fragments in the building were also found in this wing, suggesting that the use of this class was not limited to the period immediately preceding the phase’s destruction. These examples, whether complete or fragmentary, represent nearly the entire range of known open and closed forms, with the exception of the rare LPW kraters. In terms of manufacture and appearance, i.e., surface treatment and decoration, they equal if not exceed the investment in effort and execution of any other vessels in this elite building. In this overall architectural context and assemblage, which is still unique in the contemporary archaeological record, the Levantine Painted Ware should thus be viewed as belonging to the elite realm of MB Levantine life and considered as representative of the fancy drinking ware of relatively affluent members of society. The presence of disc and ring bases and loop-legs on its various storage, pouring and drinking vessels, allowed them 94 The

possibility that wooden or metal bowls were employed for individual drinking should not be excluded, but the latter’s absence could be the result of their salvage by the Phase C inhabitants who ‘immediately’ rebuilt the structure, using the same overall architectural plan and functional divisions.

to rest safely on a table, where they would have been both admired for their appearance as well as enjoyed for their contents. The fact that complete examples of these forms also appear in numerous funerary contexts throughout the Levant and beyond may be a conferring of status upon the interred and/or those paying their last respects. Although no well-preserved settlement contexts exist that might provide a parallel for the evidence at Tel Ifshar, two circumstantial associations between elite LPW vessels and elite buildings may be identified at Tel Aphek and Tell el-Dab‘a. At the former site, which is a mere 40 km from Tel Ifshar, the aforementioned elite ‘Palace I’ building that is contemporary with Phase B, has fragmentary LPW examples both in the Stratum X18 constructional fill (N=6) preceding it and within the building’s courtyard (?) of its Stratum X17A terminal phase (N=2).95 In this respect, the association of LPW sherds with both the infrastructure and the elite building is identical to that of Tel Ifshar, suggesting that similar elite activities and developments were taking place simultaneously at these two neighbouring settlements. Further afield, at Tell el-Dab‘a, the evidence is more voluminous and also associated with elite structures. Unlike the aforementioned fragmentary monochrome LPW juglets at ‘Ezbet Rushdi, which were most likely merely containers for imported low volume, high status Levantine liquid products, the fancy bichrome LPW forms first appear in Tell el-Dab‘a, Area F/I in Stratum d/2 (General Stratum H) have a broader functional and cultural role. Here, the carriers of MB Levantine material culture brought or imported a broader range of bichrome LPW forms consistent with elite drinking practices. Although, no complete forms were found, sufficiently large sherds and analysis of form and fabric enabled some partial restoration of identifiable vessels. These included over 25 examples comprising (handleless?) jars, jugs, juglets, and a hemispherical cup.96 These were found primarily in and around the Middle Room/Courtyard and Broad-Room buildings in Area F/I, in pits, tombs or their shafts, or in the fills beneath the subsequent Stratum G/4 (=d/1) palace of the early Thirteenth Dynasty.97 Previously, this author had suggested that the LPW presence might be a result of the destruction or disturbance of tombs, a notion cited by Schiestl,98 but in light of the evidence from Tel 95 Yadin

2009a, figs. 7.4.1–6, 7.10.8, 9. An additional three monochrome examples in Stratum BVd (Beck 2000b, figs. 8.10.13, 14, 8.11.16) are probably coeval with Stratum X18. The largely fragmentary LPW examples from poorly preserved settlement layers and the fragmentary and complete vessels from funerary contexts in Area A (Strata AXVII–AXVI (Beck 2000a, figs. 10.2.7–10, 17–19, 10.4.3, 5, 7) cannot be contextualized in terms of elite architectural status to the same degree as Area X, but they do not contradict this association. 96 Bagh 2013, figs. 16–20, 21a–c. 97 Bagh 2013, 53–54, figs. 7a, 7b. 98 Schiestl 2009, 161, n. 1653; Bagh 2013, n. 126.

The Functional and Social Role of the Levantine Painted Ware at Middle Bronze Age Tel Ifshar

Ifshar, even if some pieces might have been associated with funerary deposits, it seems much more likely that Bagh is correct in associating these LPW finds with the elite buildings of Asiatic style, an association she views as “mirrored” at Tel Ifshar.99 Thus, as at Tel Aphek, a circumstantial case may be made for their use in association with an elite building or buildings, possibly not much later in time than the two Levantine contexts discussed above. Thus, elite drinking traditions brought with the Asiatic predecessors of the Hyksos at Tell elDab‘a, as in the case of the two southern Levantine sites, may be associated with or accompanied a process of increasing social complexity. In addition to the elite functional role of LPW forms, their decorative scheme may also have symbolically expressed both cultural identity and social status. As already alluded to elsewhere,100 the designs and colour schemes of the Levantine Painted Ware possess components that share a resemblance with the multicoloured garments worn by the ‘amw (southwestern Asiatics) in the well-known processional scene depicted in the Tomb of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hassan.101 Among the common motifs and decorative syntax between the two are: the bichrome red and blue-black bands; wavy and oblique lines; the use of borders and registers to frame motifs; the use of white background; and the appearance of monochrome red fringes (presumably, the tied ends of the loom’s warp) that is evoked on ceramics by the collarette that surrounds the necks of jars, jugs and juglets, and, perhaps, the strokes on their rims and handles.102 Although these visiting foreigners have often been characterized as nomads or members of other peripheral groups, more recent and nuanced analyses have emphasized their connection to MB Levantine culture (hairstyle, dress and material culture, etc.), as viewed by the Egyptians.103 Moreover, the acknowledged high status of the event depicted, which probably was either the Egyptian New Year or an act of tribute, or both, better explains their appearance in extravagant attire that was executed for each individual in minute and vivid detail by the Egyptian artist.104 Additional depictions from tombs and graffiti in Egypt proper, and reliefs in Sinai, strengthen the notion of the association of fringed and patterned garments with Asiatics of stature, who are otherwise identified by textual evidence or tonsorial characteristics.105 However, these schematic representations pale, in terms of the multi-coloured nature of these garments, 99 Bagh

2013, 54. M arcus 1998, 206; 2021, 805; Ilan and M arcus 2019, 21. 101 Newberry 1893, 69, pls. XXVIII, XXX–XXXI. See, most recently, Saretta 2016, 87–108; Cohen 2015; Mourad 2015, 86–93. 102 Bagh 2013, 24–30. 103 Mourad 2015, 87–88. 104 Saretta 2016, 87–90. 105 A rnold 2010, 200–206, figs. 3, 5; Mourad 2015, 135–138, esp. fig. 5.12. 100

359

in comparison to the fragmentary remains of a larger-than-life limestone statue depicting a sitting Egyptianized Asiatic man from Tell el-Dab`a.106 This evidence comes from remains scattered around the Area F/I necropolis in Strata d/2 and d/1 in contexts that were deposited during later tomb looting. As analysed and reconstructed by Schiestl, this figure sported a cloak and/or collar with a bichrome red and black band design with monochrome red lines above and thicker red bands below, all of which utilizes the smooth white limestone as a background to emphasize the striped effect. Additional smaller fragments appear to represent the fringed lower margin of the garment, expressed in vertical black paint. Despite the difficulty in the precise dating and contextualizing of the original statue, as well as when it was smashed and residually deposited, for present purposes it is sufficient to provide the most salient three-dimensional evidence for the elite status of one of the most common LPW motifs – the bichrome band zone107 – in an elite representation, at a time roughly contemporary with the use of this pottery in the very same location. This juxtaposition need not necessarily be coincidental, but a reflection of the identity and character of the population that occupied this sector of Tell el-Dab‘a: Asiatic and elite. However, while the owner or user of an individual LPW vessel, wherever they may have been, whether in Egypt or in the Levant, need not have been either, the decorative scheme of the vessel certainly would have had a symbolic or cognitive association with Asiatics and elite status garments. In the seemingly monotonic white Egyptian fashion conventions, these polychromatic decorative schemes would have been a recognizable visual idiom. If such fashion was typical of Levantine elites in their regions of origin, and there is no reason not to assume so, then the use of ceramic vessels decorated in such fashion could have represented a symbol of prestige that could have filtered down the social ladder. Thus, even those who could not afford such haute couture clothing or high-value beverages, could use vessels with similarly fashionable motifs, for example in lone specimens in the odd funerary contexts. Such crosscraft borrowing of decorative motifs would also offer a mechanism for their sharing and transmission that transcends the simplistic notion of imported ceramic prototype leading to local copy. Thus, LPW vessels with Syro-Cilician motifs, or vice-versa, could have been inspired by potters or their clientele having observed foreigners, foreign textiles, or the motifs on their dress, rather than an actual decorated vessel. However, the process of selection and appropriation of individual motifs must have been complex and time selective, as clearly decorative schemes in all crafts change and develop, some appropriated and others

106 107

Schiestl 2006; 2009, 77–88, figs. 44–47. Bagh 2013, fig. 2: Band-zone C.

360

Ezra S. Marcus

eschewed.108 Finally, it should be noted that not all motifs need to be associated with textiles and indeed some may, perhaps, be related to a vessel’s contents.109

Conclusion

In her 1958 volume of the Lachish excavations, Olga Tufnell noted that morphological changes in the base typology of storage jars between the Early and Middle Bronze Ages may have marked the arrival of “winedrinking” communities.110 However functionally restrictive this view might be, it is clear that, indeed, new drinking practices were emerging in the early Middle Bronze Age in the form of the Levantine Painted Ware. The preceding discussion of the exceptionally well-preserved assemblages in Tel Ifshar Phase B suggests that the Levantine Painted Ware in nearly all its forms – jars, jugs, juglets, and rare kraters and bowls – could have been intended to be employed in the storage, preparation (decanting, mixing, flavouring), pouring and consumption of alcoholic beverages, most likely, if not exclusively, wine. This function is reflected in their shapes, size, volume, and in the case of the closed vessels, their apertures. While such a conclusion could have been suggested based on crosscultural and diachronic morphological comparanda, and even from its appearance in funerary contexts, the uniquely preserved assemblage from Tel Ifshar within its rich habitation remains provides greater insight into its function within what is clearly an elite activity and drinking tradition. These activities and traditions have been widely discussed in the scholarly literature and associated with intra and inter-site/communal social bonding, the accruing of peer and non-egalitarian social debt, and were certainly a catalyst for longdistance exchange in wine and its flavourings.111 Unlike at Tel Aphek, where a substantial MB rural hinterland has been identified,112 at this stage of research, it would be premature to associate a local intra-regional For example, note the general absence in Levantine Painted Ware of the checkerboard motif common in the Ḫabur Ware repertoire (Oguchi 1997, fig. 1), which seems to evoke the patchwork garments worn by luminaries portrayed schematically on Mesopotamian seals or in polychromatic form on the investiture scene at Mari. However, note the one-off occurrence of a red checkerboard decorated maquette assigned, along with an LPW krater, to Megiddo XV (Loud 1948, pl. 112.11–12). 109 The wavy line has the pictographic meaning of water (liquid) going back to Sumerian script and the use of concentric circles and spirals may reflect arboreal products, i.e., evoking, respectively, cut tree branches or peeled bark. Note the later Iron Age occurrence of cinnamon in Phoenician flasks with the former motif (Gilboa and Namdar 2015, fig. 1). 110 Tufnell 1958, 220. 111 Sherratt 1997, 388–392; Bunimovitz and Greenberg 2004; Yasur-Landau, Cline and Samet 2011; YasurLandau et al. 2018, 332–335, all with copious refs. 112 See Peilstöcker 2004, fig. 1.

character to the elite behaviour at Tel Ifshar,113although it is possible that such relations might have existed with other substantial polities, of which Aphek is the nearest contemporary possibility. In contrast, the degree of interaction that may have sustained the foreign imports at the site might hint at a commercial background for this drinking activity, with visiting merchants, emissaries, etc. being entertained. Such a scenario would also apply to the port of Tell Dab‘a where the elite component of the Asiatic population may have served, inter alia, as an intermediary between eastern Mediterranean and Egyptian parties. The spread of a drinking tradition along the Levantine coast in the form of the Levantine Painted Ware is thus another component in the movement of culture and population that forms the basis of the Asiatic/Hyksos phenomenon.

Acknowledgements

The data analyzed here derives from the Tel Ifshar publication project that focuses on the finds from the excavation of the site, which was a major component of the Emeq Hefer Archaeological Research Project (EHARP), directed by S.M. Paley, Y. Porath and R. Stieglitz, under the auspices of the State University of New York at Buffalo and the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, now the Israel Antiquities Authority. My thanks to Y. Porath and the late S. Paley for allowing me to study this material and their earnest encouragement and collaboration. The initial publication project was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (727/05), a further study of the Sharon Coastal Plain (Grant No. 817/12) and the present study was supported by the ERC Hyksos Enigma Project (grant agreement No 668640). Plans and plates were prepared for publication by S. Haad, who also enhanced and edited field photographs adapted from the EHARP project documentation. Object photos were taken variously by Yor. Porath and S. Breitstein. Further acknowledgements too numerous to mention here will appear in the final report of the excavation.

108

‘This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 668640)’

113

As yet, no rural MB sites have been identified in the Alexander River basin; it is unclear if this is a result of alluviation, survey method or just serendipity.

The Functional and Social Role of the Levantine Painted Ware at Middle Bronze Age Tel Ifshar

361

Bibliography A rnold, D. 2010 Image and Identity: Egypt’s Eastern Neighbours, East Delta People and the Hyksos, in: M. M arée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth– Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192, Leuven, 183–221.

1996

A rtzy, M. and Beeri, R. 2006 Mended Storage Jars and Colored Plaster: A Middle Bronze IIa Practice, in: E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. M elman and A. Schwab (eds.), Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, Vol. 2, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149, Leuven, 325–330.

Black, J.A., George, A.R. and Postgate, J.N. (eds.) 2000 A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, Wiesbaden.

Australian Emergency M anual, Disaster R escue, 1990 Third Edition, Department of Defence (http://www.nzdl.org/gsdlmod?e=d-00000-00--off-0aedl--00-0----0-10-0---0---0direct-10---4------0-1l--11-en-50---20-about---00-0-1-00-0--4---0-0-11-10-0utfZz-8-10&cl=CL1.1&d=HASH01df7e8d840f67b4d60dc01b.15.3>=1) last access 19-10-20. Badler, V.R. 1996 The Archaeological Evidence for Winemaking, Distribution and Consumption at Proto-Historic Godin Tepe, Iran, in: McGovern, Flemming and K atz (eds.), 44–56. Bagh, T. 2003 The Relationship between Levantine Painted Ware, Syro/Cilician Ware, and Khabur Ware and their Chronological Implications, in: M. Bietak (ed.), 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, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4, Vienna, 219–237. 2013 Tell el-Dab‘a XXII: Levantine Painted Ware from Egypt and the Levant, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 37, Vienna.

2010

Avaris: The Capital of the Hyksos. Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dab‘a, London. From Where Came the Hyksos and Where did They go, in: M. M arée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192, Leuven, 139–181.

Cohen, S. 2015 Interpretative Uses and Abuses of the Beni Hasan Tomb Painting, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 74.1, 19–38. Bunimovitz, S. and Greenberg, R. 2004 Revealed in their Cups: Syrian Drinking Customs in Intermediate Bronze Age Canaan, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 334, 19–31. Chernoff, M.C. and Paley, S.M. 1998 Dynamics of Cereal Cultivation at Tel el Ifshar, Israel during the Middle Bronze Age, Journal of Field Archaeology 25.4, 397–416. Cohen-Weinberger, A. and Goren, Y. 2004 Levantine-Egyptian Interactions during the 12th to 15th Dynasties Based on the Petrography of the Canaanite Pottery from Tell el-Dab‘a, Ägypten & Levante 14, 69–100. Crewe, L. 2009 Tomb 1 (1956) at Galinoporni and the Middle-Late Cypriot Transition in the Karpas Peninsula, Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, 89–115. Dalley, S. 1984 Mari and Karana: Two Old Babylonian Cities, London.

Barisashvili, G. 2011 Making Wine in Qvevri – a Unique Georgian Tradition, Tiblisi.

Dunand, M. 1937 Fouilles de Byblos I: 1926-32 (Atlas), Paris. 1939 Fouilles de Byblos I: 1926-32 (Texte), Paris

Beck, P. 1975 The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age IIA at Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 2, 45–84. 2000a Area A: Middle Bronze Age IIa Pottery, in: Kochavi, Beck and Yadin (eds.), 173–238. 2000b Area B: Pottery, in: Kochavi, Beck and Yadin (eds.), 93–133.

Einwag, B. 2002 The Early Middle Bronze Age in the Euphrates Valley: The Evidence from Tuttul/Tell Bi‘a, 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, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna, 143–161.

Bieniada, M.E. 2009 Habur Ware – Where are the Stylistic and Functional Sources of the Painted Pottery of the Second Millennium BCE Habur River Basin?, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 46, 160–211. Bietak, M. 1991 Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 281, 27–72.

Frenkel, Y. 2014 An Introduction to the Environmental History of the Mamlūk Sultanate, History Compass 12.11, 866–878. Fugmann, E. 1958 Hama: Fouilles et recherches 1931–1938, Copenhagen.

362

Ezra S. Marcus

Gal, Z. and Kochavi, M. 2000 Area B: Stratigraphy, Architecture and Tombs, in: Kochavi, Beck and Yadin (eds.), 59–92. Gates, M.-H. 2000 Kinet Höyük (Hatay, Turkey) and MB Levantine Chronology, Akkadica 119–120, 77–101. Gilboa, A., Sharon, I. and Boaretto, E. 2008 Tel Dor and the Chronology of Phoenician ‘Pre-colonization Stages’, in: C. Sagona (ed.), Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 28, Louvain, 113–204. Gilboa, A. and Namdar, D. 2015 On the Beginnings of South Asian Spice Trade with the Mediterranean Region, Radiocarbon 57.2, 265–283. Glik, A. 2014 Tel Hefer. Hadashot Arkheologiyot/Excavations and Surveys in Israel 126. Retrieved from http:// www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=13694&mag_id=121 (last accesses January 2021). Goren, Y. 1990 Petrographic Analysis of Several Wares from Kabri, in: A. K empinski and W.-D. Niemeier (eds.), Excavations at Kabri: Vol. 4. Preliminary Report of 1989 Season, Tel Aviv, 187–196. Goren, Y. and Cohen-Weinberger, A. 2002 Petrographic Analyses of Selected Wares, in: Scheftelowitz and Oren (eds.), 435–442. Goshen, N. and R atzlaff, A. 2020 Area D-West, in: A. Yasur-Landau and E. Cline (eds.), Excavations at Tel Kabri: The 2005–2011 Seasons, Leiden, 21–67. Guo, L. 1998 Early Mamluk Syrian Historiography: Al-Yunini’s Dhayl Mir’at al-zaman, Islamic History and Civilization: Studies and Texts 21, Leiden and Boston. Ibn Shahīn al-Ẓ āhirī, G.a.-D. 1894 Zubdat kashf al-mamālik,[La Crême de l’Exposition détaillée des provinces; tableau politique et administratif de l’Égypte, de la Syrie et du Hidjâz sous la domination des sultans mamloûks du XIIIe au XVe siècle,] (P. R avaisse, ed.), Paris and Cairo [reprinted 1988]. Ilan, D. 1996 Middle Bronze Age Painted Pottery from Tel Dan, Levant 28, 157–172. Ilan, D. and M arcus, E.S. 2019 Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age IIa, in: S. Gitin (ed.), The Ancient Pottery of Israel and its Neighbors: From the Middle Bronze Age through the Late Bronze Age, Vol. 3, Jerusalem, 9–75.

Joannès, F. 1994 L’eau et la glace, in: D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand (ed.), Florilegium marianum II: Recueil d’études à la mémoire de Maurice Birot, Mémoires de NABU 3, Paris, 133–150. K allas, N. 2019 Room 8, in: J. K amlah and H. Sader (eds.), Tell el-Burak I. The Middle Bronze Age: With Chapters Related to the Site and to the Late Medieval Period, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 45.1, Wiesbaden, 115–116. K empinski, A. 1992 The Middle Bronze Age, in: A. Ben-Tor (ed.), The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, New Haven, 159–210. Kochavi, M., Beck, P. and Yadin, E. (eds.) 2000 Aphek-Antipatris I: Excavations of Areas A and B, the 1972–1976 Seasons, Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 19, Tel Aviv. Koh, A.J., Yasur-Landau, A. and Cline, E.H. 2014 Characterizing a Middle Bronze Palatial Wine Cellar from Tel Kabri, Israel, PloS One 9.8, e106406. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0106406 (last accesses January 2021). Kopetzky, K. and Bietak, M. 2016 A Seal Impression of the Green Jasper Workshop from Tell el-Dab‘a, Ägypten & Levante 26, 357–375. Ktalav, I. 2020 Economy, Culture, and Environment during the Middle Bronze Age IIA and the Late Bronze Age in the Sharon Coastal Plain: The Faunal Remains from Tel Ifshar as a Case Study, PhD Dissertation, University of Haifa. Loud, G. 1948 Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–39, Oriental Institute Publications 62, Chicago. M aeir, A.M. and Garfinkel, Y. 1992 Bone and Metal Straw-tip Beer-strainers from the Ancient Near East, Levant 24, 218–223. M aeir, A. 2002 Red, White and Blue Ware: A Little Known Group of Painted Pottery of the Middle Bronze II Period, in: E.D. Oren and S. A ḥituv (eds.), Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume: Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines, Studies by the Department of Bible and Ancient Near East 15, Beer Sheva, 228–240. M arcus, E.S. 1991 Tel Nami: A Study of a Middle Bronze IIA Period Coastal Settlement, Master’s Thesis, University of Haifa. 1998 Maritime Trade in the Southern Levant from Earliest Times through the MB IIa Period, PhD Dissertation, University of Oxford.

The Functional and Social Role of the Levantine Painted Ware at Middle Bronze Age Tel Ifshar 2007 Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription, Ägypten & Levante 17, 137–190. 2013 Correlating and Combining Egyptian Historical and Southern Levantine Radiocarbon Chronologies at Middle Bronze Age IIa Tel Ifshar, Israel, in: A.J. Shortland and C. Bronk R amsey (eds.), Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of Ancient Egypt, Oxford, 182–208. 2019 A Maritime Approach to Exploring the Hyksos Phenomenon, in: M. Bietak and S. Prell (eds.), The Enigma of the Hyksos, Volume I: ASOR Conference Boston 2017 – ICAANE Conference Munich 2018 – Collected Papers, Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant 9, Wiesbaden, 149–164. 2021 Middle Kingdom Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean, in: K. R adner, N. Moeller and D.T. Potts (eds.), Oxford History of the Ancient Near East, Volume 2: From the End of the Third Millennium BC to the Fall of Babylon, Oxford, 777-853.

363

Nurpetlian, J. 2019 Room 19, in: J. K amlah and H. Sader (eds.), Tell el-Burak I. The Middle Bronze Age: With Chapters Related to the Site and to the Late Medieval Period, Abhandlungen des Deutschen PalästinaVereins 45.1, Wiesbaden, 117–118. Oguchi, H. 1997 A Reassessment of the Distribution of Khabur Ware: An Approach from an Aspect of its Main Phase, Al-Rafidan 18, 195–224. Olenik, Y. 1990 Pottery, in: I. Ziffer (ed.), At that Time the Canaanites were in the Land: Daily Life in the Middle Bronze Age 2 2000–1550 B.C.E., Tel Aviv, 26*-42*. Oren, R. 2002 Stratigraphy, Architecture and Tombs, Area D, in: Scheftelowitz and Oren (eds.), 55–70.

M arcus, E.S., Porath, Y. and Paley, S.M. 2008 The Early Middle Bronze Age IIa Phases at Tel Ifshar and their External Relations, Ägypten & Levante 18, 221–244.

Ory, J. 1938 Excavations at Ras el `Ain II, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 6, 99–120.

M arcus, E.S., Porath, Y., Schiestl, R., Seiler, A. and Paley, S.M. 2008 The Middle Kingdom Egyptian Pottery from Middle Bronze Age IIa Tel Ifshar, Ägypten & Levante 18, 203–219.

Paley, S.M. and Porath, Y. 1997 Early Middle Bronze Age IIa Remains at Tel el-Ifshar, Israel: A Preliminary Report, in: E. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, Philadelphia, 369–378.

M aster, D.M. 2018 Petrographic Analyses, in: L.E. Stager, J.D. Schloen and R.J. Voss (eds.), Ashkelon 6: The Middle Bronze Age Ramparts and Gates of the NorthSslope and Later Fortifications, University Park, PA, 299–309.

Peilstöcker, M. 2004 Khirbat Sha‘ira: Excavations of a Rural Settlement from the Middle Bronze Age II in the Vicinity of Tel Afeq (Aphek), ‘Atiqot 48, 63–81.

McGovern, P.E. 2000 The Foreign Relations of the “Hyksos”: A Neutron Activation Study of Middle Bronze Age Pottery from the Eastern Mediterranean, BAR International Series 888, Oxford. 2003 Ancient Wine: The Search for the Origins of Viniculture, Princeton. McGovern, P.E., Flemming, S.J. and K atz, S.H. (eds.) 1996 The Origins and Ancient History of Wine, Amsterdam. Mourad, A.-L. 2015 Rise of the Hyksos: Egypt and the Levant from the Middle Kingdom to the Early Second Intermediate Period, Archaeopress Egyptology 11, Oxford.

Saghieh, M. 1983 Byblos in the Third Millennium B.C.,Warminster. Saidah, R. 1993/ Beirut in the Bronze Age: The Kharji Tombs, Bery 1994 tus 41, 137–210. Samet, I. 2014 The Chrono-typological Pottery Sequence from the Middle Bronze Age Palace at Kabri: Some Preliminary Results, Ägypten & Levante 24, 365–395. 2020 Pottery of the 2008–2011 Seasons, in: A. Yasur-Landau and E. Cline (eds.), Excavations at Tel Kabri: The 2005–2011 Seasons, Leiden, 123–179.

Newberry, P.E. 1893 Beni Hasan I, London.

Saretta, P. 2016 Asiatics in Middle Kingdom Egypt: Perceptions and Reality, London.

Nigro, L. 2002 The Middle Bronze Age Pottery Horizon of Northern Inner Syria on the Basis of the Stratified Assemblages of Ebla and Hama, in: M. al-M aqdissi, V. M atoïan and C. Nicolle (eds.), Céramique de l’âge du Bronze en Syrie I. La Syrie du Sud et la Vallée de l’Oronte, Beyrouth, 77–131.

Sasson, J.M. 2004 The King’s Table: Food and Fealty in Old Babylonian Mari, in: C. Grottanelli and L. Milano (eds.), Food and Identity in the Ancient World, History of the Ancient Near East/Studies 9, Padova, 179–215. 2015 From the Mari Archives: An Anthology of Old Babylonian Letters. Winona Lake, IN.

364

Ezra S. Marcus

Scheftelowitz, N. 2002 Stratigraphy, Architecture and Tombs. Area B, in: Scheftelowitz and Oren (eds.), 19–34. Scheftelowitz, N. and R. Oren (eds.) 2002 A. Kempinski, Tel Kabri, The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons, Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 20, Tel Aviv.

2000–2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May – 1st of June 2003, Udine, 219–232. Tubb, J.N. 1982 A Syrian “Klepsidra” of the Third Millennium B.C, Levant 14, 175–177. 1983 The MBIIA Period in Palestine: Its Relationship with Syria and its Origin, Levant 15, 49–62.

Schiestl, R. 2006 The Statue of an Asiatic Man from Tell el-Dab‘a, Egypt, Ägypten & Levante 16, 173–185. 2009 Tell el-Dab‘a XVIII: Die Palastnekropole von Tell el-Dab‘a, die Gräber des Areals F/I der Straten d/2 und d/1, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 30, Vienna.

Tufnell, O. 1958 Lachish IV, Tell ed-Duweir: The Bronze Age, London.

Schiestl, R. and Seiler, A. 2012 Handbook of the Pottery of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 31, Vienna.

Yadin, E. 2009a Chapter 2: Middle Bronze Age (Strata X19–X15), in: Y. Gadot and E. Yadin (eds.), Aphek-Antipatris II: The Remains on the Acropolis, Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 27, Tel Aviv, 7–40. 2009b Chapter 7: The Middle Bronze Age Pottery of Area X, in: Y. Gadot and E. Yadin (eds.), AphekAntipatris II: The Remains on the Acropolis, Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 27, Tel Aviv, 111–181.

Sherratt, A. 1997 Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe: Changing Perspectives, Edinburgh. Stager, L.E. and Voss, R.J. 2018 Special Ceramic Wares found in Middle Bronze Age Ashkelon, in: L.E. Stager, J.D. Schloen and R.J. Voss (eds.), Ashkelon 6: The Middle Bronze Age Ramparts and Gates of the North Slope and Later Fortifications, University Park, PA, 267–298. Susnow, M. 2021 The Space Syntax of Canaanite Cultic Spaces: A Unique Category of Spatial Configuration within the Bronze Age Southern Levant, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 385, 131–152. Thalmann, J.-P. 2007 Settlement Patterns and Agriculture in the Akkar Plain during the Late Early and Early Middle Bronze Ages, in: D.M. Bonacossi (ed.), Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital: Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in Central-western Syria, Proceedings of the SCIEM

Weinstein, J.M. 1992 The Chronology of Palestine in the Early Second Millennium B.C.E., Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 288, 27–46.

Yasur-Landau, A., Cline, E.H., Koh, A.J., R atzlaff, A., Goshen, N., Susnow, M., Waiman-Barak, P. and Crandall, A.M. 2018 The Wine Storage Complexes at the Middle Bronze II Palace of Tel Kabri: Results of the 2013 and 2015 Seasons, American Journal of Archaeology 122.2, 309–338. Yasur-Landau, A., Cline, E.H. and Samet, I. 2011 Our Cups Overfloweth: “Kabri Goblets” and Canaanite Feasts in the Middle Bronze Age Levant, in: W. Gauss, M. Lindblom, R.A.K. Smith and J.C. Wright (eds.), Our Cups are Full: Pottery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age: Papers Presented to Jeremy B. Rutter on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, BAR International Series 2227, Oxford, 382–392.

The Middle Bronze Age Settlement Pattern in the Wadi Tumilat (Eastern Nile Delta)

365

The Middle Bronze Age Settlement Pattern in the Wadi Tumilat (Eastern Nile Delta) by Aleksandra E. Ksiezak 1

Abstract

Tell el-Maskhuta, a major settlement in the Eastern Nile Delta excavated by the Wadi Tumilat Project in the late 1970s- early 80s, is a site instrumental in understanding the 15th Dynasty activity on the eastern frontier of the Hyksos domain. However, after the initial excavation and land survey commenced, the site was never fully analyzed or published. This paper aims to summarize the results of a recent re-evaluation of the collected data for both the settlement and the entire site system, resulting in a more impactful understanding of the site’s function and development in the Middle Bronze Age. Contrary to previously accepted theories, Tell el-Maskhuta, as well as the entire settlement pattern within the Wadi Tumilat, exhibits evidence of being involved in the long-distance, over-land trade with both southern and northern Levant commencing at the Hyksos capital. If that is the case, the Wadi Tumilat must be considered as a significant southern corridor leading in and out of Egypt, and its settlements discussed in the light of the southern desert trade route traversing the Sinai Peninsula towards the Negev Desert and the Jordan Valley. Tell el-Maskhuta, due to its size and location, can be deemed a ‘gateway settlement’ into the wadi, and consequently into the apex of the Nile Delta. Its domination over the eastmost section of the Wadi Tumilat and role in the settlement pattern which grew around it provides invaluable clues to the functioning and span of the 15th Dynasty economy and its contacts with neighbouring areas beyond the reach of the maritime trade.

Introduction

The Wadi Tumilat (Fig. 1) is located in the southeastern Nile Delta and forms a narrow corridor connecting its southern apex with the Isthmus of Suez. Since antiquity, it has been recognized as a frontier zone holding significant strategic importance, as attested by ample archaeological and textual evidence dating to the 3rd Intermediate, Ptolemaic, Roman, and Persian Periods. The function of the Wadi Tumilat in the Second Intermediate Period is not entirely clear; however, the presence of 14th and 15th Dynasty settlements in the area, in some cases followed by subsequent New Kingdom occupation, indicates that it likely had similar significance. The Wadi Tumilat Project (WTP) selected the Wadi Tumilat2 due to its vast potential for improving our understanding of the archaeological situation in the eastern Delta. The decision to survey the Wadi Tumilat area was heavily influenced by A.F. Burghardt’s theory of gateway cities, detailed in his 1971 publication, A Hypothesis About Gateway Cities. Based on case studies of modern cities such as Winnipeg, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Minneapolis-St. Paul and Cluj, Burghardt concluded that such cities “develop between areas of different intensities or types of production; they are located towards the end of their tributary areas, and they are heavily committed to transportation and wholesaling”.3 Based on the preliminary observations made in the initial season of the WTP, Holladay suspected that due to its geographical circumscription and the potential location on a trade route, Wadi Tumilat might have contained one or more gateway cities. At the time of the project, the eastern Nile Delta had just began to draw scholarly attention, thus the southeastern border of Egypt and its nature was not well understood. In order to address the characteristics of borderland areas, where the frontier changed through time due to fluctuating political situations, it was crucial to recognize how and why such changes took place. Consequently, to ensure the completeness of collected data representing a defined group of interconnected sites, a ‘systems’ analysis of an entire “geographically 2

1 University

utoronto.ca.

of

Toronto;

aleksandra.ksiezak@mail.

3

The Wadi Tumilat Project (WTP) was a joint endeavour of the American Research Centre in Egypt (ARCE), the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) and the University of Toronto (UofT). It began its first field season in 1977, directed by J.S. Holladay, Jr. of the University of Toronto and continued the excavations at Tell el-Maskhuta for five consecutive seasons between 1978 and 1985 while conducting several surveys of the wadi. Burghardt 1971, 269−270.

© by the author This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc by 4.0 license DOI: 10.13173/9783447117371.365

366

Aleksandra E. Ksiezak

Fig. 1 Wadi Tumilat as mapped during the Wadi Tumilat survey (1982) with proposed course of the Canal of the Pharaohs as reconstructed in Description de l’Égypte (1802-28) and the Brigade Française (1847)

Fig. 2 Western and central divisions of the Wadi Tumilat (detail of Fig. 1) delimited region”4 was attempted.5 The collected data was recently re-evaluated for consideration in light of general systems theory, and despite the fact that it could not be analyzed in a rigorously mathematical way, it showed potential interactions of different variables within the site system can be computed and used to draw conclusions about the nature of the settlement pattern.

The Wadi Tumilat Survey

The two initial surveys in 1977 and 19836 provided the temporal and physical breadth for subsequent broadscale analysis that had a paramount impact on the state of knowledge regarding the Wadi Tumilat and challenged the long-held assumptions about its history. The subsequent excavations and systematic survey of Tell el-Maskhuta allowed to create an evidence-based chronological sequence of the site and unexpectedly revealed that the earliest settlement at the site dates as early as mid to late 15th Dynasty and belongs to an

4 Holladay

1982, 1. preliminary analysis of the WTP survey data was undertaken by C. Redmount in her doctoral dissertation (R edmount 1989); however, it lacked a systematic statistical and spatial analysis. The WTP surveys were directed by C.A. Redmount.

Asiatic Middle Bronze culture.7 The initial excavations at Tell el-Maskhuta provided a chronological context for understanding the results of following surveys of the Wadi Tumilat, which produced more evidence for MBA Asiatic occupation at several sites exhibiting similar material culture and ceramic tradition to the early settlement at the tell. With a general research framework encompassing the entire wadi in place, the Wadi Tumilat Project was able to address specific concerns, including the interrelationship between the eastern frontier and its occupational history, the character of changing settlement patterns, the nature and significance of the Asiatic occupation, the effects of the ancient canal on the development of the area, and the role the Wadi Tumilat as a frontier and border zone. The study of ancient settlement patterns contributing to the systems analysis of the region8 was one of the main goals of the Wadi Tumilat Project since its conception in 1976. Preliminary surveys of the area were undertaken as early as 1977, 1979, and 1981;

5 The

7 At

the time when the realization of the Hyksos presence at Tell el-Maskhuta was made, scholars were only beginning to realize how widespread the culture was in the Eastern Delta at the time. Holladay 1982, 1.

6

8

The Middle Bronze Age Settlement Pattern in the Wadi Tumilat (Eastern Nile Delta)

367

Fig. 3 Western division of the Wadi Tumilat (detail of Fig. 1) however, the large-scale survey took place only in 1983. The survey team began fieldwork with a clear goal in mind: to locate, investigate and evaluate as many ancient sites as time and logistics allowed. According to the project documentation, the aim of the survey was threefold: to determine the extent and nature of the archaeological material in the wadi, to establish the broad outlines of human settlement history in the area, and to determine the range and character of the Middle Bronze occupation. At the time of the survey, Wadi Tumilat was undergoing rapid transformation and development, including extensive land reclamation, causing a rapid increase in population as a part of the Ismailia Master Plan.9 The plan included repossession and settlement of approximately 450,000 feddan (189,000 ha) in the Ismailia area, encroaching on the Wadi Tumilat and obliterating ancient sites at an alarming rate. By 1983 several locations recorded by previous travellers and scholars had ceased to exist or had been considerably diminished. In addition to the government attempts at transforming the area into a productive agricultural zone, ancient tells were subject to a long-lasting practice of excavating sebbakh, which affected all tells recorded in the wadi. Tell el-Maskhuta was heavily exploited for this purpose and suffered much damage as a result. In addition, a large portion of the site was obscured by an ever-expanding modern village, which put it at an even higher risk and emphasized the need for immediate attention.

Overall, three significant factors influenced the character of the modern Wadi Tumilat and significantly altered its archaeological landscape: alluvial deposition, accretion of landfill soil, and extensive perennial cultivation. The surveying strategy was adjusted accordingly and, in consideration of the overall research goals of WTP, time and logistical limitations, was designed as an extensive inventory survey with both judgmental/purposive and systematic components.10 Methodical sampling procedures were adapted to the conditions of each division of the Wadi, especially for its central and northern portion where the accumulation of soil, alluvial buildup and cultivation and land reclamation activities were most severe, and systematic sampling was unlikely to yield representative results. In those areas a literature- and informant-based approach was used. Data collected during previous surveys that might have included sites that were no longer available for examination was also utilized to identify problem areas where local interviews had to be conducted in order to inquire about any unexpected finds. Along the southern flank of the wadi, especially in the central and eastern division and along the ancient canal, where the accumulation of alluvium and agricultural soil was minimal, and the recent modification of the terrain was relatively low,11 a second approach, consisting of cluster sampling, was utilized alongside the first. Through the entire wadi, a series of 42 transects 2 x 1 km each was mapped along the southern edge of

10 K eller

9 Davidson

1981; K houry 1996.

and Rupp 1983, 18−24; H aggett, Cliff and Frey 1977, 267. 11 Even though the remains of the ancient canal were almost entirely destroyed.

368

Aleksandra E. Ksiezak

Fig. 4 Central division of the Wadi Tumilat (detail of Fig. 1) the valley using the Survey of Egypt maps.12 Out of the 42 drawn, 14 transects were randomly selected for field investigation on foot and subsequently walked by the survey team with members spaced approximately 30 m apart. Two were in the western (WD), seven in the central (CD) (Figs. 2−4), and five in the eastern division (ED). In five out of the 14 surveyed transects no sites were found.13 In addition to the southern section of the Wadi, a further stretch of 8.5 km along the high northern ridge was chosen arbitrarily for similar examination aiming to locate and identify paleolithic remains. In total, the WTP survey identified 71 archaeological sites, 42 of which were selected for further study as “non-random, nonmodern archaeological remains indicative of ancient occupation patterns”.14 Of this group, three (sites 48, 49, and 69) were not included in the analysis as they lie in the Isthmus of Suez, outside of the region under consideration and did not yield any MBA material. The remaining 39 sites were in the Wadi Tumilat

12 Two

sets of base maps: a series of 1:25,000 Survey of Egypt maps from the map center at Giza were especially valuable, partially due to their large scale, but also date (1930s and 40s) which allowed for recording of conditions prior to the land reclamation efforts and infilling. The second set consisted of 1973 maps at a scale of 1:50,000 obtained from the U.S. Defense Mapping Agency Topographic Center. Although much has changed in the wadi’s terrain since their publication, those were the most recent maps available and thus were used in day-today operations. 13 Transect 41 (WD) consisted mostly of reclaimed land, 24 (WC), 8, 12 and 18 (ED) were seemingly in a pristine state but contained no surface archaeological material. 14 Holladay and R edmount, n.d., 62.

and included 12 (32% of the site system) tells or possible tells, 24 (63%) sherd scatters, and two sites (5%) of uncertain classification. The two largest categories can be further divided into size clusters and reclassified accordingly: small tells range in size between 10,000 sq.m. to 50,000 sq.m.; medium tells fall between 100,000 sq.m. and 150,000 sq.m., and large tells exceed 150,000 sq.m. Sherd scatters, representing a different type of archaeological site, are also subdivided by size, although on a smaller scale: small sherd scatters measure less than 10,000 sq.m., medium sherd scatters have an area between 10,000 sq.m. and 20,000 sq.m., while large sherd scatters occupy more than 30,000 sq.m. For every identified site, the following details were recorded: length, width, height/depth,15 presence or absence of stratification, nature of surrounding terrain, site cover, site surface, sherd density, site type, sample bag numbers and locations, and general descriptions and comments. Whenever possible, a modern site-name was recorded for identification purposes according to the Survey of Egypt maps. All sites were plotted as precisely as possible on the 1973 base maps as they were investigated. At each site, sherds and other artifacts were collected randomly over its entire extent without intensive intra-site sampling. Since one of the primary goals of the survey was to establish a full occupation range at each site investigated, an effort was made to collect as many different indicators as possible, including samples of various fabrics and wares present at each site. However, no systematic information on the spatial distribution patterns of the material from particular periods was collected, and only brief observations of such were made.

General Observations Based on 1983 WTP Survey Data

The initial analysis of the WTP survey data16 showed that, across all identified periods, each division of the wadi exhibited different patterns of occupation and land use. The western division seems to have the highest concentration of tell sites, which suggest the existence of a permanent settlement network exploiting the natural resources of the area. Out of 22 sites identified in this division, five are confirmed tell sites, and three are possible tells, ranging in size from 754,000 sq.m. to 17,750 sq.m. and exhibiting varying levels of continuous occupation from the Middle Bronze Age (MBA) to Medieval periods. However, their earliest attested material predominantly dates to two periods 15 The

exact boundaries of all recorded sites were uncertain and thus estimated by pacing and their measurements serve only as an approximate and relative indicator of size. In case of sites covered by a modern village, the site size was taken from map measurements of the village and represent only the maximum possible area. 16 Holladay and R edmount (n.d.).

The Middle Bronze Age Settlement Pattern in the Wadi Tumilat (Eastern Nile Delta)

– MBA (37.5%) and Persian period (50%). Seven additional sites, dating to mainly Ptolemaic period (42.8%) with only traces of MBA occupation (14.2%) were reported under modern villages; therefore, their character could not be adequately assessed. Sherd scatters were less common in the western division than the rest of the wadi, but in comparison seemed relatively substantial in size, ranging from 90,000 sq.m. to 1,500 sq.m., placing them in the medium to the broad category for sherd scatters. All but one had long chronological sequences, in 37.5% going back to the MBA and continuing well into the Medieval period. Only one sherd scatter (site 56, Abu Nashaba) was relatively recent and dated from the Roman to Medieval periods. The central division showed an entirely different pattern of land use and occupation. Tells and possible tell sites were less common, being represented by only two sites (72, Tell el-Maskhuta and 25, Birak elNazzazat) 960,000 sq.m. and possibly 106,75017 sq.m., respectively. Both date back to the MBA and have long chronological sequences up to the Roman and Medieval periods. Out of numerous sherd scatters identified in the central division, many were in the vicinity of lakes, indicating a transhumant type of land use or seasonal pasturing patterns. All 34 sherd scatters were in the southern section of this division, on predominantly high ground (81.82%). They were predominantly (67.4%) of medium size, ranging from 20,000 to 10,000 sq.m., while only three sites can be classified as large (> 30,000 sq.m. in surface area) and five as small ( 0.05). MMD, as a grouping method, was able to engage with the entire Tell el-Dab‘a data set (n=96). The results showed little change in the biological affinities of the Tell el-Dab‘a population when transitioning from the end of Middle Kingdom to the Second Intermediate Period (p